It's what I call "a partial crisis of epistemological authority' -- some scholars with training gaps like that occupy positions to which certain expertise is attributed, but they do not actually possess it. Again, this is an unusual situation, but "the magic of the classroom" can camouflage that.
But surely that's more an issue with an academia rather than a counter to the need for knowledgeable people? Like I agree the current system is incredibly flawed and should be replaced but I think the sudden loss of it would be incredibly detrimental.
Yes, academia's the "first resort" place to look for expertise but expertise is not identifiable with its specialists -- it's based on content command. If anything, you need *more* scholars, because small fields are prone to lasting training gaps & bad effects from off-mission actors abusing power.
The current tenure system is a huge problem. In practice, the screening for tenure can actually be screening out competition or screening for docility & complicity. You'd be better off with something like federal employment, where it's indefinite after hiring & a few years but firing for cause.
This whole "magic of the classroom" thing also seems to be a bit downstream of the current tenure system. While some of it's true, a lot is also the flattery and elevated self-conceptualizations that come along with attaining and possessing lifetime employment as the purported "best."
You have some marginal loss of efficiency and responsiveness with language teaching, and overall if positions reduce you won't have robust conversations that further knowledge. But, diss supervision hasn't been a recent priority for many UChicago profs. chicagomaroon.com/25957/viewpo...