“The Truth About Tenure in Higher Education”

National Education Association
American Federation of Teachers

[Editor’s note: The National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers are the highly politicized parent organizations (e.g. here and  here) of the United Faculty of Florida (UFF). The UFF is the same faculty union FAU Professor James Tracy belonged to at the time of his termination by FAU administrators on January 6, 2016. Tracy was of UFF-FAU chapter president in 2009-2011 when the FAU administration summarily fired five professors in the university’s College of Engineering (here and here). Perhaps coincidentally, the following essay was directly referenced in Lenny and Veronique Pozner’s inflammatory December 10 article published by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that appears to have prompted Tracy’s firing. Today few US faculty actually challenge the status quo, and thus one could make the argument (which NEA/AFT counter below) that tenure may have merely become the guarantee of a handsome sinecure that guarantees the institutional continuity of politically innocuous schools of thought and overall ideological conformity .-JFT]

NEA and AFT have enthusiastically endorsed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Image Credit: American Federation of Teachers

You may well have heard about attacks on tenure and college faculty. After all, people write books and get quoted in the press grinding this ax. The argument is not hard to believe, either; we’ve all seen people in authority, private and public, who care more about protecting themselves than serving their customers. You may have memories of a teacher who didn’t seem to keep up with his or her subject or care very much about his or her students.

But there’s a big problem with the negative polemics about tenure: They are not true. This NEA-AFT Online brochure deals with some of the myths about tenure and responds with the facts. It tells the truth about tenure — a human institution with flaws — but a practice we can be proud of and need to maintain.


Tenure is a lifetime job guarantee.


Tenure is simply a right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or that an academic department needs to be closed or the school is in serious financial difficulty. Nationally, about 2 percent of tenured faculty are dismissed in a typical year.

If it is difficult — purposely difficult — to fire a tenured professor, it’s also very hard to become one. The probationary period averages three years for community colleges and seven years at four-year colleges. This is a period of employment insecurity almost unique among U.S. professions. People denied tenure at the end of this time lose their jobs; tenure is an “up-or-out” process.

During the probationary period, almost all colleges can choose not to renew faculty contracts and terminate faculty without any reason or cause. Throughout this time, senior professors and administrators evaluate the work of new faculty-teaching, research and service before deciding whether or not to recommend tenure. The most recent survey of American faculty shows that, in a typical year, about one in five probationary faculty members was denied tenure and lost his or her job.

Faculty members remain accountable after achieving tenure. Tenured faculty at most colleges and universities are evaluated periodically-among other things, for promotion, salary increases and, in some cases, merit increases. Grant applications and articles for publication are routinely reviewed on their merit by peers in the field. If basic academic tenets and due process rights are observed, this kind of accountability is wholly appropriate. A finding of incompetence or unprofessional conduct can still result in firing.


Tenured faculty don’t work very hard. And when they do work they spend too much time doing meaningless research and too little time teaching.


SURVEYS show clearly that tenured generally publish more, serve on committees and teach more than their untenured colleagues. On average, faculty work 52 hours per week. 

Full-time, tenured faculty must serve on academic committees and, at most four-year colleges and universities, conduct research as well. In spite of these requirements, faculty responding to surveys overwhelmingly report that teaching is their favorite responsibility and that they do more teaching than anything else. According to a government survey, even faculty at research universities spend considerably more time teaching than conducting research.

With regard to research, colleges and universities have very different missions. At a major research university, it is perfectly appropriate to place great importance on the faculty’s research performance. Community colleges place much less emphasis on research, concentrating almost entirely on undergraduate instruction. Other colleges and universities fall somewhere in between.

It is wrong in any case to think of research as the enemy of good teaching. Research and teaching go hand in hand. The best educators are “up” on the latest research and able to inspire students with stories of their own inquiries and interests.

First and foremost, colleges are places of inquiry, and inquiry is the basis of America’s economy, health and culture. Over the years, innovations as varied as margarine, air bags, life-saving pharmaceuticals and now the Internet have resulted from basic or applied research that was college or university based.

Recent studies indicate that research is valued too much, and good teaching too little, in getting the best salaries at many four-year colleges and universities.’ This imbalance is not created by uncaring professors but by fierce institutional competition for government and private research dollars. Generally-and depending on the college’s mission-our unions believe there should be a greater emphasis on good teaching in tenure and promotion decisions and that there should be other rewards for good teaching as well.


Professors say they need to have tenure to have academic freedom which sounds too much like the freedom to do or say whatever they want, no matter how radical or inconsequential. Anyway, the Constitution protects academic freedom; you don’t need tenure for that.


Academic freedom is important because society needs “safe havens,” places where students and scholars can challenge the conventional wisdom of “academic freedom,” any field-art, science, politics or whatever. This is not a threat to society; it strengthens society. It puts ideas to the test and teaches students to think and defend their ideas. But how many professors would feel free to talk about controversial ideas if they knew their jobs were on the line?

Tenure gives faculty the independence to speak out about troubling matters and to challenge the administration on issues of new curriculum and quality.

The problem could be academic: For example, an untenured professor was fired by the University of Georgia when she blew the whistle on the administration’s practice of changing grades and waiving academic standards for athletes. (She was reinstated after a lengthy court battle.)

The problem could be political. In Oklahoma, a number of state legislators attempted to have Anita Hill fired from her university position because of her testimony before the U.S. Senate. If not for tenure, professors could be attacked every time there’s a change in the wind.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but the Constitution does not guarantee that you can’t be fired for expressing your beliefs as part of your job. The courts could decide either way — and the burden of proof shifts sharply to the professor.

