Last December in the lame duck session, Congress tabled a bill that would have eliminated the mandatory retirement age, currently set at 70. The two sponsors of the bill, Sen. John Heinz (R-Penn.), and Rep. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.), are expected to re-introduce the bill this spring. Universities, particularly Harvard, are strongly opposed to the bill and have been successful in securing a conditional amendment exempting universities from the law for 15 years after the bill's passage. Crimson reporter Lavea Brachman interviewed Henry Rosovsky, dean of the Faculty, last week and conducted a roundtable discussion with Morton Bloomfield. Porter Professor of English; James J. Culliton, assistant to the vice president at MIT; and Dr. Thomas H. D. Mahoney, a strong proponent of the bill and former secretary of elder affairs under former Gov. Edward J. King. They discussed the bill's implications for universities.

Henry Rosovsky

The Harvard Angle

Crimson: From your point of view, though, what are the implications for higher education of a bill that would eliminate mandatory retirement?

Rosovsky: Let's talk on the assumption, for the purposes of conversation, that there will be such a bill and that it will become law. I am opposed to this law, and I think the consequences are unhappy--are on the whole adverse. Let me explain why. The first most obvious thing is that I think it inevitably denies younger scholars opportunity, because we are not living in an age in which universities are going to expand a great deal. I see an improvement in the academic market, but I don't see a major expansionary phase in universities for the balance of the century and well beyond. I think that the population of advanced countries has become relatively stable. I doubt whether we will see the American population reach a billion people the way China's has. If you simply have fewer jobs that means that younger people can't have those jobs.

Another problem, as serious, is that I do think such a bill will adversely affect the quality of higher education. One of the more unusual features of our profession is--and it may not be that unusual--what it requires of young people. Young people frequently are better trained, they have new ideas, they rejuvenate subjects.

The third problem is that being a professor is the kind of occupation. I think, in which if there is no mandatory retirement age, the temptation to hang on is enormous--because what is formally required of us is very limited. You could say, you only have to have the capacity to stand up or sit down before your classes for five hours a week or something. Furthermore, given the economic circumstances in which we live, and they may change, to be sure, there are great economic advantages in hanging on. Most of us retire on pensions that are not particularly adequate. For all of these reasons, I think that people in general will try to hang on as long as possible.

The fourth reason is this: I think that from the point of view of the university, we cannot have uncapping and continue with the tenure system as we know it. I think we will have to change it. But since I am very attached to the tenure system--since I strongly believe in it--I think that we will be paying a very high price, because we will have to change our whole relationship with one another.

Crimson: Exactly how would the bill affect Harvard's tenure system'

Rosovsky: I don't know I'm not even sure that I would care to speculate, and I certainly hope that I'm not dean when this happens. I think that if this law goes into effect--I've discussed this, actually, with President Bok--we should set up a very powerful, eminent committee to study this question and to make suggestions.

Crimson: You feel this committee should be set up in the next couple of months?

Rosovsky: Well, there is some question about--and I don't know anything about this--exactly when this law will go into effect. There is some possibility. I think, that universities will continue to be exempted for a period of time--I'm sort of assuming that that may happen. If that happens, it only postpones the evil day. But I think we then have to address the issue very, very carefully. Now, I can't speculate about what will happen, but what is clear is that we will have some kind of staged review process at long intervals. I think than that will be a very difficult and very painful process for colleagues to go through. I think it will be divisive and potentially will cause a considerable amount of conflict.

I wanted to explain to you why I am attached to tenure, and also to explain one positive element of uncapping the retirement age. I think most people view tenure primarily as a protection of academic freedom. I have never looked at it that way exclusively. It seems to me that tenure has another very important role. I like to feel that professors in a university are not employees. I look upon them as shareholders, if you will, of the institution. It represents a kind of social contract between the individual and the institution. We are not people who are extremely highly paid. There are lots of things that we give up but in return for that, we get enormous benefits. One of these benefits is that we sort of become shareholders in an institution with a long history and a good future. In that sense, I think tenure is a very important thing. The positive thing is this: I recognize that there are people beyond age 70, whom it would be a marvelous thing to have around--no doubt about it. Professors don't lose their abilities at age seventy. There are people who retire here quite often, about whom I have a very genuine sense of regret, because I know that these people still have all their capacities, are marvelous teachers, are marvelous scholars. In one sense, you say, we would have the services of some of these marvelous people longer. In extraordinary circumstances, very extraordinary, we have kept people beyond age 70, for a very short period of time.

Crimson: Some professors I've spoken to suggest the financial burden for the university as the reason why Harvard and other universities are so opposed to uncapping, because older tenured professors are paid more.

Rosovsky: Absolutely not I must say, that has never entered my mind. To be sure, a senior professor is more expensive than a younger professor, but that is only a very minor matter. My real concerns are two: the opportunity for young scholars, and the process of determining specifically when someone should not longer be in the university. Frankly I like the mandatory retirement age, because it doesn't require invidious judgements. 'I think that life is already too full of these judgements, particularly the academic world.