Evidence concerning tenure as found in a review of the literature of more than 200 sources is examined. After addressing the tenure process, typology, history, the involvement of the American Association of University Professors, and current legal perspectives, the various alternatives to tenure are considered. The following systemic institutional variables are analyzed in relation to institutional type, to determine their relationship to tenure: teaching effectiveness, rewards and motivation, productivity and aging, collective bargaining, and promotion. It is concluded that there is not evidence to suggest that alternatives to tenure have improved faculty morale, productivity, institutional personnel flexibility, teaching, job security motivation, or led to decreased litigation or overall improved institutional effectiveness, however defined. Additional findings from the literature include: where differences between tenured and nontenured teachers have been found, tenured teachers have usually been rated as more effective than nontenured teachers; it appears that tenured teachers express higher levels of job satisfaction than do nontenured teachers; tenured faculty are not less productive after they achieve tenure, and productivity does not necessarily decrease with advanced age; tenured faculty favor collective bargaining less than nontenured faculty, although the more recent studies seem to find no difference between the groups; and it does not appear that collective bargaining has adverse effects on academic freedom and tenure. It is concluded that there is ample evidence to refute the view that tenured professors are ineffective teachers, or that teachers become unproductive and incompetent after tenure is awarded. Bibliographies are included. (SW)