What if dismissed professors always had to go to the courts to seek fair treatment? The governance process under tenure may seem cumbersome, but it doesn’t hold a candle to the time and expense of moving disputes from the college board room to the courtroom.

Remember: There are limits to tenure. Tenure does not mean that a science teacher can hold students to his or her belief that the sun revolves around the earth, and it doesn’t mean professors can act unprofessionally.


Just about all professors have tenure.


Most professors do not have tenure, and that’s not good.

No more than one-third of all college and university faculty members are tenured. The reason? More and more colleges are relying on part-time or temporary nontenure-track faculty to teach undergraduates — part-timers constituted about 38 percent of the professoriate in 1987 and grew to 43 percent in 1992.

When a tenured professor retires or a new position is created, too often the new position is not put on the tenure track. Colleges say this gives them greater flexibility to meet student needs. But the real reason is to save money, and the real effect is to lower standards.

Part-time faculty are not unqualified, but they are exploited. Most part-time faculty earn very low “per course” salaries and few, if any, benefits. The nature of their employment (many have a full-time job off campus) often does not enable them to advise students adequately, conduct research or contribute to the academic direction of the institution. A recent national survey indicates one half of part-time faculty do not hold office hours or meet with students outside the classroom.

It’s hard for demoralized faculty members, always conscious of their vulnerability, to bring into the classroom the confidence and creativity necessary for fine teaching. It’s a double shame when part-time faculty are hired to teach courses largely subscribed by part-time students and/or students with special needs, the very students with the greatest need for instructors who are fully connected to the institution and its resources.

So, are you saying everything’s perfect? No, we’re not.

On many four-year college campuses, excellent teaching does not count enough in earning tenure and is not rewarded enough in promotions or salary increases.

The tenure process can be too rigid. For example, it’s not easy for faculty to take a break during the three- to seven-year year tenure clock in order to care for young children. New minority and women faculty sometimes feel pressured to serve on multiple college committees, only to find at tenure time that their committee service doesn’t count much. On many campuses, higher education unions are pushing to place more emphasis on teaching and improve tenure procedures.

Colleges and universities also need to do a better job of setting concrete goals, evaluating successes and failures, and talking plainly to the public about them. Professors who have tenure, just like anyone else, need to be held accountable for their performance. But when a faculty member does the kind of work that’s controversial, or just hard to explain to anyone outside a narrow circle of experts, he or she deserves to be protected from endless self-justification and working in a perpetual state of anxiety. That’s what peer review and tenure are designed to do.

Summing Up

No matter what we hear from polemicists who should — or do — know better, faculty members win tenure because their senior colleagues are convinced they can perform with excellence and a great deal of independence. Tenured faculty are, in fact, successful, highly self-motivated people with a great deal of professional pride.

Due process is a civilized value; the right measure of job security makes people more productive, not less.

To reach the educational standards we all want, we need to have a corps of full-time. experienced faculty in charge of the academic program and committed to the institution. To keep up quality for the next generation of students, we need to keep up opportunities for the new generation of faculty.

In the final analysis, who is in the best position to put academic standards first and shelve other considerations? College administrators? Elected officials? Professors are not perfect but they are educators. If it’s solid education we want, tenure matters.

41 thoughts on ““The Truth About Tenure in Higher Education””

  1. Hullo MHB Administrator. I enjoy reading the open reporting on MHB, unfortunately this one is unreadable due to the colours used. I know that the world is always looking for something extra, but for those who wish to be informed there is nothing equal to the old ‘Black on White’ print. Wishing you all the best for the future, Kevin Stiller, Brisbane, Australia.

  2. It is all part of what Mussolini described as corporatism. It is basically fascism. In our approaching new world we can clearly see the push towards lower pay and turning the public towards serfdom. It benefits the corporation. Having a population of serfs who barely earn enough to maintain a limited existence are much easier to control top down. It is a shame.

    I saw this before I retired from the border patrol. In fact I was a union representative and had a certain freedom to express points of view others were not allowed to.

    This is no longer the case, the union barely exists now days and in fact had to hire an attorney to represent them as they cannot be fired. The union now simply relays their position to the attorney and he presents it to the government.

    1. NWO is meant to asset strip all facets of society, notably the academic communities. Dumbing down has gutted this country. Our educational mills turn out students rated #40 on the worldwide metric, not a very good performance. It’s going as planned, though. It’s more important to ponder the inane vacuum related to which bathroom a transgender individual should use than it is to consider making this a better world for all. As Betty Furness used to say, “progress is our least important product”. How fitting!

  3. NEA/NFT essentially insane to support the war criminal for President. If the membership prefers to support the other candidate, their union dues all go to the Dems, and the war criminal.
    To accept war criminals as a candidate essentially tells us that professors are merely serfs beholding to very highly paid administrators, some of the least qualified faux leaders of the new academic quagmire. Today, if you bring home the research money or write articles that fit tightly with the opinions of the day creating the illusion the school is meritorious and “with it”, life is good. Kids who go to college are already ruined by the previous 12 years of lock-step obeisance and the penchant for considering memorization as learning. Regurgitation is good, reasoning that conflicts with today’s societal insanities is bad. A student must become a carbon copy of his professor and walk the same walk….or else fact the ostracization of marginalization. Been there, done that. John Dewey is alive and well, the puke.

    1. Yes, and most are non represented “independent contractors.” Thus tenured faculty have more in common with their respective administrations, as their privileges and professional advancement are buttressed by such vulnerable labor. Administrators are typically more substantively compensated tenured faculty who’ve been recruited to management.

