I'm sorry to hear that.

That makes you the second academic blogger from UofC that I know of to get denied tenure. One can't help but think that's a pattern....

Hey Dan, sorry to hear you didn't get tenure. Feel similarly to you and Simmons about the Red Sox. And, hearing that you didn't get tenure makes baseball seem not quite so important. Best of luck in figuring out what happened and seeking new employment. Keep up the good commentary. I appreciate your intelligent blogging from a conservative/liberatarian perspective. Other than you, I haven't had much luck finding intelligent commentary/blogging from a conservative perspective.

Horrible news. I can't believe you rated it second on your list!

Best of luck. I think the blogging might actually pay off in the long term.

I work with Rober Gordon, a somewhat well known economist at Northwestern. He was denied tenure when he was at U of c way back when (I think it was sometime in the 19th century). Milton Friedman later said one of his biggest mistakes was denying Gordon tenure. He's now really successful, lives in a huge lakefront mansion, and does just fine for himself at NU.

I'm sure it sucks for you right now, but there's obviously a lot of potential out there for things to be ok.

Wow. Really sorry to hear it. I can say that I know how you feel, a little.

I hope you don't regret the blogging (as it doesn't seem that you are). You're doing a tremendous service for the community, and that's important even if it's not appreciated by certain narrow-minded folks who just happen to wield a lot of power.

That's terrible to hear. One advantage to blogging, though, is that I imagine that there's a political scientist out there somewhere at a first-rate university trying to interest his department chair in making an offer...

Good luck!

Sorry to hear that, Dan; doubtless, though, you will land on your feet.

I'm sure you'll be just fine, Dan, but it's not time yet to make yourself feel better. Those f*****s. They just made you the newest member of the group of academics who go on to have illustrious careers after being denied tenure.

I'm so sorry, Dan. Good luck with the job search.

I used to know your work a bit before I started reading your blog. But as I became a regular follower here, it made me go out and read your work on topics that probably would not have a high priority in my studies (I am an IR grad working on conflict stuff). I bet U of C is a great place to be, but just remember how many big names are denied tenure at Chicago or Yale and become great at another prestigious university. Good luck in the job market and thanks for this blog.

Seize this rare opportunity! Make aliyah! Stanley Fischer is here!

There's a consoling story about a seventeenth-century German prince who advertised a job of court composer. He didn't have a choir, only a chamber orchestra, so the candidates were invited to submit samples of chamber compositions. A musician from Saxony applied, submitting five concerti, but didn't get the post. Sounds familiar? Yes, the prince was the Elector of Brandenburg.

Wow, I'm very sorry. UofC is very likely making a big mistake. Well, I really hope something good comes out of this and end up at another place you really like.

The Red Sox loss can be ameliorated if the goddamnyankees lose tonight. As to the other thing, I was blindsided on Friday too. I think that not seeing it coming and not knowing why is the worst part.

So sorry to hear that Dan. If it's any consolation, your blog is one of the best around and I read it daily.

Sorry to hear, but I'm sure you'll find another good job.

IR doesn't seem to be a major field at U of C anymore; perhaps that's a reason.

Of course, at some later point you have to post a bit more about your speculations why you were denied tenure...

I sure am sorry, Dan. Good luck at the next place!

Best of luck, Dan. It's a sh*tty situation to be in (something analogous happened to me a few years back), but I have a feeling you'll land on your feet. One door closes, another one opens.

Consider the University of Miami - most of the girls are prettier than Salma Hayek. I've been to Chicago a few times and the girls were cows. Good luck guy, I've been in painful times too, but your going to do great things where ever you end up.

I don't know how to convey how much I am saddened by the news. I really am.

Your blog is indeed one of the best out there.

I wish you the best and i trust that you will land on your feet very soon.

Sorry to hear about tenure denial. The U of C made a mistake. I know you'll find a good position. The great thing about the blogosphere is your url doesn't have to change just becuase you move.

Tough break man. On the possible plus side, my last few trips through Chicago have convinced me its a few short years from turning into the place envisioned in Soylent Green, so good to get out now. Go west, young professor.....

I'm sorry, this just reeks of politics (ironically enough). Although we don't have near enough data to know what happened, we can say with some confidence Dan's output was far beyond what should have been required for tenure (both in quantity and quality). That is, if tenure were based on pure merit, then if Dan didn't get it, then none of us be gettin' it.

The lack of a clearly established theoretical paradigm could be a serious consideration though. UC is known for its great "schools of thought", and lacking one could indeed be considered problematic by some faculty.

Of course, its hard not to consider the blog. Even at my top-ranked and technologically progressive university, I find that the tenured faculty members in our political science dept. have a very conservative view towards new technological approaches. None ofthem use Powerpoint, listen/assign podcasts, have/read blogs, etc. And suggestions to start a departmental blog or regular podcasts of visiting speakers has been met with a genuine lack of enthusiasm.

We have some striking similarities to UC, so could be that some Dan's "peers" likewise found his blog to be not worthy of an academic. Or were even simply jealous/derisive of the popularity he gained from it: "Why does everyone listen to this young kid all of a sudden...*I'm* the great academic"

Honestly, most tenured social science profs I've met either have the maturity level of small children or are slightly insane or both. So Dan might consider being glad that he's leaving UC's little playground and will happily wind up at a university where's he's *meant* to be.

Unbelievable.

Maybe it is an indication of the depth of the current bench at Chicago.

Many are called.....

A small point: In '59, the White Sox won the AL pennant and lost the World Series to the LA Dodgers, but this predates divisional play in MLB, the White Sox did not win a playoff series in '59.

Hmmm... think of it as a blessing. Would you want to continue working for people that didn't appreciate someone of your caliber?
That said... it still sucks.

Scholasticism has never been particularly friendly to renaissance nor renaissance men. Perhaps the blogosphere can serve as your Rhea to protect you from Cronus's ravenous maw...

Sorry to read this particular post, Dan. I wish you well.
You might try to give the Univ of Michigan Political Science Dept a try. Ann Arbor is a pretty good place, and it is a good department.

