The other evening I was at a dinner with a group of academics and non-academic professionals when the subject turned to tenure. I wasn't surprised by the opposition to tenure expressed by the non-academics, as there is always some resentment that any one group should enjoy particular protection. I was, however, caught off guard by a few of the academics who professed to see no value in tenure and saw it simply as protection for some of their colleagues who they thought should be fired for incompetence or lack of productivity. They saw tenure as making it difficult to get rid of these people. Tenure is something we seem to have taken for granted and have lost sight of its purpose and value. While tenure does afford job security, it goes beyond that in providing the protection that academics need to play their role in the university and in society.

Before tenure, academics were frequently fired for expressing views critical of their government or university, or views that challenged conventional thinking and scholarly orthodoxy. Tenure is the foundation on which academic freedom rests. Without it, academic staff would likely be fired for saying or doing unpopular things in their writing, research and community activities. In publicly funded institutions, such as universities, it is not unusual for government officials or private donors to attempt to pressure university administrators to discipline academics who express contrarian views. Recall the pressure placed on the University of British Columbia to fire Sunera Thobani after comments she made about the 9/11 tragedies.

Times of national tragedy and times of war place inordinate pressure on individuals to conform to what is perceived by the majority as the "national interest." Free intellectual inquiry becomes hostage to legislation, threats of intimidation and pressure from the mass, corporate media. We heard many examples of this at last year's CAUT conference on "Disciplining Dissent." Academics are supposed to promote public debate, to conduct scholarly research, to explore different perspectives and to teach our students to think freely and critically. How can this happen if academics themselves must adhere to the party line or if they fear their words and actions are being monitored for lapses of orthodoxy?

In the U.S., university administrators are under pressure to fire faculty members who take unpopular stands. Organizations such as Campus Watch and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni publish lists of academics they single out for being "disloyal" or critical of U.S. foreign policy.

Conservative commentators in the U.S. media regularly call for the censorship of faculty dissent and equate criticism of the U.S. government's actions with being "unpatriotic." But perhaps they are just following the spirit of the new U.S. Patriot Act that allows federal agencies to obtain a person's library or book-buying records without informing individuals that they are under surveillance. Big Brother is indeed watching.

The Canadian government has introduced a third attempt at producing anti-terrorism legislation. Bill C-17 would give bureaucrats the right to invade individual privacy in the name of security without the individual's consent or knowledge and to use that information for many purposes. It would also give agencies such as CSIS and the RCMP the right to monitor massive amounts of personal data.

My dinner companions argued that it is too difficult to fire tenured professors. Tenure does not prevent firing - it simply requires that there be "just cause" for the employer's action. This is no different from other work environments governed by contractual relationships. Take a look at what happens when a university does make it easier to fire a tenured professor. Recently, the board of trustees at the University of South Florida created a new definition of "misconduct," which they defined as any behavior the university deems "detrimental to the best interests of the university." This definition is so broad it can apply to anything administrators want it to. Under this definition, USF could fire a faculty member for bringing it into disrepute by making controversial statements or criticizing the administration.

The independent, critical role that tenure allows academics to play in society is under attack by those interests who see tenure as a threat to the status quo of entrenched interests. Tenure's role in protecting academic freedom allows academics to speak out freely on issues such as drug safety, the environment, child poverty and the political situation in the Middle East.

Taking away tenure, or making it easier to fire tenured academics, is a threat against democracy, itself. Academic freedom - the freedom to question, to uncover facts, to speak out independently without fear - is an essential component of our democratic society. It remains of critical importance, especially in a time of war. If tenure is taken away, be prepared to be silenced.