      1. Professor I can definitely relate to that. In the border patrol once you go to supervisory level, you are out of the union and totally at the beck and call of management. Those who do depend on them for backing. And yes we used to call it the dark side also and say uh oh, no thanks, I still have conscious.

        I couldn’t see myself in front of a briefing trying to convince agents the government was on “our side” and worried about them. They didn’t care if you lived or died out in the desert. It was just a matter of holding another oral interview to find your replacement.

      2. I am pretty convinced I could have retired as a chief, but I would have given up my soul.

        That is not to say however, back in those days we did have those at the supervisory level, that considered themselves just another border patrol agent who was promoted and looked out for you, but if push came to shove ….. well you know.

      3. BGSU in Ohio is the most exploitive State University I’ve ever seen. 37K/year to teach 3 classes/semester in their “School of the Arts” AND do all the extra curricular & committee work the tenured profs did, including coming in on WEEKENDS and running some kind of extra task all semester, like a print lab or other technical duties! The tenured profs taught 2 classes/week and had other $$-making jobs on the side.


    2. It’s unsurprising, I suppose, that McSweeney’s literature and humor site, “Internet Tendency,” turns out to be hotbed of adjunct faculty related satire disclosing a serious critique of the system. Writing teacher John Minichillo, who is “in the last year of a non-renewable teaching contract, and… has no idea what’s next,” addresses tenure in an essay entitled “Office Envy”:

      “Temporary instructors pick up the slack by teaching twice as many classes with twice as many students, for less pay and no chance for promotion. The notion of tenure cannot be separated from the slew of transient professors who prop it up and make it possible. Meanwhile tenure is bestowed on fewer and fewer professors, as the CEO presidents and their strong-arming provosts shrink the ranks, even as the university grows, and since students are, by definition, also temporary, these paying participants rarely notice the downslide during their four- or five-year residencies.”

      Minichillo sees the economic and political pressure towards “contingent faculty” leading to an abandonment of intellectual life:

      “American universities, which have been among the last bastions in the pushback against anti-intellectualism, are currently structured to encourage academics to go chasing something else, and the potential of an entire generation of writers, thinkers, and researchers has been wasted.”

      Perhaps deliberately? The life of the mind is a threat to established authority, who would likely rest easier if they could assure that no one is thinking at all.

      The “Office Envy” essay is here:


      Minichillo’s entire series on the predicament of the transient professor, “How To Be a Better Teacher-Person Through Apathy” is here:


  4. “Over the years, innovations as varied as margarine, air bags, life-saving pharmaceuticals and now the Internet have resulted from basic or applied research that was college or university based.”

    Really? REALLY?

    Even bugs or mold won’t eat margarine, it’s not food. Since 1990, 168 deaths reportedly have been caused by airbags inflating in low severity crashes. Pharmaceuticals (from pharmakeus “preparer of drugs, poisoner”, look it up) don’t save lives, they (and their associated procedures) kill nearly a million people in the US annually.

    Everybody knows that Al Gore invented the internet (The media said so, so it must be true.) 😉

    Is there an equivalent system of tenure for media workers?

  5. This is not entirely off topic as we have here another case of academics from Boston College trying to say the Bosnian pyramids are not real. I assume this is only because they were not discovered by the masonic empire and are now somewhat off limits.

    This pyramid is 300 meters high and our illustrious academic community is saying it doesn’t exist. Take a look at the pics and decide for yourself.


  6. I stopped reading and started skimming at the first mention of students as “customers”. That is likely pivot from which Derrida could have deconstructed this woeful bit of pusillanimous genuflection by the NEA/AFT.

    Contrary to the venal approach of the business “disciplines” at large (particularly the odious pseudo-specialization known as marketing), not everything can be reduced to buyer/seller transactions. Marketers, advertising “professionals”, and (especially) those who fancy themselves a part of the “public relations” “field” seem to take great pride in their shriveled intellects as regards connecting the word “customers” to higher education.

    The vast majority of revered scholars throughout history (and especially in true antiquity of the university institution) would likely be aghast at the thought of the pursuit of knowledge (and, thereby, wisdom) being reduced to mere commerce.

    It is not a clever superimposition. Therefore, it can be said that MGM (whose motto is Ars gratia artis) is actually [in a complete reversal of logical roles] a more erudite and sage institution (ostensibly) than NEA/AFT.

    At this rate, America will lose its competitive advantage [two can play this game] and be brought down to the unquestioning impotence of a China. China can tend the beehive night and day for fantastic levels of production, but America still has the ideas (just barely). Furthermore, there’s no getting out of our downward slide (we produce nothing) unless ideas become of paramount importance. Our secular religion is indeed our Bill of Rights, but tenure in America should be protected vigorously as a sacred tradition not to be trampled by corporatist educators.


    1. True to a majority extent, however coming back to ground level, America has been reduced to no ideas. America is a corporate slave state.

      There is a lot of talk about freedom, apple pie, the flag and such but let us ask ourselves what country is really free. Iceland might enter this debate as it jailed the bankers but nobody cares about a small country in the northern Atlantic.

      The real questions is which country is working for in their own interest to advance “THEIR” interests. China certainly has to come front and center here. We can talk about democracy etc etc. No they don’t have it, but they do have a junta that works in the interests of China. And yes they root out all dissenters.

      The Chinese are rapidly taking over large parts of British Colombia and the Pacific Northwest by sheer numbers. They are advancing their interests. America in addition to Rothschild printing the money actually has to borrow from China to stay afloat financially.