C'mon out to UCLA. IR search on; need good rising faculty; IPE-friendly environment; model-friendly environment; no bombs-and-rockets IR guys at all (a la Mearsheimer); housing is expensive but you can throw out anything made of wool, vinyl, gore-tex, and drive a convertible just about any day of the year.

I'm very sorry to learn about the tenure decision. The blog is terrific and I sure hope you keep it going!

Garry Wills was denied tenure at Hopkins years ago. A supporter asked why, and was told, he didn't write enough. Life is full of ironies.

Good luck!

Dan Tompkins

How about U-Wisconsin-Madison?

It's just up the road and it's nicer than Ann Arbor... much nicer than South Side Chicago.

Another thing to be thankful for. Most career commissioned military officers have to face the day they're passed over for promotion. At lower grades it doesn't have to be a career-ender, but for O-4s (Majors / Lt. Commanders) and certainly most O-5s (Lt. Colonels / Commanders)it's game-over.

Twenty-ish years serving the country and then you're done, whether you want to be or not. You can't get passed over for Captain in the 7th Fleet and go looking for a job in the 5th Fleet.

It's also another reason to thank the folks who risk their lives on our behalf.

Chin up mate, ups and downs and all that.

At least you may end up in more hospitable climes (my brief exposure to Chicago having suggested to me the climate is bizzare).

Wretched, wretched decision--and, really, a deeply irresponsible one, for the U of C and its students.

Could it get any scrutiny higher up? If I were you I'd consider an appeal, not so much for personal reasons but to challenge such blinkered thinking--at the very least, to pull some of the decision-making into the light.

Sorry about this--but you're resourceful and talented--you'll do great wherever you end up.

Dan,
As I have grown older and possibly wiser, I am ever more certain that if it doesn't kill you it will make you stronger. I left the limp wienies who infes...er, staffed our department behind, but only because I could see it coming....also, I was bored with all the pretentiousness of partially competent, clearly self-infatuated windbags. I became disgusted by obvious discongruities between what the academic world claims professes and what it generally is (baffled people given the opportuinty to be lazy). It strikes me, after all the years, that the Academy is a conflation between the best of opportuinty to the intellectual life, combined with the opportunity to be truly spoiled brats. One old idea is that academics beat each other up so much because they have so little to fight about. The other issue is that the (ahem!) Academy is the last surviving (sort of...) feudal institution, with all that that implies. Perhaps Kahn's idea about paridigm change explains it best. The bus-drivers you needed to impress probably got where they are by signing onto a state of being that is accepted if mediocre, and works for them, and if you don't fall within the penumbra, well, you just can't be one of them. As an academic, I was often surpised by how smart and organized the biz guys were who were taking over biology; after all, I was the professor, right? But their strength, and my weakness, was that I was was the professor. Nuts! what works is what is in charge. If the sentient part of the public eally knew what was going on on campuses, they'd take back the damn Land Grants.... tolerance has it's limits, but luckily for the Academy they are too busy paying for it to notice what's really up in the empire of the ants. Anyway, if it doesn't kill you, you truly will get stronger. My academic experiences made me appreciate knowledge, and most of all appreciate that knowing stuff and acting on it is an occupation and a Citadel far aside from the Gas-Works.
Best of luck to you. I'm sure as hell that you will do just fine.

My dislike for modern academia as an institution and my belief that U Chicago is no longer a great school in particular have been strongly confirmed by your lack of tenure.

I'm sorry. I hope you will find a fulfilling intellectual future somewhere else.

The Hell with Academia: It is my pleasure to introduce the Mayor of the City of Chicago; the Honorable Danial Jerome Drezner.

I'm thinking it was somehow a mixup on the part of the faculty between your interests in Salma Hayek and Friedrich Hayek. (Okay, weak joke; it's the thought that counts, which is "Cheer up.")

From your perspective, the renown and excellence at Chicago must, I'm sure, make it all the more painful a result. Most of your readers probably understand how significant an accomplishment it is to be a tenure-track faculty member at Chicago in the first place, and how something perceived by the faculty to fall just short of tenure-worthy there is almost certainly above the standards at many other extremely good schools, and even at the few at Chicago's level might well have gotten you the nod.

The best revenge is living well, and they say that revenge is a dish best served cold. My guess is that sooner rather than later you'll start obtaining that best revenge; but that you also have ample time if that's needed; and ultimately you'll have even greater success and satisfaction elsewhere than you had hoped for at Chicago; and that whatever hard feelings may linger, there will also be mutual warm and continuing feelings over the years with some of your friends and colleagues there.

I wish I could be more profound; you've probably thought of all this and more already, to the extent it has any merit. Mostly I'm just writing as a demonstration of respect, sympathy, and support. And I salute you for your courage in blogging about this, which must not have been at all easy, but I suspect will ultimately prove to be theraputic and maybe even useful in other practical ways. Good luck, Dr. D.

It's because you're a purple cow. If you'd been a Jeff, you'd have made it hands down.

While the supportive bleating supra re injustice and the like in regards to Drezner is understandable, I would suggest that making political or academic-phobia hay out of one man's denial of tenure is more than slightly navel gazing.

Our blogger had a rational, balanced take on the decision, without sly, self-pitying swipes. Perhaps the commentators should follow his example.

Perhaps the decision was unjust. Perhaps not. Perhaps connected with the blog, perhaps not.

Bleating and blundering about with assumptions poorly anchored in fact is something Drezner rarely did (if ever), one reason I have come to like reading the blog, and I'll do him the respect on not acting like a fool.

Dan

Sorry to hear that. I generally have a good overall impression of Univ of Chicago--law and economics at least.

Cheer up. Come to Texas. Climate is better in SO many ways, and we have some great schools wiht great PolySci departments. Univ of Texas, Rice, with the Baker Institute.

I suggest Princeton...

Dan,

I am very sorry to hear of you denial of tenure

The academy can be an awfully capricious place.

