AAUP Guidelines for the Development of

ISU Departmental Post-Tenure Review Policies

This document provides guidance to individual academic departments at Iowa State University in developing policies, plans, and procedures to implement the post-tenure review (PTR) measure adopted in the recent ISU faculty referendum.

Guidance is needed for many reasons. First, the referendum measure is not a policy per se but only the outline of a policy, with a directive to the sixty plus ISU academic departments to fill in their own details. (The text of the referendum statement is included in an appendix at the end of this document.) Because many issues are common to all departments, the referendum directive threatens to cause a huge duplication of effort. Using these guidelines, which address common, key issues in a unified framework, departments can significantly reduce what would otherwise be a wasteful expenditure of time and resources.

A department-by-department approach also threatens to result in a lack of uniformity in the resulting policies. It is, of course, necessary and proper to adapt the review procedure to the modes and styles of teaching, research, and extension customary in each field. However, the core values of academic freedom of expression and inquiry are universal. A hodge-podge of departmental policies will have the potential to leave faculty in some departments vulnerable to abuse of the post-tenure review process, thereby weakening the institution of tenure, the bulwark of academic freedom. These guidelines focus, in particular, on the challenges of protecting academic freedom that are common to and must be met by each academic department.

Another reason for these guidelines stems from the low participation rate in the faculty referendum. While the measure passed by a comfortable margin of those voting, it is most uncomfortable that, of the entire faculty, 47.7% did not vote at all, a full ten percentage points more than the number who voted in support of the measure. More faculty members need to get involved in this crucial issue.

Much of the explanation for the low participation lies in the fact that the language of the measure appears simple and benign. Perhaps it is. The reason the language is simple, however, is that it leaves a lot out, and much of what is left out is the elaboration of adequate safeguards for individual faculty members. As we will show below, a fuller and more careful consideration of the contingencies reveals substantial weaknesses in the protective language. We believe that faculty members need to be fully cognizant of the down-side potential, so that they may be better informed and motivated to participate in departmental policy drafting. More so than usual, the devil is lurking in the details.

In the sections that follow, we address various issues that need to be included in every department’s PTR policy and recommend model language where appropriate.

Issue #1: General Philosophy of Post-Tenure Review

There are essentially two competing philosophies regarding post-tenure review. One is by nature adversarial and punitive. In this view, post-tenure review is a method of keeping the pressure on tenured faculty to produce and of singling out slackers for sanction. Couched in the language of “accountability,” the post-tenure review process, in this view, rejects the presumption of professional competence established by the award of tenure and shifts the burden again to the faculty member to prove that he or she merits retention of position and perquisites. At its core, this view regards tenure itself as an impediment to institutional flexibility and envisions post-tenure review as a means to redirect faculty activities toward the administration’s priorities of the moment.

The alternative, non-adversarial view regards post-tenure review as an opportunity for a faculty member to reflect on his or her own long-term scholarly goals, to revalidate prior means and objectives or to choose new avenues or both. In this view, post-tenure review is essentially a self-directed activity that can draw on the perspective of trusted colleagues in a supportive dialog. The desired outcome is creative renewal generated from within rather than discipline imposed from above.

The official position of the AAUP is clear. In both its original policy statement on post-tenure review in 1983 and especially in its subsequent report in 1998 (see both at http://www.aaup.org/postten.htm), the AAUP rejects the first view in favor of the second. The association strongly cautions against any mechanism or procedure that attempts to shift the burden of proof regarding continued competence from the institution that granted tenure and back to the faculty member who previously earned tenure. Post-tenure review must not undermine the institution of tenure, nor can it be allowed to replace or to alter existing formal disciplinary procedures with their attendant evidentiary, due-process, and appeal rights.

The language of the recent ISU faculty referendum also supports the second view: the review process “does not change the university’s commitment to academic freedom.” Unfortunately, the language of the referendum is sorely lacking in the specifics of protecting the rights of tenure. Therefore, we believe the following language is needed in every departmental PTR policy document.

