Claudine Gay has opened the eyes of many to the degradation of standards in American higher education. In this AEI piece, Professor Samuel Abrams examines how she managed tenure and what that says about the process today.

Here are two key paragraphs:

It is unfortunate to look back at the many faculty who have been rejected from this process, especially in the light of Gay’s underwhelming CV. To witness capable colleagues and academics miss out on tenure, while Gay was awarded many accolades at Harvard is maddening. A process so arbitrary undercuts any sense of merit and objective accomplishment. One can look at old lists of faculty and fairly easily figure out how ridiculous many tenure decisions have been over the years.

Gay’s example at Harvard reveals that awarding tenure matters. For too long, tenure has not been based on intellectual contribution, but on factors that have little to do with ideas and scholarship.

To make room for the Claudine Gays of higher education (and there are many others who have been advanced through the ranks because they have the right ancestry and ideology), far better scholars have been shunted aside. This is another reason why our colleges and universities are serving the country poorly.