THE METRIC TRAP
HOW A 50-YEAR-OLD STRATEGY IS KILLING ACADEMIC FREEDOM
By Scott Douglas, CPFA Southern Regional Representative
The institution of tenure is, as ever, in the crosshairs. But the latest offensive—tying tenure to workload and performance metrics—is not a new strategy. It is the second, more pernicious phase of a campaign that began over half a century ago.
The first phase was one of exclusion. In states like California, laws passed in the 1960s used a simple workload metric as a bright-line rule. By defining faculty working below a certain threshold (e.g., 67% of a full-time load) as “temporary” or “part-time,” the system legally and permanently excluded the majority of the teaching faculty from the protections of tenure.
This new phase is one of control. Having successfully normalized the idea that faculty rights can be quantified by a metric, administrations are now applying this same logic to those inside the gate. Punitive post-tenure reviews and “productivity” standards are designed to control and revoke the rights of tenured faculty.
It is the same weapon, deployed for two different purposes. This “metric trap”—the principle that academic freedom is not inherent but must be earned and re-earned by meeting quantifiable targets—is the single greatest threat to our profession.
The Two-Front War, Waged with One Weapon
The two-tier system has created two related crises, both powered by the same flawed logic:
- The Crisis of Exclusion (The “Part-Time” or “Contingent” Faculty): For the contingent majority, the metric trap is a locked gate. Your workload percentage defines your status and permanently denies you due process, a voice in governance, and the shield of academic freedom. This created a large, precarious workforce whose very existence proves that a college can run on faculty without rights.
- The Crisis of Control (The “Tenured” Faculty): For the tenured minority, the metric trap is a weapon of coercion. It redefines tenure from a shield for academic freedom into a revocable performance contract. It gives administrators a backdoor mechanism to silence dissent by simply claiming a professor is “failing to meet metrics.” Workload is the excuse to nullify the shield.
This two-front war has been devastating. The exclusion of contingent faculty created the leverage to attack the tenured faculty. Now, the entire profession is being pushed toward a gig-economy model where all faculty are just “content deliverers” managed by productivity data.
The ‘One-Tier’ Solution and Its Own Metric Trap
The obvious solution is to dismantle this system and move to a unified, “one-tier” faculty model—a single, stable employment track offering proportional (pro-rata) pay, benefits, governance rights, and the full protections of due process and academic freedom for all.
But this solution is pointless if we fall into the exact same trap.
Many one-tier proposals are a Trojan horse. They perpetuate the core problem by establishing a new workload or performance threshold required to attain status on this single tier.
This is just the 1968 California strategy in a new package.
- It guarantees that institutions will simply hire a new class of “pre-tier” gig workers, kept just below the metric, to maintain a flexible workforce.
- It concedes the central lie: that faculty rights are a reward for a certain quantity of work, not a necessary condition for the job itself.
Conclusion: A Principle, Not a Metric
Our position must be absolute. The fight is not so much against the “two-tier system” as it is against the administrative principle that ties faculty rights to workload or performance metrics.
A true one-tier model must be built on a non-negotiable foundation: Academic freedom is a necessary condition of all faculty work, not a bonus.
Access to the shield of due process and academic freedom must be granted to all faculty upon hiring. It is not a prize to be won by the most “productive,” nor is it a privilege to be revoked when one’s teaching or scholarly activity becomes inconvenient. It is the fundamental right that makes our work, and that of the college itself, possible.
About the Author
Scott Douglas is currently CPFA’s Southern Regional Representative and serves on CPFA’s Legislative Committee. Contact him at sdouglas@cpfa.org.
Scott argues against the idea that academic freedom and due process are earned when faculty meet workload and/or productivity targets. He underscores a structural inequality: contingent faculty are often prevented from reaching those thresholds in the first place (e.g., being capped at 67% of full time).
I like the fact that Scott’s not arguing for piecemeal reforms or calling for expanded tenure-track lines. Instead, he questions whether core faculty rights should be earned at all, arguing that faculty rights—like academic freedom and due process—should not function as rewards based on “metrics” but instead be granted universally. (I’m reminded of the argument within Christian theology about grace through faith vs. through works.)
Seen in this light, the Vancouver Model (in place at Vancouver Community College and other institutions in British Columbia) offers an example of an alternative to the two-tier system. All faculty have academic freedom from their first day, reflecting a one-tier structure rather than a stratified hierarchy. Instead of competing for scarce tenure-track positions, each faculty member is automatically regularized once they satisfy the criteria—essentially, two-years at 50% of full-time, which means that they can be confident that their job will continue until retirement. It’s regularization of the person, not the position. Most instructors are regularized.
The Vancouver Model also offers mechanisms that redistribute power away from administrative discretion and toward more transparent, rule-based processes. All faculty accrue seniority from their first day, and seniority is the primary (though not the sole) determinant of workload. Additionally, the right of first refusal (ROFR) allows part-time faculty to claim available work before it is offered to less senior or newly hired instructors—enabling part-time instructors to “top up” their annual workload up to full-time if they choose. Even non-regularized instructors who have worked nine months are granted the right of first refusal, which makes it more difficult for management to arbitrarily lay them off, especially when coupled with conscientious faculty union oversight.
Importantly, these features of the Vancouver Model (regularization/seniority) help clarify the relationship between job security and the meaningful exercise of academic freedom. When faculty are less vulnerable to sudden loss of employment or reductions in workload, they are better positioned to teach, research, and speak without fear of reprisal. In this sense, the Vancouver Model demonstrates how institutional design can support the exercise of academic freedom, rather than treating it as an abstract entitlement contingent on performance metrics.
Jack Longmate (jacklongmate@comcast.net)
Adjunct English instructor, 1992-2020
Olympic College, Bremerton, WA.