Recommended Language Regarding Academic Freedom and Tenure:

“It is the overall philosophy and mission of this document to guide the development of departmental post-tenure review (PTR) policies toward a vision of creative self-renewal and away from a punitive vision, which so threatens individual academic freedom. Toward this end, the XYZ Department hereby reaffirms its commitment to academic freedom and to the institution of tenure which is its surest guarantee. Specifically, this department reaffirms its adherence to the AAUP’s 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, and 1983 policy on post-tenure review. Where conflicts exist or arise between this department’s post-tenure review policy or procedures and these AAUP documents, the latter shall prevail.”

Recommended Language Regarding the Nature of the PTR Process:

“The purpose of post-tenure review in the XYZ Department shall first and foremost be to encourage the creative renewal of the individual faculty member through a self-directed review that respects the right of each tenured faculty member to exercise personal choice over scholarly activities, within the general bounds of professional conduct. In the words of the AAUP policy on PTR, ‘such a review must not become the occasion for a wide-ranging fishing expedition in an attempt to dredge up negative evidence.’ Rather, the PTR process must in all cases and aspects reaffirm the dignity and honor of the academic profession and the personal and professional respect to which a tenured faculty member is entitled.”

Issue #2: Frequency of Reviews and Personnel to Be Reviewed

The ISU referendum proposal was widely touted as providing for a review every seven years. Unfortunately, the actual language was that a review shall be done “at least once every seven years.” (emphasis added) In the hands of an unduly aggressive or a vindictive DEO, this language would permit a review every year or even every six months. The departmental PTR policies should explicitly establish the interval understood by the referendum voters.

In addition, a PTR would be a wasteful expenditure of resources were it to come close on the heels of a more exhaustive review for promotion or tenure. Furthermore, a faculty member must be given adequate time to establish a record of performance after initial appointment or the initial adoption of the department’s PTR standards or any change in the faculty member’s position responsibilities.

It is recognized that some departments already have in place PTR-like policies. For those departments, procedures will need to be devised to effect a transition from the existing review schedule to the new review schedule under the new policy. Circumstances will vary by department, but in all cases a priority should be placed on seeking voluntary adjustments of review schedules. Moreover, as new criteria are introduced for the assessment of any faculty member, that faculty member must be given adequate time—i.e., at least seven years—to establish a record of performance under the new criteria before being reviewed under those criteria.

Finally, all persons holding tenure in a department must be reviewed with equal frequency, without privilege or exemption.

Recommended Language Regarding the Frequency of Reviews and Personnel to Be Reviewed:

“Each individual tenured faculty member shall be reviewed no more than once every seven years, except that an earlier review may occur upon the written request of the faculty member in question. Specifically, except by such individual request, no post-tenure review shall commence until seven complete academic years have passed since the most recent of the following dates: the effective date of the appointment to the ISU faculty; the effective date of the award of tenure; the completion date (after appeals) of the most recent review for promotion; the completion date (after appeals) of the previous post-tenure review; the effective date of any change in the faculty member’s position responsibility statement; or the effective date of the adoption of this department’s post-tenure review policy.

“Beginning after the seventh year following the initial adoption of this policy, the department by random process or by solicitation of volunteers or by some combination shall select a fraction of its tenured faculty roughly equal to one-seventh for review in the next year and shall continue in like manner until all tenured faculty have been once reviewed before beginning a second cycle of reviews. Faculty members may be reviewed before the seventh year after initial adoption if and only if they volunteer to be reviewed.

“No individual holding tenure in whole or in part in this department shall be exempt from review under the normal schedule by reason of administrative appointment within or without the department. However, no individual shall be scheduled for review in any year in which he or she shall be absent from campus due to medical, disability, family, maternity or paternity, faculty improvement, disciplinary, or other approved leave, paid or unpaid.”