Good luck in the hunt for the next stop. I have little doubt that your c.v. will serve you well.

For what it is worth, I have a colleague who was similarly, and surprisingly, denied tenure and ended up with an better job.

Good luck and many well wishes.

Steven

That just stinks.

But, frequently, it's typical. Look in the bio here at what my grandfather did, and then notice that it took him 18 years to get tenure.

Philistines. Screw 'em.

I don't know whether to give sympathy or congratulations. My husband is retired now but having been around the university environment for most of my adult life I know there is always much more than research and scholarship involved in these decisions. Politics is just one of them. Personal jealousies and professional jealousies can play a very large part. If tenure was denied, YOU are better off leaving that spot, THEY probably won't be. We don't know their reasoning but we do know your writing and opinions and IMHO that should have done well by you. If it didn't that is their loss.
Good things await you where you are appreciated.

I'm sorry "The Lounsbury", calling all of us fools and saying "who knows what caused this" denies a certain amount of clear evidence:

-Dan's academic output was high quantity and high quality

-Dan's blog commentary was intelligent, thoughtful, and though you may not have agreed with it (I didn't always) it was rarely controversial. That is, as readers, we know that Dan was not some wild crank in the field.

Therefore, its logical and scientific to hypothesize that his denial of tenure was a political decision, not a merit-based one. Granted we cannot know what those politics were. But if you think that academic tenure decisions are not based on politics...well, let's just say that you should *not* be calling other commentators "fools".

Academia has gone to rot. Putrid corpses in robes. You, on the other hand, are alive and well. Do something that lets you know you're alive and thriving. Why in such a hurry to join the rotting cadavers?

Dan, what an appalling decision. As one of the 'IT Consultants' who teased you about tenure some time back I want to say I didn't mean it - that is the way the academic game works and I knew it.

Writing as someone with experience of getting rejected despite demonstrated merit all I can say is now is the time to pick yourself up and start working on your revenge. Have a brilliant career - elsewhere and make them richly regret it!

As a Chicago transplant, I can tell you that Champaign-Urbana is lovely. Plus, we've got a University that, while not as prestigious as U of C, doesn't exactly suck.

Dan this decision was wrong on so many levels. I agree with those who say political. I'm staring at your edited book right now, and I've read a lot of your stuff. I wish I had your credentials (and your brains). This is UofC's loss and your gain in the long run. At APSA next year we'll celebrate your new, vastly improved job situation.

I know the feeling well -- I went through it myself before I decided to become a violinmaker. But I'll never forget a comment from a high-powered philosopher at Princeton, he said, "I've never known anyone to be denied tenure for academic reasons."

Dan, I've really valued the blog, and, as you know, the huge majority of tenure decisions at places like this are denials. No shame in failing to hit some idiosyncratic and moving target of superstar; when yeses are so hard to get, getting them gets really weird.

They're crazy. I'm in the IPE field myself (though, alas, not in a job-providing capacity), and while I'm sure I'm biased by the fact that your assessments often cohere with mine, I've found your work engaging and, in large part thanks to your blog, highly accessible. Maybe it's time for you to return to Colorado to resurrect your ultimate frisbee talent!

NOVA SOUTHEASTERN U...it's a comer!

Truly regrettable, for you are an excellent teacher, an engaging researcher, and an example of what I value about Chicago.

Glad to see your spirits aren't dimmed by this.

-T

Ugh. You have my sympathy. That and my confidence that things will work out for you in the end.

Tenure seems to me to be a weird and outmoded system. Why is it still around, besides tradition, anyway? Anyone know the answer?

I'm the scum of the earth - a lowly high school senior. OTOH, I do have a national merit scholarship, SAT's in the very high 1500's (until I take it again and max it out) and a GPA over 4. I'm applying to colleges right now.

I took Michigan off the list when the racists there won in the SCOTUS. This strikes Chicago too. I hope Northwestern doesn't screw up in the next 6 months.

congratulations on being denied tenure. this from someone who's been fired several times, from university to government. each time i was forced to expand my thinking, take to heart the reason for my failure, and get better. remember that edison failed thousands of times, and later said that each failure was precious to him because he learned things he otherwise wouldn't have.

you're a great talent, you'll do wonderfully. and don't limit your thinking to academia, there are many other things to do in the 'real world.'

cheers

That really sucks. My condolences.

I think you would be happier at a think tank. There are a number in Washington such as CSIS and Brookings that I'm sure would welcome you with open arms.

As an attorney who was denied partnership at one of the blue chip firms, I can confirm that is was the best thing that ever happened to me, and I have a much more interesting and fulfilling job (with more time for myself and my family!), then I ever would have had at the firm.

Let me add my sympathy and best wishes for you to find a job that will allow you to make your colleagues regret their decision. I'm too far outside your field to know where that should be, and I'm not in a position to push for my colleagues to offer you a job... but should your job hunting bring you to Texas A&M University (home of the Bush 1 Presidential Library and associated programs), I hope I can buy you a beer...or a margarita.

Lining up your questions and answers, did you really mean to say that too much output was a maybe? Eek.

Dan how about you come to the University of Arizona. We are really short on political science professors.

My condolences. After teaching nearly a quarter of a century in a public school, I was not recommended for rehiring. I could have fought it, probably would have won, but I went looking elsewhere and found a school that is a perfect fit for me. Though I loved the kids at my old school, I realized that my administrator's vision was vastly different than my own. My insight for the day: Sometimes you don't know your head hurts until you stop hitting it with a hammer. Good luck!

You have my deepest sympathies. I've been there and know pretty much how you feel. I hope the market treats you well.

Dan,

I am very sorry to hear about this. I have written that I am glad to see conservative law profs blog -- it keeps them off the Supreme Court and lets the students know what they are buying. But this sucks.

(Perhaps it's time for you to start investigating what you might do for the Clark, Edwards, or Clinton campaigns. Or for Commander in Chief or the West Wing.)