      The Chinese inherently recognize this and stay silent. They are much more intelligent than the average westerner. They can see when things are going their way, as uncomfortable as it may be at times for many. China plays the long haul. Think laoTsu.

      There have been negotiations here and there about China setting up all Chinese towns in the Pacific Northwest, towns which are to be built by China and employee Chinese citizens. Where is the west doing this? The answer is nowhere. We at this point are unclear exactly who the west really is. Is it Europeans? Is it the 25,000 muslim immigrants recently shipped to Canada by military aircraft?

      Russia is slowly stepping up also. They have declared they will not be a melting pot. Their various identities they declare all adhere to the idea of Russia as the mother land and they will continue to merge this national focus. Mass migration we see coming to Europe is something that will not be discussed there and they have declared this openly.

      America on the other hand has become a large international job fare where the locals are being replaced by … well anyone the elite can put on a plane or work through a hole in the border. Is there anyone with a rational mind that can call this freedom., On top of this we see khazars making youtubes rejoicing in the death of European man. Nobody criticizes them, they are afraid they will get fired at the seven eleven or lose their facebook account.

      So no, China is not really free and they won’t really care when they are the dominate population group in North America. They will laugh at old slogans of the bill of rights (which doesn’t even exist) apple pie, freedom of speech, motherhood etc etc, yada yada yada.

      American indians won’t care either as they have been reduced to near extinction by apple pie, motherhood the flag and the American way … and the great ideas emanating from the west.

      Even math, calculus, and the higher sciences were stolen from the Vedas by Pythagoras, Newton, Einstein and other Rothschild agents were patented and called western.

      We are a joke sports fans and we lie to ourselves.

      1. You make some good points.

        America is impoverished in many ways. Basically, the life and brilliance of the country is being depleted. Iceland is an interesting place. I found myself remembering that last week while studying Bobby Fischer.

        To obliquely reference the generally pitiable George W. Bush, dictatorships are certainly efficient. And so perhaps China’s singlemindedness can be said to further the country’s interests.

        However, what you are describing is not very different from American imperialism. I was reminded today by reading Pieczenik’s blog: 700 bases in over 220 countries. Can China say that?

        So then, is the implication that the U.S. is being used? That certainly makes sense (as none of our imperialism truly serves our sovereign interests).

        I’m not sure your statement about borrowing from China is true. I know that is the conventional wisdom in conspiracy circles, but that’s not actually how the issuance of Treasury notes works. That is our debt: Treasury notes. The Chinese hold a rather insignificant portion of our outstanding notes (on the whole).

        As for Russia, you are right that they are (generally) diametrically opposed to the vaunted melting-pot idea which has typified America for so long. But think back to how much territory Russia lost when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Basically, Russia lost a vast majority of its diversity when it lost those lands. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, all the former Soviet -stans. Think Moscow was happy with that tradeoff? No. But now Russia is pretty much a dictatorship. I like Putin. But his posturing is not much different than that of Donald Trump. I like Trump too, but the answer isn’t reactionary nationalism. Yes, the globalist elite have gone too far. They don’t care about immigrants or host countries. They are relishing the chaos. But I still hold that America offers the best chance of turning the tide due to a combination of ingenuity and 2nd Amendment might.

        You are right about immigration: it is now being facilitated illegally. Consider, for instance, the forthcoming Supreme Court decision on United States v. Texas. There’s no doubt what Obama and Jeh Johnson (DHS) are doing through DAPA violates the Take Care clause of the U.S. Constitution.

        So Republicans like Judge Andrew Hanen are right: it’s against the law. BUT…it is a bit callous to look at immigrants as mere numbers or statistics. They’re humans. And the great humanists like Victor Hugo show the way on this issue. Obama, lawless jerk that he is, is actually doing the right thing concerning DAPA. I hate to say it. I loathe Obama. But you have to give the Devil his due sometimes.

        And that’s the American system. Sure, the two political parties are indistinguishable at the top, but there are at least vestiges of debate left in this country. You exercise your opinion on this comment board and I exercise mine. That’s where China will fall short. They can only go so far with their prohibitive homogeneity.

        Dr. Tracy represents free thought. His dismissal represents an effort to silence free thought. The piece we are ostensibly commenting on pushes the notion that schools are mere factories of information where students should be churned out with “an education”.

        Great scholars are great scholarship depend on each thinker having the freedom to question boldly with the protection of a supportive academia. Academia cannot stoop to the lack of reason which typifies politics.

        Dr. Tracy made a case. His case was ignored by Anderson Cooper. His case was ignored by FAU. Dr. Tracy’s ideas should be judged on their merits. Only an open-minded populace can guarantee such a fair appraisal. Tenure should protect professor who have earned it (above and beyond Constitutional protections).

        NEA/AFT sought in this piece to minimize the importance of tenure by offloading list previous areas of concern to the 1st Amendment. Such a flippant sleight of hand did not go unnoticed by me (even though I merely skimmed their drivel).

        I cannot comment on the Khazar aspect you mention because I am genuinely I’ll-informed about it, but is it the tie-in to the tired “Jews are responsible for everything” theory?

        Yes, the Rothchilds were/are generally Jewish, but do you really believe they continue to wield vast power? I’m not so sure they do.

        I suppose Forbes is part of the conspiracy. I believe the richest Jew (by their most recent count) is Michael Bloomberg [and he’s only the 19th richest person in the world]. Soros comes in somewhere in the 30s if I remember correctly.