Issue #3: Selection and Composition of Advisory Panel

To assist and support the individual faculty member in his or her self-directed review, a panel of trusted colleagues should be jointly appointed by the faculty member and his or her DEO or equivalent. To emphasize the supportive nature of the panel’s task, we suggest it be named the faculty member’s “Advisory Panel.” The most useful advice will result if the members are selected for both their general scholarly experience and for their knowledge of the individual faculty member’s chosen area of specialization. The size and composition of the Advisory Panel may vary by department and individual case, but, to implement genuine peer review, the panel should in all cases be staffed only by tenured faculty members who do not hold administrative appointments. Three to five members would perhaps seem a manageable size. If the faculty member under review deems it useful, one or two members of the Advisory Panel might be appointed from another ISU department or perhaps even from another university. Faculty members with known animosities toward the individual under review should, of course, not be selected.

Recommended Language Regarding the Composition of the PTR Advisory Panel:

“The faculty member under review and that member’s DEO (or equivalent) shall jointly appoint the members of the faculty member’s Advisory Panel. The function of said panel shall be to provide a sounding board and an independent perspective to assist the faculty member in his or her review process. The panel shall consist of [state number or range of numbers] members, all of whom shall hold tenured appointments and none of whom shall hold administrative appointments. At the request of the faculty member under review, one or two panel members may be chosen from outside the member’s home department, including, in special cases, from another university. In all cases, however, the panel members shall possess relevant knowledge and experience in the general field and/or in the area of the individual member’s specialization and shall be demonstrably capable of fair and impartial judgment toward the individual under review.”

Issue #4: Performance Standards

The performance of the faculty member under review must be assessed with respect to standards that are both fair and reasonable and are appropriate to the individual, to his or her department, to ISU, and to his or her discipline. The PTR process standards must in no way undermine the primacy of the faculty member’s contract. Any elaboration of or amendment to the contract through any vehicle such as a “position responsibility statement” may occur only with the consent of the faculty member. Anything else constitutes a breach of contract.

As emphasized in the AAUP report on PTR, the level of expected performance used for the individual must be those in effect when the individual was granted tenure, not those that may have come into practice subsequently. Also, as emphasized, the faculty member, whose professional competence has been rigorously established in the grant of tenure, is at all times entitled to a presumption of competence; the burden of proof for any contrary statement must fall on those making said claim.

Recommended Language Regarding Primacy of the Faculty Contract:

“The principal document establishing the faculty member’s performance obligation is the faculty member’s contract, and nothing in the PTR process shall undermine the primacy of that contract. Any elaboration or alteration of the contractual duties by means of a position responsibility statement or other device shall occur only by mutual written agreement between the faculty member and the appropriate university officer.”

Recommended Language Regarding Performance Standards in the PTR Process:

“The performance of the faculty member under review must be assessed with respect to standards that are both fair and reasonable and are appropriate to the individual, to his or her department, to ISU, and to his or her discipline. The level of expected performance used for the individual must be that in effect when the individual was granted tenure, not those that may have come into practice subsequently. Finally, the faculty member, whose professional competence has been rigorously established in the grant of tenure, is at all times entitled to a presumption of competence; the burden of proof for any contrary statement or finding must fall on those making said claim.”

Issue #5: Methods of Reviewing Teaching

The methods for reviewing teaching (and all other duties) must be thorough and thoughtful. The methods utilized should take into account the intricate dynamics and the unique chemistry of the teaching and learning process. No one source of evidence can be relied upon exclusively or even predominantly. A complete picture of a faculty member’s teaching performance can come only after a comprehensive review of the standards, methods, materials, and style that the faculty member brings to the endeavor, after a careful analysis of the demands and objectives of the courses taught, and after consulting a variety of observers, including, but surely not limited to, student evaluations and just as surely including peer observation within the classroom.

Recommended Language Regarding Methods of Reviewing Teaching:

“The review of teaching shall consider the complete range of evidence available. While student evaluations should be included, sole or even predominant reliance shall not be placed on this one source. Rather, the entire portfolio of teaching materials shall be examined, including syllabi, examinations, homework exercises, writing assignments, and research papers. Measurements of actual student performance must be included and compared to established standards appropriate to the course(s) in question. When appropriate, opinions may be sought from teaching assistants and other colleagues who have taught the same or similar courses, both for their assessment of the work of the individual under review and for an understanding of the demands of the teaching environment. The faculty member being reviewed may request classroom visits by one or more members of the Advisory Panel.”