Wow, one thing I've gotten from your blog is how smart and energetic you are. You'll land on your feet at a bigger and better place. I believe that and wish you the best always.
Diane Snyder

I agree with Michael Ledeen and Bruce Bartlett, Dan. You are a natural for some think tank out there.

Does anyone else find irony in the fact that Ward Churchill is tenured faculty today - and Daniel Drezner is not?

I'm sorry man. You'll land with your feet up and in any case, there are a lot of people you've met through your blog who'll be much more wiling to buy a book you write than whoever it is they did give tenure to.

f

I'm a UC alum with #2 son an undergrad.

This just sucks big time.

I have had my differences with you from time to time, but there is no doubt that UC is losing an absolutly outstanding person from their faculty.

Very best wishes on your next assignment.

Truly unbelievable.

But Dan, you are too smart and talented to let this seriously affect you. It will only make you stronger.

Good luck and thanks for the blogging.

I've watched the tenure process close up for three decades without being involved (a lecturer with more consulting work than I can handle most of the time - I do love teaching).

The tenure process is incredibly corrupt, in the sense that the process is very clearly stated in governance documents but nobody pays much attention to the documents.

And teaching has absolutely nothing to do with tenure (excepting small liberal arts and community colleges)despite all of the lip service.

Academic politics are petty and vicious, as one might expect from spoiled and pampered people with a ridiculous amount of job security.

A bright future awaits - somewhere else.

Very sorry to hear the news. That sucks.

/FWIW, my advice to on how to make tenure, where ever you go next: Compare Israel to Nazi Germany - early and often.

Alleged Intimidator of Jewish Students Likely To Achieve Tenure at Columbia

Dan: I'm sure you're already being scouted by other schools you've visited as a guest lecturer while at Chicago. I wouldn't be surprised to find you have a new job by Christmas. I'm a little disconcerted by the timetable...usually one is given one full year security after tenure denial (it's so at my university,) plus what remains of the current year rather than just a semester. Every tenure denial of a credible candidate is indeed personal and political. Period. The university tenure committee (I sailed through department and college) tried to deny me based on solely on the very conservative political profile of my academic and professional work, but the board of trustees and president intervened and granted me tenure. A very rare event. A friend of mine (interestingly, a Marxist) was on the university tenure committee and told about the deliberations--it was all about my 'right wing' ideological bent.

If I were you, I'd appeal--at least so far as to demand an accounting of your faculty. (I was considering a court case before the trustees acted in my behalf. A very long and ugly lawsuit, won by another faculty member to the tune of many hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages had just been adjudicated at the time of my denial.) While I considered my options after the initial denial, I interviewed at other universities and was offered tenure positions--I'm sure you'll find that you'll have many options in the upcoming months. I'm betting you'll end up in the Boston area. Best of luck--not that you'll really need it. Your virtues should suffice.

It certainly lowers my opinion of the University of Chicago.

They must be really dumb.

Daniel, it doesn't seem like it now, but I have been in similar situations and want to say you will be surprised how good, somehow, this ultimately is for you when you succeed beyond their wildest paradigms. They live in a pinched little world and you don't.

The White Sox haven't won a playoff series since 1917. They were in the World Series in 1959, but there were no playoffs other than the World Series.

Daniel,

I just finished a doctorate at U of C -- the worst, most politicized experience of my life. The meanness of that place was breathtaking, particularly in the humanities. I took the last course taught by Prof. Shils before he died and spent some time talking alone with him several years ago. He once said that U of C rewarded "politicians," not true scholars.

You are a true scholar, Daniel, as well as a thinker and writer. I have absolutely no doubt that you'll find a niche somewhere, perhaps in academia, where your talents will be recognized and rewarded.

Be patient.

On my own blog I wrote

...another thing that struck me about Dan's post:

the fact that I was genuinely surprised at the outcome suggests that my ex ante intelligence gathering was piss-poor.

My reaction is that the fact that he was genuinely surprised suggests that the quality of the junior faculty mentoring at the U of C was piss-poor. Maybe I'm wrong, but everything in Dan's blogging is inconsistent with someone who would be in denial about the warning hints that he should have been getting if his senior colleagues - and especially his department head - had concerns about his tenure case.

Some faculty don't share my views about the need to mentor our junior colleagues. I think it's wasteful to hire talented people and then not help them succeed. I also think it's unfair to lead people on. Others take the view that if you need the help figuring out what to do or where you stand, then you don't deserve to succeed.

I'm sure that those who voted against Dan while not expressing their concerns to him during the past 5 years have a their own views of what happened...and it would be inappropriate for them to broadcast their reasons, so we will never know more except through what Dan finds out and decides to share with the blogosphere. There is also no guarantee that people will share their real reasons with him. But there's a lesson for those chosing between job offers...find out how the places you are considering handle feedback and mentoring.

I'm a graduate of UC and all I can say is, "their f***ing loss."

I'm somewhat surprised also. I always thought you were pretty smart.

Chin up. Three of the best profs I know were denied tenure at one time or another. I know several because I read and/or used their work. Tenure is almost a crap shoot at too many institutions (I suspect there are multiple reasons for calling the institutions) of higher education.

Half of the tenured profs I've known (attending and teaching at a dozen or so) are twits. They mostly did whatever it took to get tenure then kicked back and enjoyed their twithood. The other half make it work.

You'll be fine, just in some other place.

Dan,
Not much I can add to the eloquent words expressed by some of the other commenters, but this is a tremendous loss for your students, both grad and undergrad. Given what I have learned just from your blogposts, and the way you approach academic subjects, it is abundantly clear that you are also a gifted educator. Wherever you end up, your new students should consider themselves very lucky indeed.

It is not that bad. White Sox up Red Sox down. Probable did not receive tenure because you are to vocal(blog). That place is too dry for that kind of thinking. Conservatism there means conserving their power and blogging spreads it around. Blogging has taught you to be quick thinking given the information you have.

Oh dear. I've read your blog off and on for some time, and have been rewarded intellectually every time.