        If we’re looking for Jewish connections everywhere, we might be sorely disappointed. When we start reasoning that such-and-such is half Jewish, or an orphan raised by Jewish parents, or whatever…we might be experiencing confirmation bias. Things which should refute our hypothesis are incorporated by us to SUPPORT our hypothesis. That’s because we’ve become too emotionally involved with the topic. We’ve lost all ability to reason.

        It even happened to Bobby Fischer. I like him. Genius guy. But somehow he did go overboard. He called for the rounding up of American Jews for reeducation and extermination. I wouldn’t have believed it unless I’d heard it with my own ears. Was it really him talking? If it was, then the guy lost it. The interviewer even says, sheepishly, “Bobby, don’t you think that’s a bit extreme?” Fischer just merely bumps up the order of magnitude (by a couple) from thousands to millions.

        You do have a point though. I think Israel is despicable. American Jews who stand with Israel are completely delusional. They learned nothing from the Holocaust.

        Also, I support CODOH. Faurisson and others are serious scholars who should be given an opportunity to openly discuss “the problem with the gas chambers” and other such issues. If there’s nothing to hide (regarding the Holocaust), then there should be nothing wrong with us honoring the dead with truth. If there were no gas chambers, then we should be rejoicing. If 3 million Jews died instead of 6 million, we should be rejoicing. If 600,000 Jews died rather than 6,000,000, then we should be rejoicing.

        The Palestinians are suffering at the hands of the only officially Jewish government in the world. It’s disgusting.

        We can denigrate apple pie and motherhood all day long, but what’s the point? I have no illusions about the state of our country. We’re in trouble. America’s never been perfect. It isn’t perfect now. It will never be perfect. But our minds are reason for optimism.

        Absolute pessimism will get us nowhere. We need to admit it: yes, we slaughtered the Native Americans and stole their land. But does that mean we’ve never had a great idea?

        We can even say: we are the worst country on Earth. It might be true. It might be a good reset–a good starting point. But then what?

        Ideas are bad? China is the greatest? Totalitarian government is awesome and peachy?

        I don’t think so.

        Our government becomes daily more like that of China. Te executive branch is out of control. They don’t even deserve typographical capitalization.

        Maybe the Supreme Court will censure the executive branch with United States v. Texas (like they did in 1995 to the legislative branch with United States v. Lopez), but it would be a hollow victory.

        Whatever happens to the least of us will eventually be visited on all. Immigrants don’t want to come to the U.S. because we’re losers. As bad as things have gotten (by our own standards), people still want to come here because their countries are 100 times worse. The answer isn’t to prevent them from migrating. Nor is the answer to kick them out. Those are terribly uncreative ideas.

        What goes around really does come around. Of course, our border protection is a joke. There is no defending that farce. I don’t know what the answer is, but I know what it isn’t.

        Your last point about math and sciences being “stolen” doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. And, again I’m guessing, but not everyone is a Rothschild agent. The Rothchilds have done a pretty good job disappearing from history. God forbid their power actually waned…

        I’ve taken all of your points seriously though I may have made light of too many of them. Rest assured I will keep in mind everything you’ve said and try to find the truth and speak it boldly. I trust you will do the same.


        1. Here: it took me one second to find these particular nominees for the tribe who is sapping the very life blood from our country. Just like in the Wiemar Republic, they have perverted our Money, our Schools, our Religions, our Youth’s Culture and Culture in general… take a gander, and these are just the most powerful tip of the iceberg:

          Jews in the Barack Obama Administration | Jewish Virtual Library

          Current Members
          Tony Blinken Deputy National Security Advisor
          Danielle Borrin Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Deputy Director of Public Engagement
          Gary Gensler Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
          Jonathan Greenblatt Special Assistant to the President and Director, Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation (Domestic Policy Council)
          Jack Lew Secretary of the Treasury
          Eric Lynn Middle East Policy Adviser
          Matt Nosanchuk Associate Director, Office of Public Engagement for Jewish Outreach
          David Plouffe Senior Advisor to the President
          Daniel Rubenstein Ambassador to Syria
          Dan Shapiro Ambassador to Israel
          Gene Sperling Director, National Economic Council
          Aviva Sufian Special Envoy, U.S. Holocaust Survivor Services (Inaugural role)
          Adam Szubin Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control (Treasury)
          Janet Yellen Chairwoman, Federal Reserve
          David Cohen Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Agency
          David Saperstein Ambassador for Religious Freedom
          Amy Rosenbaum Director of Legislative Affairs
          Raffi Freedman-Gurspan Liaison to the LGBT Community

          Former Members
          Ben Bernanke (2006-2013) Chairman, Federal Reserve
          Mary Schapiro (2009-2012) Chairwoman, Securities and Exchange Commission
          Steven Simon (2009-2012) Senior Director, Middle East/North Africa, National Security Council
          Rahm Emanuel (2009-2010) Chief of Staff to the President
          David Axelrod (2009-2011) Senior Advisor to the President
          Elena Kagan (2009-2010) Solicitor General of the United States
          Peter Orszag (2009-2010) Director of the Office of Management and Budget
          Lawrence Summers (’09-’11) Director National Economic Council
          Mona Sutphen (2009-2011) Deputy White House Chief of Staff
          James B. Steinberg (’09-’11 ) Deputy Secretary of State
          Dennis Ross (2009-2011 ) Special Assistant to the President
          Ronald Klain (2009-2011) Chief of Staff to the Vice President
          Jared Bernstein (2009-2011) Chief Economist/Economic Policy Advisor to the Vice President
          Susan Sher (2009-2011) Chief of Staff to the First Lady
          Alice Rivlin Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility & Reform
          Lee Feinstein (2009) Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor
          Mara Rudman (2009) Foreign Policy Advisor


          Since when did it EVER become a good idea for dual citizens to be in charge of a government of any country? THIS is the indicator of the globalist/zionist agenda.

