Since we know the proposed "Post Tenure Review Policy", if adopted, will be costly, its supporters need to argue that we will definitely profit from it. Speculating that we might profit from it, is not good enough. The inevitable costs of such a policy include getting all departments (> 60?) to write polices, getting those policies approved, and the in perpetuity annual cost of doing the reviews. There are no inevitable benefits. Thus a "no" vote is justified.

But can't we count getting the regents, President Jischke, and Interim Provost Seagrave off our backs on this issue an inevitable benefit? Aren't they insisting that we have such a policy? The latter two are, but the regents only requested a policy. Isn't that enough reason to vote "yes"? Not when the proposal is bad. Were the proposal arguably good, they would be explaining that to us not just leaning on us.

Didn't the regents justify their request? No (not if the minutes of their meeting are complete). But their staff, in recommending that they make the request, gave one (and only one) reason: "in order to ensure the public's confidence in the integrity of academic tenure." But tenure isn't failing and there isn't a clamor against it, so why the costly "fix"? And where were these tenure-defending regents when a Register headline told ordinary readers (those who understand "post-tenure review" to mean "review after tenue") that tenured ISU faculty were not accountable because they were not reviewed? The regents chose silence rather than write the Register that everyone--tenured or not--is reviewed annually. On that basis one may question whether the requested additional reviewing will be used to defend tenure. The current clearly reviews aren't. (A fuller 3+ page account of how foolishly the regents arrived at their request has been circulated separately, cf. e.g. the ISU AAUP web page.)

These reviews are not needed, and rejecting the proposal isn't likely to prevent faculty who feel under-reviewed (are there any?) from getting the additional reviewing they desire. They should just ask their DEOs and departments for more. If they feel everyone in their department needs more reviewing they can lobby their departments and DEOs for it. If post-tenure reviews had real merit they would likely have already sprung up in most departments in this way. What we are being asked to do is impose more reviewing on all departments. The departments that are doing these additional reviews are sources of complaints about unfairness, stories about faculty who won't sacrifice the time needed to do the reviewing right, and portfolios so voluminous that no one seriously examines them.

The proposal leaves most of the details up to the departments. This exposes local minorities (some as small as one person) to the druthers of local majorities or locally dominant groups (some may be as small as one person, e.g. a DEO or dean).

Is there really any serious support amoung the faculty for additional reviews? Some want a particular goldbricker taken care of, but that can be done without reviewing everyone again and again. The AAUP is against this. TQM exponents caution us that reviewing often just irritates the person reviewed. And it will cost us. Every year. That is certain. Will we gain anything? That is conjectural. Vote "no". Then we can have a sober dialogue with the regents in the fall.

Bryan Cain

Mathematics