To bring the matter closer to home for me is that my stepfather, the PhilosopherDuck, is a year or so away from undergoing the tenure process at... the University of Chicago. *gulp*

From all I've heard from PhilosopherDuck (and others), the UofC is a hotbed of political intrigue, maybe worse than most higher ed institutions. I'm desperately sorry to hear that it might be true, and even moreso because it means that you got the shaft.

Sorry to hear. From a high school student considering an academic career, your blog has been a blessing. Try Georgetown, unless I don't end up attending there. Please post your new location so I can prepare an app for that lucky school!

As an alum, I have never been so disgusted with the actions of my alma mater. It is completely Chicago's loss. Dan's work--as is obvious to anyone who has been reading his blog and has seen the links to and discussions of his publications--is of extremely high quality. That Chicago would not want him around permanently speaks very negatively about the institution.

Dan, everyone is telling you this but I will pile on: You will land on your feet and make Chicago regret not having you. My best wishes for your career--which will do just fine despite this setback. This too shall pass.

A wreched outcome for a superior candidate.
MY condolences. Like everyone here, we'll be watching your DESERVED progress with interest.

As the psycho-babblers put it, bad things happen to good people. Sometimes there is no justice.

Remember Agathe Christy's line: "Living well is the best revenge." It's sunnier and funner (OK - less citified) out West!

And faculty ought to consider itself fortunate to have you.

Not an academic here, so perhaps this is a naive question, but is there another professional or business selection process in our society that is so completely lacking in transparency or reason as tenure selection? It seems more than a little odd that an applicant of your manifest talent and accomplishments is left grasping at straws as to why he was denied. I know U Chicago is a private institution, but there ought to be at least some transparency to the process, given that U-C like every major research university receives massive amounts of government funding and is subject to governmental regulation and scrutiny. It is a national institution that serves the public interest. As the SCOTUS ruling in the U Michigan case revealed, even the admissions policies of our universities, as bizarre as they may be, attempt to use some kind of objective scoring criteria.

So was there a score, or multiple scores, assigned by the tenure committee to the candidacy of Prof. Drezner? Is there a reason that the public is not entitled to know what this scoring process, if any, consists in, and in which area Prof Drezner came up short?

Bloggers have set their sights on the arrogance and non-transparency of the mainstream media. Perhaps they should also take aim at our less-than-competent, non-responsive and non-transparent university faculties.

Idiots. Absolute Idiots. I'm sorry, I don't see how this makes any kind of sense. My respect for University of Chicago has dropped considerably. I often don't agree with you, and read you less than I ought, but you're clearly a pathbreaker in building interfaces between academia and the public over issues that matter, and doing it an incredibly intelligent, precise manner. I hope this means someone one the west coast can steal you.

Think Tank? The guys that poll below journalists, politicians, whores, lawyers?

If you're going to go out into the real world, my advice is to stay out of a cliquish, money driven research, think tank.

Sorry to hear the news, Dan. I don't always agree with your comments, but your blog is infinitely more thoughtful, intellectual and relevant than Freakonomics, the blog of a fool professor of economics at the University of Chicago.

I was denied tenure by the psychology department at the University of Oregon because I would not pretend that the mafia that ran the department was benign. Turns out, this was a requirement for junior faculty.

My sense is that there are even more odd birds at Chicago than at other universities. Some day, when you write a best seller about what a bunch of looneytunes your colleagues were, you'll realize it was all for the best.

Is there a reason that the public is not entitled to know what this scoring process, if any, consists in, and in which area Prof Drezner came up short?

Yes, I'd say that the public aren't entitled to know at all, I'm afraid, and for good reason.

Berkeley, Berkeley, Berkeley....remember, you love the Bay Area!

I am really sorry to hear this. I was planning to write about how much I was looking forward to taking your classes in my Chicago application essays. I am sure that you will find an amazing home, and I will continue to read your work.

(btw, your article in Foreign Affairs continues to be one of the most cited articles in debate today.)

Yet another expression of complete amazement. I am really shocked and sorry to hear this. But you will, without a doubt, end up with a tenured position at a first-rate institution that will be delighted (and lucky) to have you. Best wishes throughout this difficult period.

"While the supportive bleating supra re injustice and the like in regards to Drezner is understandable, I would suggest that making political or academic-phobia hay out of one man's denial of tenure is more than slightly navel gazing."

I would actually be sympathetic with this view, considering the natural human instinct to side with a friend in a situation where he may have been mistreated. Though the friend receives the benefit of the doubt, a disinterested observer may come to a different conclusion.

I would, that is, if I had not myself spent three years of my life involved with a program of similar stature to Dan's and been shocked by the utter dearth of imagination that held sway there. Clearly the tenure system is seriously flawed, and to pretend that Dan's case is an exception does a disservice not only to Dan but to those who harbor higher hopes for what the academy can be.

The dynamic I suspect was at work here is one I have seen in many relationships and marriages that have unexpectedly ended in tears. The weaker rejected the stronger out of their own latent sense of inferiority.

I'm really sorry to hear this. I have no question in my mind that you deserved tenure, and as an aspiring Prof who also doesn't toe the conventional lines, it makes me nervous when truly outstanding candidates are treated this way.

Since everybody else is pumping their school as a landing point, might I push Carleton College? Not quite the research focus of a U of C, but our students are every bit their intellectual equals. Plus, we've got a frisbee program to die for.

You'll do great. A previous commenter was almost definitely right--there has to be a member of an appointments committee who reads your blog and is salivating at the chance to pick you up.

Yes, everything is "always" going to rot. Academe, Management. Etc.

Drezner may be a great academic. I would not know, not being in political science. He is an excellent commentator, that is true. Should that bear on his tenure? I don't know, not being part of the establishment that is Chicago.

As for the immediate running to politics, I have always had contempt for that kind of whinging on. Politics, politics, politics. Discrimination. Having been involved in enough hiring decisions, I can say that private sector has its politics, and they are often personal. I do not doubt, human nature being what it is, that some good portion of his colleagues (in the committee) did not like him for one reason or another (including jealosy).