        2. I’ve seen these lists. Your point about dual citizenship is very important.

          But I still think it’s too easy to make a blanket statement about Jews. I’ll admit, the footage of AIPAC disgusted me.

          But once again we should be treating people as people.

          What is the real Jewish conspiracy? It’s probably a lot less spectacular than most suspecting people think.

          Wouldn’t it be boring (the banality of evil) if the real Jewish conspiracy was just a form of nepotism?

          In other words, being Jewish might get you an extra little “kick” or advantage in getting certain jobs. So what? That is always going to happen with minorities. It’s human nature. Jews are a minority (among religions in the U.S. and world). Minorities will always look out for their own. It’s great if you’re Jewish and it lands you a job. It’s not so great if you’re not Jewish (like myself) and happen to get passed up for said job.

          How long are we going to whine about it?

          I do agree that American-Israeli dual citizens are a security threat and should under no circumstances have any high-level security clearances.

          In any case, please excuse me for playing the devil’s advocate (so to speak). I just want to make sure that our reasoning is sound.

          I have a lot to learn and I’m not ashamed to say that. Maybe everything I’ve written is naive and erroneous. I hope not, but it’s possible.

          Again, the “Jews are responsible for everything” reasoning is a very easy theory upon which to fall back. What crimes are we accusing anyone of? Being Jewish isn’t a crime. We need more than circumstantial evidence of a nebulous conspiracy to have an actionable hypothesis.

          I don’t doubt the power of Jews. I also don’t think they’re all sitting around twiddling their thumbs in front of grand fireplaces while plotting evil.

          So Janet Yellen is a Jew. Ok, good for her. So Greenspan was a Jew. Good for him. Yes, the Federal Reserve is suspicious as hell, but what exactly are we accusing these people of? I know economists who don’t even understand how the Federal Reserve works. If you learned how the Federal Reserve works from a radio show, then you probably don’t really understand it.

          That said, fractional-reserve banking is an immense scam. Money creation through that mechanism is completely insane.


        3. In other words, being Jewish might get you an extra little “kick” or advantage in getting certain jobs. So what? That is always going to happen with minorities. It’s human nature. Jews are a minority (among religions in the U.S. and world). Minorities will always look out for their own.

          Social scientists regard a “minority” classification as one that includes both population and means. While this is not intended to be an endorsement of dublinsmick or other commenters’ various remarks, some of which might be deemed “anti-semitic,” most observers can safety conclude with a wealth of empirical evidence that the global Jewish numeric population is inversely proportional to its monetary, political and cultural might and will.

        4. I agree that Jewish power is disproportionate to its associated population (Jews). That is highly problematic.

          It is, therefore, unfair. But what then is the (dare I say) solution? Surely it’s not the lunacy which Bobby Fischer advocated of rounding up Jews for reeducation and extermination.

          I understand that talking about Jews in anything other than glowing terms is all but disallowed. This is very problematic.

          That’s why I philosophically support the idea of CODOH (though I have read only a small amount of their resources). The idea is sound: Committee for Open Discussion of the Holocaust.

          But again: there is a problem. [I shan’t date call it the Jewish problem.]. To wit, isn’t this the same argument ethnic minorities have against “white people”?

          In other words, it’s an economic/power argument. White people are far more likely to be rich than brown or black people. That too is obviously unfair. So what do we do about that problem?

          We can point these things out all day long without (perhaps) realizing that we are crafting a solution. Awareness is a solution in its own right, but it will no doubt spur others to actions (which might deviate from the careful, considered reasoning we have applied).

          I am guessing by the articulate response that our moderator is Dr. Tracy or someone similarly well-educated. I appreciate the clarification.

          I am, however, a bit surprised if I have struck a nerve. Perhaps the need to quote me was borne out of scholastic completeness (which I profoundly respect).

          But I am wondering if that is truly the case. I have left almost nothing but comments of praise on this esteemed blog until recently.

          I would hate to think that I have not earned the latitude to disagree for the sake of true argument.

          It seems that this comment section will get old very soon if it is nothing but self-congratulatory Jew spotters.

          The more I think about it, the more I realize how wise Alex Jones is. If he is a genuine truth-seeker (and I am undecided about that), then he is right to regard Jew bashing as a trap. There would (logically) be nothing which rich, powerful Jews would want more than for investigative minds to sully themselves with something so easily denigrated as “anti-Semitism”. I realize that phrase is inaccurate (in that it doesn’t include other Semitic peoples such as Muslims), but I am using it in the traditional sense.

          I humbly submit these thoughts to the thínkers on this board. I’m sorry if I’ve unnecessarily stirred up some kind of controversy.

          Thank you,


        5. @MHB
          Some might consider it that but I don’t have an antisemitic bone in my body. I have great sympathy for the Palestinians.

          However the number of Khazars gathered around the control levers of the west is concerning and they are about 99% non-semitic people.

