# Ironic Case in Point on Tenure 

A terrific illustration of the incompatibility of “academic freedom” with a free society in which no one should be compelled to pay for someone else’s speech. 

July 17, 2015 • Commentary 

By [Neal McCluskey](https://www.cato.org/people/neal-mccluskey) 

This article appeared in *[See Thru Ed](http://www.seethruedu.com/)* on July 17, 2015. 

A lot of the University of Wisconsin professoriate is outraged that Republican governor — and presidential candidate — Scott Walker has worked to end tenure built into state law. One aggrieved professor who has attracted a lot of attention is Sara Goldrick-Rab, who recently likened Walker to Hitler, though the extent to which she meant to equate the two is in dispute. That said, Goldrick-Rab’s intentions are not the subject of this post. No, it is that the whole dust-up is a terrific illustration of the incompatibility of “academic freedom,” and tenure protections of it, with a free society in which no one should be compelled to pay for someone else’s speech.

Most interesting was Goldrick-Rab’s reported [statement to the website The College Fix](http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23329/) when contacted for her response to concerns about the Hitler comparison. And I don’t mean the main part of her statement, which was to qualify the comparison. No, I mean the preface: “Thank you for your question. Please note that I have taken time out of my unpaid vacation to respond, as a courtesy to the timeliness of your request.”

Apparently, criticizing Gov. Walker was ordinarily conducted as part of Goldrick-Rab’s job, because she made special note that she was responding during her “unpaid vacation.” But this would make her comments especially concerning not because she has no right to speak — she absolutely does — but because she apparently launched seemingly political attacks while explicitly working on the taxpayer dime.

Of course, even if this weren’t couched as part of Goldrick-Rab’s job — and I suspect she only meant to emphasize that professors don’t get paid during the summer months — it is impossible to disconnect in any meaningful sense a professors’ employment and what they, at least in inherently political fields such as sociology or political science, publish on political issues. And again, the problem is not with their speech *per se*, but that when they are employed by public institutions *taxpayers are forced to subsidize speech with which they may disagree.* Indeed, in this case they are *subsidizing political speech intended to ensure that their money continues to be used that way.*

The irony is that in defending tenure, Prof. Goldrick-Rab provided a terrific example of how direct taxpayer funding of public institutions, made worse when coupled with tenure, is incompatible with a free society. And that, not Goldrick-Rab’s Hitler comparison, is what should really matter in the public policy debate.

##### About the Author 

[![Neal McCluskey Cropped](/sites/cato.org/files/styles/author_picture/public/2023-11/mccluskey-cropped.jpg?itok=I-QI0yJD)](/people/neal-mccluskey) 

##### [Neal McCluskey](/people/neal-mccluskey)

Former Director, Center for Educational Freedom, Cato Institute