Such is life. Good managers get passed over all the time for such things, and I have never respected those who whinge on about how "politics" or whatever caused it. Welcome to humanity.

Drezner's comment was balance and appropriate. The squeeling and whinging with respect to "decline" and the like is nothing more than personal feeling.

Drezner has made his mark, if his to-be-peers at Chicago did not want his company (probably for reasons of internal politics and feelings) then so be it. Big deal. Nothing to cry like a small child about.

"The weaker rejected the stronger out of their own latent sense of inferiority."

Roger that.

http://debfrisch.com/archives/2005/06/psychologist_an.html

Very sorry to hear that. It's Chicago's loss. I think you'll land on your feet, though it's certainly got to feel lousy now. You'll just have to show them they made a big mistake!

This decision is lamentable as are almost all other cases where somebody doesn't get tenure. You give years of your life to a place, and then they tell you to get lost.

At the same time, however, I wish people would refrain from baseless accusations against the Chicago Political Science department. These are not nitwits who made this decision. They are members of a department that is universally recognized as one of the very top political science department in the country.

Few tenure decisions at a department like Chicago are likely to be "slamdunks" (frankly, I'm surprised that Dan was surprised by this. I think *anybody* who *gets* tenure at Chicago is surprised at the *positive* outcome). Departments like Chicago are likely to ask the following question of a tenure candidate: is this person one of the very top people in their subfield today? How many of you making accusations of an injustice here are qualified to answer this question with regard to the academic field of international political economy? Answer honestly.

Dan's a top-notch social scientist. He believes in using logic and evidence, and I think he'd be reluctant to pass judgment on anything without knowing all the evidence. Very few, if any, of us here have all the evidence (including things like outside letters by senior scholars appraising Dan's work, which we will likely never see).

Again, I agree with the personal sentiments expressed here, but the professional judgments about the Chicago department are not warranted.

Most uncool.

You will, Dr. Drezner, give them pause to regret their decision in future years.

The commenter who remarked on the technophobic nature of some older professors is on target. My adviser let his computer sit in a packing box until a grad student set it up for him - then it gathered dust.

Dan,
I took two of your classes while at U of C, American Foreign Policy and Globalization, and I loved them both. I think the department made the wrong decision. Best of luck

No insinuations of "injustice" here, just a simple question as to whether the public interest is served by the complete lack of transparency to the process. Don't know about Drezner's sub-specialty but there are certainly others-- most notoriously, Arab or Middle East studies-- in which political considerations apparently trump other criteria, to the great harm of our nation's collective knowledge of a crucial region of the world. Given the dearth of center-right or conservative academics, it's certainly fair for an impartial outswider to ask whether political concerns influenced the decision in Drezner's case.

How are tenure decisions made? What are the criteria, and what are their relative weight?

The criteria for tenure vary by school, but I think there are a few generalizations that can be made:

(1) Three general criteria: research, teaching, and service. At most large research universities (like the University of Chicago), research is weighted at least twice as much as teaching or service.

(2) Research is assessed on both quantity and quality. The quantity standard for a place like Chicago is basically two books with a major academic press (with one published and the other perhaps in press) and several articles in major peer-reviewed journals.

Quality is judged not only by the judgment of the faculty within the department, but also by soliciting outside letters from senior scholars (normally, the candidate can identify senior scholars who might hold a grudge for some reason and therefore shouldn't be asked for a letter). The number of times a scholar's work is cited is also considered (as an indication of the importance and impact of the work). Quality is obviously a subjective judgment, which is why it's hard to have a clear cut formula for tenure decisions.

(3) At most universities I know of, the first decision on tenure is made by the department (which is the news Dan is reporting here). If the department approves, then the decision goes to a university committee on tenure. If that committee approves, then it goes to the provost of the university. If the provost approves, then it finally needs to be signed off on by the president. The decision can be killed at any point. Some schools (e.g., Princeton) are notorious for cases where the department votes "up," but the case is killed higher up in the chain.

As I said in my previous anonymous post (I remain anonymous because of my own junior faculty status), a place like Chicago will ask the following question of a tenure candidate: is this person one of the very best in his/her subfield with the promise of remaining so in the future? There is no simple, subjective way in which this question is answered.

Thibaud is asking the Great Meaning of Life Question we all fear. As a newly minted Ph.D., the process is absolutely terrifying to me -- the thought of pulling up stakes once or twice (or thrice or more) causes me no small amount of gastric distress.

My own take from intelligence-gathering after a number of contentious job search and tenuring processes is that the Standard is, there's No Standard. The only similarly subjective process is partnering at law firms -- and maybe voting....

The left has complete contol over academia - at least the social sciences and arts - and they wield that power ruthlessly. But it means nothing in the end. Real disciplines, like engineering and medicine, are the only ones that matter outside of academia itself. Let them entertain themselves with their yap about hermeunetics (I don't care how it's spelled) and other crapola that they only pretend to understand, as they continously prove by publishing satirical parodies of themselves in their journals without realizing it.
Dan, get out of there. I say with the utmost respect: get a real job next time.

Well prof. I am not in your league but I lost a job to a despicable reason and you know what I am glad. I was able to go out and get what I am really worth.

In other words what ED said.

The tenure system is akin to giving NBC, ABC, and CBS a vote over whether CNN or Fox should be allowed on the air. Is this the best system for students? the taxpayers who support academia? academia itself as an institution?

Dan -
I'm genuinely sorry to hear the news. While I'm totally unqualified to judge the merits of your work relative to others in your field, my gut tells me that the other folks posting here are correct: it's U of C's loss, not yours.

And you should take some consolation reading the responses this news has generated... You've got people from high school students to retired teachers thinking and talking more intelligently about political science and international relations. That's a pretty damned impressive accomplishment on its own. Keep your chin up... and keep up the good work.

"The tenure system is akin to giving NBC, ABC, and CBS a vote over whether CNN or Fox should be allowed on the air. Is this the best system for students? the taxpayers who support academia? academia itself as an institution?"