        6. Israeli Citizens in the US Congress and the Obama Administration (Updated May 19, 2014)

          OBAMA ADMINISTRATION [Current] [9]

          Jack Lew – Chief of Staff to the President
          David Plouffe – Senior Advisor to the President
          Danielle Borrin – Associate Director, Office of Public Engagement; Special Assistant to the Vice Preisdent
          Gary Gensler – Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
          Dan Shapiro – Ambassador to Israel
          Gene Sperling – Director National Economic Council
          Mary Schapiro – Chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission
          Steven Simon – Head of Middle East/North Africa Desk at the National Security Council
          Eric Lynn – Middle East Policy Advisor


          Rahm Emanuel (2009-2010) Chief of Staff to the President
          David Axelrod (2009-2011) Senior Advisor to the President
          Elena Kagan (2009-2010) Solicitor General of the United States
          Peter Orszag (2009-2010) Director of the Office of Management and Budget
          Lawrence Summers (’09-’11) Director National Economic Council
          Mona Sutphen (2009-2011) Deputy White House Chief of Staff
          James B. Steinberg (’09-’11 ) Deputy Secretary of State
          Dennis Ross (2009-2011 ) Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director for the Central Region to the Secretary of State
          Ronald Klain (2009-2011) Chief of Staff to the Vice President
          Jared Bernstein (2009-2011) Chief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor to the Vice President
          Susan Sher (2009-2011) Chief of Staff to the First Lady
          Lee Feinstein (2009) Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor
          Mara Rudman (2009) Foreign Policy Advisor Sources: White House

          112 CONGRESS (current)

          THE US SENATE [13]

          Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
          Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
          Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
          Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
          Al Franken (D-MN)
          Herb Kohl (D-WI)
          Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
          Joseph Lieberman (Independent-CT)
          Carl Levin (D-MI)
          Bernard Sanders (Independent-VT)
          Charles Schumer (D-NY)
          Ron Wyden (D-OR)
          Michael Bennet (D-CO)


          Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
          Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
          Howard Berman (D-CA)
          Eric Cantor (R-VA)
          David Cicilline (D-RI)
          Stephen Cohen (D-TN)
          Susan Davis (D-CA)
          Ted Deutch (D-FL)
          Eliot Engel (D-NY)
          Bob Filner (D-CA)
          Barney Frank (D-MA)
          Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)
          Jane Harman (D-CA)
          Steve Israel (D-NY)
          Sander Levin (D-MI)
          Nita Lowey (D-NY)
          Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
          Jared Polis (D-CO)
          Steve Rothman (D-NJ)
          Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
          Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)
          Adam Schiff (D-CA)
          Brad Sherman (D-CA)
          Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
          Henry Waxman (D-CA)
          Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
          John Yarmuth (D-KY)


        7. The most suspicious to me (aside from the neocon dual citizens of the W. era) is the assistant chairman of the Federal Reserve…Stanley Fischer, I believe? That guy absolutely has no business being part of that board. –Paul

        8. Pauly I like to think I have an innate sense of when someone is speaking from the heart, and to me you are.

          I am going to have to say this however, one must understand who controls the world to have a vague idea of what is going on and why.

          The 6 media conglomerates which control the west are all eternal victims. They write the script and most everyone buys it. They print the money, they control the vatican which owns Rome. It is the largest corporation on planet earth. They are legally in control of the city of London. This is not a conspiracy it is outlined in law books including Black’s law book. That is what the courts go back, not somebody’s opinion. That is why the flag in courts has yellow tressels. It is English Maritime law. We are owned and always have been.

          In fact the English queen owns one sixth of the earths land base and she in turn is owned by Rome. Admittedly she is only a front for the Roman empire which never died, their jesuit army simply controls things behind the scenes. The wealthiest families in Rome always controlled the vatican and guess which tribe they belong too? Almost all of the popes had tribe background.

          I would leave some links but it would get caught up in spam.

        9. I can tell you are speaking from the heart as well.

          It does get a bit confusing. Roman Jews control the Vatican? Ok. The Vatican controls Rome? That seems pretty evident.

          The Vatican holds land deeds for the entire City of London? I don’t know about that one. Excuse my ignorance, but I understood Black’s Law to be a reference book. You’re saying Black’s Law specifies Jewish ownership of City of London property? What does that have to do with law? Why would such facts be in a law reference book?

          Again, forgive me if I am overlooking something.

          I understand there are many Jewish bankers. Banking is a vile profession. But don’t we have to equally condemn the non-Jewish bankers? Not every banker is Jewish.

          Are you saying Protestantism is a ruse? A ruse for what? To cover for Catholicism? Which is itself a ruse?

          To have everything continually return to Jewish culpability (back to Ancient Rome?!?) stretches credulity.

          The Queen is controlled by the Vatican which is in turn controlled by Jews? Believe me, I have the capability of mental abstraction, but this again seems to be a rather forced postulate.

          That being said, I adhere to my disclaimer. That being: I don’t know if I know what I’m talking about. I’m trying to fathom what you’re saying. I suppose it does take a lifetime of research to really be articulate on these matters.

          What you mention about media conglomerates is definitely a huge problem. I’m sure Dr. Tracy could speak to that (if he hasn’t already).

          Again, thank you for your thoughtful comments. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood or mischaracterized any of your statements.


        10. The “popes” and “yarmulkes” made me laugh 🙂 I never thought of that. I immediately got an image of Francis in my head. But to answer your question: maybe because Jesus was Jewish? I don’t know. There’s also this word zucchetto (sp?) that I’m remembering.

