I am a professor and have served on tenure committees in computer science. The process at a MIT Media Lab could be different, and other factors may have been a

I am a professor and have served on tenure committees in computer science. The process at a MIT Media Lab could be different, and other factors may have been at work here. But here are some observations to help interpret the interesting story: 1. When you go for tenure, your tenure committee solicits letters from 8-10 external reviewers who you have not written papers with, have grants with, etc; i.e., "arms-length" letters from experts in your field. These letter writers generally need to be "full professors" (i.e., tenured, which means "Associate Professor", and then promoted post-tenure to "Full Professor"). These letters are a crucial aspect of a tenure case. For tenure at a place like MIT, these letters basically need to say that "you are the top person in your field" and who "is driving a significant line of work in the field..." etc. Even if you have "2 books, 13k citations, and a few good papers at top venues" as the OP author does, this is a very high bar to clear. If there is another researcher at a less prestigious place who is doing as well or better, this is going to be a structural problem for your tenure at a top-5 place. There are several people who I know in CS who have amazing groundbreaking results in CS who did not get tenure at MIT, and I've guessed this to be the reason. They go on to great amazing places and continue their work (like this author has seemed to do). 2. Above is the process at the top 5 CS schools; it is different at schools in the 5-30 ranked places. I have never seen the type of politics this author talks about. For the most part, pre-tenure professors (called "Assistant Professors") get annual feedback on how they are doing. They get a 3-year review which is a "mini-tenure" case to pinpoint any issues with their record so they have a chance to improve it. And when they prepare their cases, they get a lot of help from mentors in the department. Tenure committees are supportive and try to present the strongest case possible. I am sure there are political places, in which this "who benefits from your tenure" argument makes sense. Maybe the media lab is one such place. My point is that academia is still, for the most part, a model of a great working environment which allows people to thrive and reach their potential. 3. It is a huge privilege to hold an academic position. We produce more research scientists than there are academic spots in the US. I can think of top researchers in the US who could have easily cleared the MIT tenure bar, but who are at "lower ranked" places for various reasons. This author is still doing academic work, and thus has a very fulfilling career in which they drive their own agenda. I for one feel extremely lucky to be an academic; I know there are other people in this world who are more capable than me and would have done better than me had they been given the same resources and opportunities.