From the Lawton Constitution
By James Finck, Ph.D. Feb 15, 2026
I began writing this column for Southwest Ledger in 2023 and for The Lawton Constitution just last year. I have genuinely loved this time.
Writing has always been an outlet for me, almost a form of therapy. I’ve been blogging since around 2016, when I began noticing a trend in much of the mainstream media, nearly everything done by President Trump was described as “historic” and “unprecedented.” Whether I agreed with those actions or not, it didn’t change the reality that very little was truly unprecedented, just different. I started my blog to correct some of the historical inaccuracies I was hearing and to look at current events through a historical lens.
I have enjoyed every moment of writing these past few years. But the truth is, because of new rules, if I were a new faculty member just starting my career today, I would not dare to write this column or share my views so publicly out of fear of losing my job.
Last week, Governor Kevin Stitt issued Executive Order 2026-07 eliminating tenure for regional universities and community colleges. Anyone who reads my column or takes my classes knows that executive orders are my greatest political pet peeve.
The U.S. and Oklahoma State Constitution both include checks and balances for a reason. Whether the governor even has the authority to remove tenure or not is a question that will have to wait. Instead, I want to explain the purpose of tenure and why its elimination is so harmful to Oklahoma’s universities.
Tenure has become a four-letter word for many Oklahomans, and I understand why. There are real frustrations. Eliminating tenure will not fix these problems; it will only weaken our schools. Today, tenure is often portrayed as a system that allows professors to “phone it in,” live an easy life, and say whatever outrageous things they want without fear of consequences.
Let me address that first claim. Even if that was true, it is not true today.
I hold the rank of full professor, the highest academic rank possible. Yet every five years I undergo a post-tenure review where I must submit five years of annual reports, evaluations from my dean, and documentation of my work. I must justify my value to my department, my dean, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, and the university’s Board of Regents. I must demonstrate my performance in teaching, scholarship, and service. If I fail to meet these standards, there is a formal process for improvement, and failure to improve can lead to termination. I have seen this happen at my own university.
What I cannot be terminated for are my ideas — no matter how unpopular they may be.
That is hard for many people to accept. Over the years, professors have said and done some offensive things — some of which I strongly disagree. But protection must exist even for ideas we dislike. There are limits, of course. Ideas should advance learning or understanding. Saying you are glad someone was shot does neither; saying you believe someone’s ideas are harmful absolutely does.
The entire reason tenure exists is to protect the free exchange of ideas. Our job as academics is to think, to question, to challenge the status quo, and sometimes even to defend the status quo when the world is changing. We need campuses where difficult conversations can happen — about politics, religion, race, sexuality, and gender — where both conservatives and liberal voices feel protected enough to speak honestly.
If professors must constantly worry about offending someone and losing their jobs, their ability to challenge ideas is destroyed. And once we lose the ability to challenge and provoke students, we lose our ability to teach. As I often have said, if you go through four years of college and are never offended, then you did not receive an education.
I know many Oklahomans think offense on college campuses is one-sided. That often may be true. But removing tenure will not fix that problem, it will only weaken higher education.
History gives us a clear example of why tenure matters. During the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, some white professors at Southern universities joined civil rights workers in pushing for integration and social change. Today, we rightly view civil rights activists as heroes. But at the time, many white Southerners viewed them as agitators trying to destroy the Southern way of life. Professors who supported them were seen as dangerous and subversive. Communities demanded that those professors be removed from state-supported universities. Without tenure, many of them would remain silent out of fear. Tenure was needed then, and it is needed now.
To understand how the loss of tenure will affect our universities, let me share my own experience this past year. I served on a search committee for a new political science professor. We were surprised by how few applications we received, but we still identified three excellent candidates. Their research agendas and commitment to students would have greatly benefited our students, our community, and the state of Oklahoma.
We conducted phone interviews with all three and were thoroughly impressed. We invited two for campus visits — both declined. We invited the third, who came to campus. He impressed us, and we offered him the position. He declined as well.
We now have spent this academic year relying on adjunct instructors for government classes. Out of curiosity, one member of our committee recently contacted the candidates. Two had accepted one-year positions at other schools, and one had taken a research job. All three chose temporary jobs or non-teaching positions rather than a tenure-track job at a small regional university in rural Oklahoma with a high teaching load and low pay.
That is the reality for our regional universities today.
The only chance we have to attract high-quality faculty members is by offering what we can: a low cost of living, an excellent academic environment, committed students, excellent colleagues and the promise of tenure. Remove tenure, and it becomes nearly impossible to recruit strong faculty to our state. It will also become harder to retain the faculty who have not yet made tenure. We are already behind the curve in recruitment. This executive order may be the move that breaks regional higher education in Oklahoma.
It seems clear the governor understands this reality, because he exempted the state’s football — I mean — research universities: OU and OSU. He has acknowledged that removing tenure there would harm those institutions. But what message does that send to the other 22 state colleges and universities?
We work just as hard, often teaching twice the courseload for half the pay. What about our students? Are they less important? At a time when we complain about the cost of education, do we really want to undermine the schools that offer affordable, high-quality education?
At regional universities, students don’t have graduate teaching assistants grading their papers. Their classes are taught by professors. Class sizes are smaller. Faculty know their students. And all of this is delivered at a fraction of the cost of research universities.
If you want to fix the cost of higher education, the solution is simple: attend my school.
But schools like mine may not survive if they cannot attract faculty. And, even if they remain open, what kind of education will students receive if professors are afraid to challenge ideas, push boundaries, and teach students how to think critically in a complex world?
Without tenure, we do not get stronger universities. We get quieter ones.
Tenure matters. But if tenure is wrong, then it should be wrong for everyone. If it is truly unjust, then eliminate it across the board. I know OU has a better football team — but our faculty and our students matter just as much.
James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at james.finck@swoknews.com.
Historically Speaking 