Nikole Hannah-Jones doesn't *deserve* tenure. She hasn't earned it. She doesn't have a Ph.D. and her hack journalism and so-called "history" writing has been discredited by a number of reputable scholars. People like that don't get tenure, and if she did *that* would be the travesty. She'd be getting it because of her name recognition, not her ability to contribute to human knowledge.
Nikole Hannah-Jones doesn't *deserve* tenure. She hasn't earned it. She doesn't have a Ph.D. and her hack journalism and so-called "history" writing has been discredited by a number of reputable scholars. People like that don't get tenure, and if she did *that* would be the travesty. She'd be getting it because of her name recognition, not her ability to contribute to human knowledge.
I think the implication on the NHJ tenure story was that the university allowed a donor to influence the decision. If the department was considering giving it to her, even if I personally might not think she deserved it, I think it is wrong that donors be allowed to influence the process. Those decisions should be in-house and insulated from the whims of donors.
Nikole Hannah-Jones doesn't *deserve* tenure. She hasn't earned it. She doesn't have a Ph.D. and her hack journalism and so-called "history" writing has been discredited by a number of reputable scholars. People like that don't get tenure, and if she did *that* would be the travesty. She'd be getting it because of her name recognition, not her ability to contribute to human knowledge.
I think the implication on the NHJ tenure story was that the university allowed a donor to influence the decision. If the department was considering giving it to her, even if I personally might not think she deserved it, I think it is wrong that donors be allowed to influence the process. Those decisions should be in-house and insulated from the whims of donors.