Bowing Out

WORKING ITS WAY through Congress now is a bill that, if passed, would fulfill the nightmares of university presidents and nationwide. Before rubberstamping the bill, as seems likely now, congressmen should very carefully ponder the implications for higher education of a proposed elimination of the mandatory retirement age of 70.

On principle, the proposed "uncapping" of retirement age appears to deserve all the legislative momentum it has gathered in recent months. After all, as advocate for the elderly Rep. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) has pointed out time and time again, discrimination on the basis of age is as indefensible as sexism or racism. Qualifications for a job should obviously be based on skill, not some arbitrary chronological distinction.

But applying such an ostensibly reasonable law to colleges and universities would bring disastrous consequences for higher education and, by logical extension, for the country as a whole. Eliminating mandatory retirement would place an unendurable burden on the system of lifetime tenure for professors so essential to academic freedom. It would choke off opportunities for younger scholars to move ahead, impair universities' ability to carry out affirmative action in hiring, and probably force institutions to rethink the tenure process. In short, the idea that professors could hang on indefinitely would damage the lifeline through which the all-important scholarship and teaching of the nation is consistently revitalized.

Educators fighting the uncapping provisions seem likely to obtain some sort of 10 to 15 year exemption from the law if, as expected, it passes. But lawmakers would be wise to go further and make this temporary exemption permanent. Tenure, unlike almost any other form of job security, is a bargain, a bargain that goes to the essence of the university. Professors get unparalleled security and independence, becoming, as Dean of the Faculty Henry Rosovsky said, "shareholders" in an institution with history and long-term health. It is only fair that they allow the same opportunity to open for young, rising stars.

Support of a mandatory retirement age does not imply that professors beyond the age of 70 have nothing to offer. There is no stroke of midnight after which one's faculties and abilities disappear in a flash. Institutions like Harvard should continue to make the transition to retirement as easy as possible--allowing professors to retain their offices, as Harvard does, as will as encouraging them to continue teaching. But consideration for individuals should not obscure the fundamental need for a continued retirement age in the Ivory Tower.