Currently, teaching or service is often used to penalize faculty members who are deemed unproductive in terms of their research efforts. It appears that the reward for greater research productivity is less teaching, while the consequence of less productivity in research is more teaching or service. Clearly, the system is set up to spur on research productivity and enable tenured or tenure-track faculty to free themselves of those unwanted burdens. The de facto course equivalencies entrench the undervaluation of teaching and service in tenure status and salary, as well as in faculty perceptions.

Revising tenure to accord proper value to teaching and service productivity would promote overall productivity and facilitate success in the core mission of higher education. Recognizing faculty contributions in teaching and service would improve institutional culture and job satisfaction. It would be a truer measure of the balance of elements required for an institution to flourish. It would enfranchise the myriad teaching or service faculty members who now feel marginal to their institutions. Moreover, it would allow them to deepen the connections to their community as well as to their students in ways that foster retention and degree completion.

Beyond those practical reasons, awarding tenure for teaching or service work is simply the right thing to do. This moment, which calls institutions of higher education to rise to the challenge to innovate, is ripe for just such a sea change in faculty recognition. Ultimately, tenure is the coin of our realm. It is time to distribute it equitably.