The Cost of Protection with Slowed Circulation: Long-Term Vitality Traded for Short-Term Stability

A common pattern is emerging across multiple institutional sectors, including universities and research institutions. Policymakers and administrators are increasingly debating how to retain the valuable skills of senior talent approaching retirement. In the short term, such protective measures are effective: they enhance stability, preserve accumulated experience, and delay the loss of expertise. Over time, however, less visible costs accumulate. Talent turnover declines, entry pathways for younger scholars narrow, innovation slows, and institutions gradually trade long-term vitality for short-term stability.

The current debate surrounding the role of distinguished professors over the age of 65 exemplifies this broader structural problem. It is often framed as an ethical dispute or an issue of age discrimination. In reality, it is neither. At its core, this is a question of system design—how a national research ecosystem balances protection with circulation.

One point must be stated clearly at the outset. Failing to retain senior distinguished professors entails significant short-term losses. Their accumulated theoretical insights, international reputation, institutional memory, and global networks are not easily replaceable. Many receive offers for endowed positions abroad, and losing them outright would weaken national research capacity in the immediate term.

An equally important fact must also be acknowledged. Even modest tenure extensions—such as allowing senior professors to remain a few additional years within fixed faculty-quota structures—can significantly delay circulation and amplify long-term costs. In practice, these extensions often push entry into independent academic positions from the early 30s into the late 30s or 40s, weakening generational renewal. Departments are further burdened by recurring reviews of retirement-age extensions, which consume administrative time and create persistent uncertainty in hiring and planning.

Because professorships are limited and university finances are under increasing pressure, prolonged occupancy of tenure-track positions inevitably slows faculty turnover. Younger scholars face delayed entry, extended postdoctoral phases, and fewer opportunities for independent research. Institutions may appear stable, but over time they become increasingly inert, with declining innovation, reduced risk tolerance, and a diminished capacity for adaptation. This outcome reflects structural rigidity rather than individual shortcomings.

The experience of U.S. universities is instructive. Their current stagnation is not the consequence of having many senior professors. Rather, it stems from treating tenure as a sacred, non-transitional status. Protection was maximized, but circulation mechanisms were never institutionalized. Older faculty come to dominate committees, hiring priorities, and field definitions, while risky or paradigm-shifting work struggles to gain support unless it aligns with established frameworks. These dynamics are widely discussed in U.S. higher-education research—often euphemistically—as “pipeline issues” or “adjunctification.” Over time, tenure-track positions contracted, non-tenure labor expanded, and generational renewal weakened. The system achieved stability, but at the cost of dynamism.

There is no reason to reproduce this model. The appropriate national strategy is therefore not exclusion, but role differentiation. Senior professors’ knowledge, experience, and networks should be fully utilized, while the core entry and promotion structure must continue to circulate around younger generations. Hiring famous professors solely to enhance institutional reputation or rankings may deliver short-term visibility, but it can be detrimental in the long run. 

This approach requires acknowledging biological and operational realities without moral judgment. After age 60, health risks rise statistically, recovery tends to slow, and the likelihood of disruption in long-duration, high-intensity projects increases. These are not questions of competence; rather, they reflect execution risk related to continuity and resilience.

Accordingly, the role of senior professors must evolve. Rather than continuing to focus primarily on producing mature, high-quality research, senior scholars should be encouraged to translate their accumulated work into tangible socioeconomic outcomes. This does not imply abandoning academic research; rather, it involves demonstrating the broader value of scholarship and establishing platforms upon which future generations can build. Such a transition represents not a retreat from research, but a reorientation toward maximizing public return on accumulated expertise. Technology transfer, industrial deployment, policy validation, standardization, and intergenerational verification are precisely the domains in which senior scholars can exert their greatest impact.

This debate, therefore, is not about diminishing senior professors. It is about placing them where their contribution is maximized—not frozen in legacy positions, but repositioned as high-impact integrators, validators, and translators of knowledge. What is needed is not the extension of existing protections, but a restructuring that preserves dignity while restoring circulation. Protection has value: it prevents wasteful loss and short-term disruption. But without circulation, protection ultimately weakens the very systems it seeks to defend. Sustainable institutions are those that recognize this trade-off early—and redesign accordingly.