Well, let's see: the US higher education system is BY FAR the best in the world. There isn't even a close second. Further, I think it's fair to say that the US higher education system has contributed significantly to this country's great success. The tenure system, as it's practiced, is a bedrock of the modern university system. So, to answer your question: yes, emphatically.

Somebody asked earlier why the institution of tenure even exists. You'll get a variety of answers to this, but the most compelling to me is the following. Tenure gives scholars job security, so that they can explore ideas without fear for their jobs or other retribution. The downside is that it can lead to complaceny, but the upside is the generation of ideas that might not be possible without the insitution of tenure.

Dan -- I am really sorry to hear this. I have now completed my PhD preliminary exam and coursework and am working on my dissertation, and I have to say that your PLSC 377 (IPE) class back in winter quarter '04 is one of the two best graduate school courses I've taken. I cannot begin to emphasize how useful it has been to me given my interests in urban politics and globalization. One thing I found particularly impressive is how impartially and skeptically you presented the class, challenging both liberals like myself and conservatives.

Perhaps it would be an interesting project to investigate whether schools with a highly restrictive approach to tenure (like the U of C) have a better or worse research record than peer institutions that have a more open approach (say, Berkeley, at least in political science). My dad and I were talking about this earlier today -- he is in higher education administration having formerly been a history professor -- and he said he'd lay money on the "open" schools actually having a better record.

Though there is a kind of 'formula'--and the ratio of scholarship versus teaching varies by university--this is a still a highly subjective process. It helps to have powerful political alliances and mentors...it's what got me through these rocky shoals. A book or two--boring rather than bestselling preferred--is still shooting better than par for even Michigan, Harvard, Stanford and Berkeley. So Daniel should have been in on qualifications (just kidding, DD.) Recommendations by outside commentators are weighed carefully, but even a handful of wickedly negative or sarcastic ones cannot derail the prospects of the protege of a departmental manque and mentor. It's understood that predicting destiny is a dark art when dealing with young colleagues, so the political aspects of the process are inevitably foregrounded when departments and UTP committees adjudicate. ("Why are the politics of academia so bad?" "Because the stakes are so low.") For example, I always horse-trade promotions for my own favorite juniors with my UTP colleagues--for future considerations, of course. That's the benign and commonplace form of politics that permeates the academy as much as it does the market-places of commerce. The ideological kind of politics is another thing altogether; in no other place on the planet does ones party affiliation, real or implied, have a greater impact on employment as in the research university. One can mitigate the impact of the latter kind of politics by either shutting up entirely, disguising ones convictions, or playing very, very skillfully the former variety. In the liberal arts and humanities the foremost reasons for tenure denial at the advanced stage (we tend to fire unfit or unpublished by the end of the 2nd year) are ideologically based. It's defended in the academy as benign (the 'birds of a feather' argument)--as if it's no different than the recruiting of only sympatico softail afficianados at Orange County Choppers. (A far better place to work, from what I've seen, than my university) It's disgusting and dangerous, though the irony of the deed seems beyond the ken of the legions of diversity devotees on the faculty at Chicago. Luckily, we anticipate seeing you here at the Charles River Regatta next year, Daniel...

The left has complete contol over academia - at least the social sciences and arts - and they wield that power ruthlessly.

Oh, please. Leaving aside the ruthless exercise of power by our leftist masters in generl, do you know anything about the University of Chicago at all? Citadel of political correctness it ain't.

But it means nothing in the end. Real disciplines, like engineering and medicine, are the only ones that matter outside of academia itself.

Blah blah. Tell it to the Chairman of the Fed, or the Supreme Court.

Let them entertain themselves with their yap about hermeunetics (I don't care how it's spelled) and other crapola that they only pretend to understand, as they continously prove by publishing satirical parodies of themselves in their journals ... I say with the utmost respect: get a real job next time.

Why don't you tell us about your Degree from the University of Life, seeing as you're on a roll.

"That said, if one assumes that the opportunity cost of blogging (e.g., better or more scholarship) was the difference between tenure and no tenure – an unclear assertion at best – then it’s a tough call. "

As you say, an unclear assertion. So cheer up. Just think how much more this would suck if you were jobless *and* obscure.

Condolences.

Tenured academics tend to be lazy and self-congradulatory in the extreme. Tenure is the death of creativity and resourcefulness. Publish or perish? Have you actually read the tripe put out by most tenured academics? Total rubbish.

I'm sorry, that really sucks. From the outside, it's hard to hear that you and Sean were both denied tenure and think it *doesn't* have to do with blogging, but who the hell knows. Best of luck as you pick up the pieces and move on.

You imply that the denial is about the blogging.

It sucks that you'll never know.

It's perfectly plausible that the blogging is what tipped it.

Or that it was completely irrelevant, and you just weren't flavor of the month.

In any case, if the blogging has done nothing else, it's taught you that you don't suck, right?

Hey, even Jennifer Aniston gets dumped. There are worse things than being Jennifer Aniston.

Good luck, Jen!

Sorry to hear that Dan. I'm sure they'll be kicking themselves in the coming years.

Dan,

Long-time reader and U of C alum. Hang in there- in the long run, you'll look back and see this was a blessing in disguise.

Hey you hang in there. I will be thinking of you and I am really sure that you are going to land on your feet and in a place that will suit you better. The top tier is so work work all the time and it is clear that you want a mix. All best Dan.

At least now we know where Ivan Tribble works.

Dan,

I lost my job in March after 19.5 years three promotions and two exceptional service awards. My former employer kept me on for four more weeks to pick my brain.

Although I found a new job promptly (receiving only 1 week of unemployment compensation), it was gut-wrenching and nerve wracking. Be good to yourself and hang in there. Although I don't often agree with you, I respect your tone and intelligence. You'll do fine.

Dan,

Drop the blog. It is a career-killer in your line of work unless you already have tenure.

"Again, I agree with the personal sentiments expressed here, but the professional judgments about the Chicago department are not warranted."

