One thing you have to remember is that tenure protects teachers against the religious activists. The religious activists are ALWAYS more motivated and numerous than any defense that teachers can mount.

This is continuous and everlasting. Things like "critical race theory" and its ilk are the current bugaboos. But the "Theory of Evolution" was there in the past. Talking about the documented historical evils that various religions promulgated always sets off the nitwits. Even teaching Canterbury Tales in English and pointing out that the priest has symptoms of syphilis will tend to rile up the local frocks.

The problem is that in 1965 talking about the equality of women and minorities was "controversial" enough that it needed to be protected by tenure. And the college campuses were definitely at the epicenter of the equality movements.

Right now, I suspect that talking about abortion needs to be protected by tenure.

I'm not sure what the right answer is, but destroying tenure is, I suspect, going to do far more damage than good--especially for progressive causes.

I think that politically correct ideas about one of those groups are both illogical and harmful to society. Some might find my views repugnant and wrongly describe them as "hate-filled". Does that mean I shouldn't be able to hold a job, or that to do so I should have to hide my opinions and express them only surreptitiously? If not, your argument against tenure doesn't hold. If so, I'd love to hear more about your reasoning.

> Does that mean I shouldn't be able to hold a job, or that to do so I should have to hide my opinions and express them only surreptitiously?

You should, and are, free to express those opinions but bigotry is not a protected class. Your employer should be free to fire you if it doesn't like what you are saying.

What value does tenure provide in this scenario? His blog is not related to CS or academia. He is doing harm to the reputation of the university and CS department.

I don't agree that he's "doing harm to the reputation of the university and CS department." I notice that it's especially with regard to universities that this argument arises. If he were working at Cost Cutters, or Copps Foods, or State Farm, no one would think that his employer was acting wrongly in employing him. There is nothing about a university that makes employing someone with his opinions do more reputational harm. On the contrary, a university has more reason to tolerate his divergent views, because it is directly concerned with intellectual freedom and free inquiry, which often leads people to investigate and even advocate for positions that are incorrect and even immoral (which, I agree, a cursory look at his website suggests his are). That's what tenure provides in this scenario: protection for intellectual freedom, even when free inquiry carries a professor into areas that are disapproved of in polite society.

> I don't agree that he's "doing harm to the reputation of the university and CS department."

Well thats where we disagree i guess. When people google University of Montana computer science and see the dozens of articles that pop up about this guy they are not going to think oh yay this school is a champion of intellectual freedom. They are going to see a tenured professor propping up the worst of the worst CS stereotypes and software engineering bro culture.

It's a fair point. One of the biggest pros in favor of unpopular freedom of speech is preventing revolution via the airing and discussion of suppressed views.

In a college environment is probably the most socially safe (i.e. distinct from propagandizing) and productive (i.e. more likely to be intellectually examined) environments for them.

So if they exist anywhere, and I subscribe to the idea that unpopular things need to be speakable somewhere, then college is a good place.

Sample size of one shouldn't change your perspective on a whole class of people. There are bad actors in every group - and, while it is shameful his deeds, you can't castigate a whole class of people.

I'm also not sure extreme cases form a good argument anyway. Tenure isn't a blanket "Get out of jail free" card no matter what the behavior or the offense.

Sometimes the cost of open and unrestricted speech is that people will use it to say ugly things. This is another part of the tradeoff and I think it's still a good one.

A tenured faculty member can still be fired for cause. I wouldn't assume that guy's job is safe.

Usually after multiple incidents, warnings, rehabilitation plans, and all kinds of chances nobody else gets.