          Again, what if the truth is more boring? Like a cross-cultural effort to cover male pattern baldness 🙂 –Paul

        11. I have to take issue with you on allowing immigrants into our country in the same way it is happening in Europe-these are weaponized hordes, unruly, unmanageable and intended to be that way, the first time these mongrels show up here and rape women there is going to be a lot of killing and resulting chaos, Americans don’t tolerate this kind of behavior,
          the solution is not to allow the debacle happening right now in Europe, but Americans should show up in droves and refuse to allow these people into their communities,
          this ridiculous appeal to emotion constantly is what has already allowed illegals to make up 20 miilion of our population, but at least with Mexico for the most part they are working people looking for jobs, what we see in Europe is quite different,
          there are other solutions, primarily to depose and arrest those leaders who have concocted this plan to start with

        12. I agree that there is something fishy going on with the “weaponization” of immigrants (as you call it). Remember, for instance, that the front for SPECTRE in Thunderball was the Organization For Stateless Persons.

          What is going on in Europe is very sad. But how “weaponized” can masses be? In other words, what are the unnatural (and devious) aspects of the mass migration into Europe from American-created conflict zones? It seems that the “weaponization” is the facilitation of these masses. I do imagine Soros is indeed operating a bit like Emilio Largo and his cynical confreres while kicking it leisurely on the Disco Volante somewhere.

          One of the big problems in the U.S. is the economic result of admitting unskilled laborers. If said immigrants likewise do not speak the lingua franca (English), that is doubly troubling.

          In all, you make some very good points. There are people and institutions taking advantage of the current lax immigration opportunities in the U.S.

          But as a U.S. citizen in Texas, I see migrants (all migrants) as my brothers and sisters. Maybe I’m a dupe. I question a lot of things. But I’m not ashamed to say that I see people as people. On a personal level, it is right to treat people humanely and not as mere statistics.

          As I said, there must be better solutions than the wall-building of Trump. It is reactionary every sense. It’s not a real answer. I don’t buy Hillary’s “bridge-building” blather either. Her husband was using that hackneyed metaphor when I was a kid. I don’t buy that other. I see through her.

          It is a touchy subject. We’re not creating enough jobs to let everybody in. That’s putting it mildly.

          Again, I appreciate your comments and admit I don’t have all the answers to this conundrum.


  7. Maybe losing tenure is not as bad as one might think when seen in the light of other communist methods of stifling dissent, or even the possibility of dissent:

    “For Mao, the No. 1 enemy was the intellectual. The so-called Great Helmsman reveled in his blood-letting, boasting, “What’s so unusual about Emperor Shih Huang of the China Dynasty? He had buried alive 460 scholars only, but we have buried alive 46,000 scholars.” Mao was referring to a major “accomplishment” of the Great Cultural Revolution, which from 1966-1976 transformed China into a great House of Fear.”


  8. some universities force tenured prof to go through mandatory 7-year reviews, so the pressure and muzzle never let up…

  9. As long as the nation allows this political model to exist nothing will change-we allow secret societies to pervade our system, moneyed interests to control our money supply, buy our elected leaders, write our books, tell us what the news is, control all gateways of power-in the meantime we all wax on about the current bleak news of the day

  10. This youtuber “HowIseeit” prevailed on a copyright challenge over Lenny Pozner. With that and Professor Tracy’s results should that not establish that , on some level, Lenny had committed fraud ? Should not the basis of the harassment allegations against Professor Tracy be dismissed ?

    1. Most likely, a judgment of fraud against Lenny would be “smoothed over” by the REAL perps. As in, the good ol’ gubbermint. This case is similar to the Sandy Hook situation, both highly effectuated by our dearest Uncle Sam and the Foggy Mountain Boys from DOJ.

  11. I have to say, I was shocked and appalled when I read that Professor Tracy was fired from his tenured position over his views on controversial events like the BMB and the SHS. Even more so, as the FAU administration used the pretext of his “failure to report extracurricular employment” or some such evasion, as its justification. It is quite clear that they were being pressured by the trustees, or by some unseen third party to terminate his employment because of his political speech. This is precisely what tenure is intended to protect, so his firing was clearly a very illegal and underhanded business.

    In fact, Tracy was merely doing his job as a professor of media studies, and doing it well. What better way to get students to understand the ambiguous role that the media plays in writing history’s first draft, than to question and examine the anomalies in the official narratives of major events like the JFK assassination or the collapse of the WTC towers on 911, or indeed the bizarre tale that we know of as the Sandy Hook Shooting? It is quite telling that they did not focus their attack on his critique of the Boston Bombing, for in that case the evidence of government fraud is quite unambiguous. Instead, the cowardly FAU administrators took up the cause of the mysterious Lenny Posner in a case where all the hard evidence of malfeasance has been destroyed or suppressed.

    What does it tell us when bright students can graduate from college unaware that there was a coup-de-tat in America in 1963, or that the Vietnam war was triggered by a fictional attack on a US warship? I have nieces and nephews who are ignorant of these historical truths, and who ridicule the notion that the WTC buildings were demolished through controlled demolition. They all went to elite colleges like Yale, Oberlin, Williams and Oxford University. The few who went Amherst or Hampshire College, however, seem to be more aware and open to the truth. Perhaps Professor Tracy might consider looking for a position at either of these schools. They would be lucky to have him on their faculty.

  12. MHB Administrator(whomever you may be, lol) “Tenure” has a very specific legal definition regarding a pledge to a feudal lord in return for PROTECTION from scrutiny. Sound familiar? That those who created the modern PENSION(TIAA-CREF) system would also create the COLLEGE LOYALTY PLEDGE system in the guise of FREE SPEECH? That what we label “education” is in fact a COMPLETE CHARADE? Check ENGLISH LAW for those that don’t understand this…and if not: “The Underground History Of American Education” for further historical background.

Comments are closed.