Yes they are. They are a bunch of hacks. Robert Pape? Give me a break. Cathy Cohen and the politics of hip-hop -- a joke.

Did they vote on jacob Levy also?

Dan,
I count 11 peer reviewed articles with 3 or 4 in top journals. I guess an APSR would have helped a ton, right?

Plus two university press books; ok, one is an edited volume and so doesn't count for much. But another two on the way?

Really not sure what Chicago is looking for.

Is it true that Chicago does not have an up or out year? Are you unemployed at U of C as of the summer?

Very sorry to hear it.

Wow. I'm quite surprised. Tough crowd.

All I can say is, some school is going to pick up a really good political science professor for next year...

"Well, let's see: the US higher education system is BY FAR the best in the world"

By what measure? Admittedly, a topic too broad for this discussion. I have little doubt, however, that the system didn't get where it is via complacency or resistance to warranted adjustments, nor is it likely to retain this position without consistently improving.

"Tenure gives scholars job security, so that they can explore ideas without fear for their jobs or other retribution."

This may be, but it does not therefore follow that this security should rely solely on the judgment of one's peers, especially when said peers' interest can diverge markedly from other parties who have a stake in the decision, most notably the one seeking tenure. Other of our institutions contain built-in checks and balances to offset the corrupting influence of political motivations, both grand and petty.

Employment systems based on the ancient guild model, such as the tenure system as it currently exists and many trade unions, have shown the unfortunate tendency to eat their young, to the detriment immediately of the young, and eventually of the system itself.

Some of my best teachers at UofC didn't get tenure, so to that degree you are in good company. In a couple of cases, their students got quite upset about the decision, and said so very publicly, but - not to put too fine a point on it - the teachers in question were considered too much to the left, which is something your commenters might keep in mind before jumping to partisan conclusions.
Tenure decisions certainly look mysterious from the outside (and I'll bet from the inside, too), but I seriously doubt the blog made much of a difference. Whether I've agreed with you or not, I've always thought you spoke here with both the rigor and with the pleasure of working with ideas that marks the UofC community. It's an institution so much smaller than most people realize; I'm only sorry there isn't more room there for you and for the others who have marked their students for life, yet had to move on.
Promise you that I'll keep reading you, wherever you are next; they'll be lucky to get you.

I suspect you're far more widely read than many of your tenured colleagues. You've insight, crisp style, not a little wit -- all of which add up to readership (hey, that's why I am a faithful reader).

If you burn for teaching, I've no doubt you will find a place. If you burn for writing, you're way ahead of the pack. Your by-line would always be one that I would note with joy and anticipation.

Good luck!

In the last few years, through your blog, you've had a substantial impact on a several thousand politically aware folks, most of whom are outside academe, and made a respected name for yourself in the blogosphere. You're actually semi-famous. Can any of the members of your department who voted on your tenure application say the same?

None of us (or almost none of us) even know who they are, though I don't doubt they are prominent in their field. But your prominence transcends theirs because you were astute enough and ballsy enough to put your impressive intellect on display in an aborning medium, just as Glenn Reynolds did. Your colleagues lacked both the astuteness and the balls to do likewise.

For Reynolds, tenure was not an issue, and so collegiate jealousy was not a threat. You've not been as fortunate.

But take heart. Your high name recognition and respected status among politically aware blog readers -- an influential bunch despite all the knocks they take -- guarantees that a good department will recruit you ASAP. And your new colleagues will already know you as the "famous" Daniel Drezner, so the issue of collegiate jealousy will be more manageable.

Just my opinion, FWIW.

Best wishes to you.

I hope you'll be encouraged by the observation that although life seldom works out the way we expect it to, it does always work out.

We all still expect great things from you, and I know you won't disappoint us.

Truly awful news; my condolences.

As many others have said, when one door closes, another opens. My biggest career disaster pushed me to make my most successful career move. Good luck with your search - I'm sure you'll get plenty of great offers!

Tough about the Red Sox. I know how you feel, but look how far they have come with practically no pitching. Their total record is 95-70. How many are better than that. As for the loss of tenure - don't look back, and don't burn any bridges. They made their decision for whatever reasons and they will have to live with that decision. You do not have to live with it. You just need to close the book and get on with your life.

I hear these guys are hiring. http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/urban/education/features/14651/index.html

Yeah, what happened to Levy?

Sorry Dan. But if it is any consolation, at least two Presidents of the American Political Science Association were denied tenure at Chicago, Theda Skocpol and Ted Lowi.

Dan,

Sorry to hear the news. I wish you well as move ahead in life -- in or outside of academia.

Thank you for making me and many others think on important issues day in and day out. I have been an avid reader of your blog for the past year and half.

Is there anything worse than having such a deep all-encompassing fear of the 'tenure' system that one goes anonymous to speak one's mind about it?

And then uses that very anonymity to defend the SAME said system as right and just and perfect (using all the cliches of the day) in a long Panglossian panegyric about the best of all possible worlds?

Directed of course, at tut-tutting someone who didn't go anonymous! Someone who actually did trust the honesty of the system enough to NOT go anonymous! What is the message of that little paradox?

This reminds me a book I read called 'The Joke' by Milan Kundera. Not that Voltaire, Twain, or Vladimir Voinovich wouldn't have had fun with such a character. The actions of some speak so loud I can't hear a word they say.

I will throw out one thing though on the oft-repeated idea that we have the best educational system in the world.

I went to the most elite grad school in my field. My observation about it is that the education and the teaching, in itself, seemed unremarkable for the most part (and the one brilliant professor there, in fact, was denied tenure!) But having the degree in hand, the little piece of paper, was nevertheless very valuable to me based on the kinds of opportunities I got afterward. I accomplished a lot based on my opportunities - hence, the belief of some that it's all because I am a product of the 'best' university system in the world. But in reality it was because of the private sector opportunities that were handed to me that I flourished, not the content of education itself.

Responding to the comment immediately above, by no means do I think the tenure system is perfect and I realize now that I may have mistakenly left that impression, but I do thin