A few days ago, the news of "breaking the tenure system of professors" in Weihai Vocational College (i.e. one professor will be reduced to associate professor and several associate professors will be reduced to lecturer) attracted my attention. Is it an incentive or a threat to break the tenure system of professors This paper makes a critical analysis of the topic. This debate is very interesting and meaningful. It seems that both sides have a reasonable point of view“ It seems that the idea and practice of "breaking the tenure system of professors" has been implemented for many years in some academic institutions, and no significant results have been achieved so far. Just as the government has always advocated that "cadres should be able to go up and down", it seems that there are few news reports about the phenomenon of changing from principal to deputy.

As we all know, the essence of "breaking the tenure system of professors" is to embody the socialist principle of "distribution according to work". However, I have been puzzled. In a position where the income gap is more than double, does it not reflect the principle of "distribution according to the old"? When I was in office 10 years ago, I had a taste of "distribution according to work". At that time, our school had at least three ways to embody the principle of "distribution according to work". One is the difference in the distribution of allowances. I remember that the annual allowance was paid according to the difference between the results of the annual performance appraisal (there were three levels of design, excellent, competent and incompetent, but there were only two levels of actual implementation: excellent and competent). The allowance for employees with good performance was higher. The second is based on the annual assessment results. I had achieved better results in "hard currency" for two consecutive years. I was assessed as excellent at the end of the year and was promoted to the first level of salary according to the school policy at that time. The third is the hierarchical appointment mechanism of professional titles. Specifically reflected in different levels of the same title, for example, professors are from level 1 to level 4, only academicians enjoy level 1 professors, and senior humanities professors in some universities also enjoy the treatment of level 1 professors. Other professors are employed from grade 2 to grade 4 according to their teaching and research achievements. Of course, the specific measures to implement the "distribution according to work" mechanism vary from school to school, which is the autonomy of the University.

As far as I know, it is a common phenomenon that the annual income difference between professors in our university is 1-5 times. In addition to academicians, high-income people also have those hat talents who enjoy high annual salary during the implementation period and those who work hard to achieve fruitful results. Does this income gap not embody the principle of distribution according to work? As we all know, the tenure system of university professors is an important feature of faculty appointment in European and American universities, and the crystallization of their wisdom after hundreds of years of higher education. Some of our universities call the "tenure system of professors" the "long-term employment system". Its core is to be an assistant professor (or lecturer) to become a tenure (professor or Associate Professor) after several years of "test". At this time, as long as they have no major fault, the jobs of professors are protected, and they can not be "broken" or "demoted" due to the temporary "shortage" of results.

Those of us who have crossed the academic River have personally felt that the output of achievements sometimes does not depend on individual hard work, but also opportunities. It is impossible for an academic to meet the annual performance appraisal indicators set by leaders for decades in a row. It is a normal phenomenon that the output of scientific and technological achievements fluctuates with time. Japan's Hokkaido University President Zuo Bohao said: universities do not attach as much importance to results as private research institutions. You can fail, you can still not get satisfactory results after a long period of research, but as long as you work hard in the process, you will get fair evaluation in the University (science times, March 17, 2009). How magnanimous and open-minded is such a scientific and rational management concept of university teachers.

According to the assessment measures of "eager for quick success and instant benefit" formulated by some of our units at present, the jobs of our teachers who "work slowly and work hard" are easy to be "broken" or "demoted", let alone expect to tolerate talents who "grind a sword in ten years". In such an academic environment, how can our university cultivate high-level innovative talents and answer "Qian Xuesen's question?"“ Breaking the "tenure system for professors" involves the appointment and promotion of university teachers, the vital interests of thousands of families and social fairness and justice, and is the foundation of social stability and harmonious development. Our university administrators and the public should not misunderstand the essence and connotation of "breaking the tenure system of professors". Just as Professor Zhan Hongbing of Texas A & M University in the United States introduced the situation of their university on science.com: by widening the income gap between the same teaching posts, they can get a reasonable return for the efforts of fruitful professors, rather than simply taking the "demotion" approach.

I always think that our university administrators, especially the leaders of the school level and secondary departments, need to embody the service concept more in the management of the teaching staff, and never learn from the condescending university leader who "I manage you on behalf of the country" (Liu Qingsheng, fantastic "manage you", science net, August 4, 2017). Lester, the president of Cambridge University, said: universities should provide enough time and space for professors to let scholars choose calmly; Let them contribute to the school's knowledge system; A university is not made up of administrative staff, but teaching staff. The core of Cambridge's academic prosperity is the independence of management (Liu Qingsheng, listening to Cambridge University President Le Sizhe, science net, August 4, 2012). Our university administrators need to use their wisdom and feelings to serve all teachers. They should believe in the professional ethics of most teachers, and let them work, study and live in a stable and peaceful environment. They will certainly "do not need to raise their whip to rise up", release their professional positive energy to the maximum extent, and make contributions to the overall development of the University.