Issue #6: Methods of Reviewing Research

Central to the purpose of the institution of tenure is a recognition of the immense value of innovative and even iconoclastic inquiry, a type of inquiry that can take place only when insulated from the transitory judgments of intellectual fashion and political whim. The award of tenure is made to those faculty members who have established outstanding reputations for scholarship. The modern university, as it has evolved in the last few hundred years, has made profound intellectual progress precisely through the grant of such extraordinary intellectual freedom to such a carefully selected community of scholars.

Nothing in the PTR process can be allowed to undermine this core asset of Iowa State University. Tenured faculty members must remain free to take the long-term view, free to examine unusual and unpopular ideas, free to pursue their intellectual curiosities wherever they may lead. They must remain free of pressures to produce quarterly or even annual publication quotas and free of pressures to pursue research avenues for commercial gain.

Funding for research is always a difficult issue. We believe that it is the university’s responsibility, as part of its ordinary budget, to provide such basic research resources as office space, secretarial support, ordinary office supplies and computer facilities, reasonable travel opportunities, and a good library. We recognize, however, that in many fields and departments the faculty member is expected to pursue the funding needed for additional expenses beyond the basics by seeking research grants and contracts, either from within the university or from outside sources.

It is our belief that the acquisition of grant and contract funding should be regarded as a means to an end and not as an end in itself. A faculty member’s record of grant funding should be considered only as it bears on the necessity of such funding to make possible the faculty member’s research program. The getting of grants for their own sake or for the sake of paying non-research expenses should not be a standard for evaluating a faculty member’s performance.

Recommended Language Regarding Reviewing of Research:

“The standards and methods used to review research must respect the right of the tenured faculty member to select his or her own long-term research topics and to pursue these topics patiently and thoroughly over the course of a research career. Emphasis in the review must be placed on the overall intellectual merit of the research program and not on quarterly or even annual output flow—and also not on commercial or pecuniary gain. The research standards must be appropriate to the discipline and field of specialization. Members of the Advisory Panel are expected to familiarize themselves with and evaluate the faculty member’s entire body of intellectual inquiry. At the discretion of the faculty member under review, the assessments of the panel members may be supplemented with the opinions of scholars of the faculty member’s choosing from outside the panel.

“The faculty member’s record of securing research funding shall be evaluated only insofar as such funding is needed to enable the faculty member’s chosen research program and by no other standard.”

Issue #7: Methods of Reviewing Extension and Outreach

Extension and outreach, along with teaching and research one of the three recognized functions of a land-grant university, involves a wide range of intellectual and organizational activity. Extension work should be evaluated only by individuals who are familiar with the extension and outreach function. For example, when the faculty member being reviewed holds an appointment of 50 percent or more in extension and outreach, then the majority of the members of the Advisory Panel should also hold a 50 percent or greater appointment in extension and outreach. It is anticipated that individuals being reviewed will be evaluated, to the extent of their extension and outreach appointment, on the basis of performance in extension and outreach. The review and evaluation should consider all of the many dimensions of activity contemplated by the extension or outreach appointment.

Recommended Language Regarding Reviewing Extension and Outreach:

“An individual with an appointment in extension and outreach to the extent of that appointment shall be reviewed by an Advisory Panel comprised of individuals familiar with the extension and outreach function, with the majority of the Advisory Panel members to hold a 50 percent or greater appointment in extension and outreach if the faculty member being reviewed holds such an appointment. The review shall consider all aspects of extension and outreach activity contemplated by the extension and outreach appointment, including small and large group teaching; preparation of extension materials; conduct of applied research to support the extension function; one-to-one counseling and consulting; interaction with citizens, other extension personnel, and non-extension educators involved in the extension process; support of group activity; and other areas of extension and outreach contemplated by the employment contract.

Issue #8: Due Process Rights during the Review

As stated above, the review is to be self-directed with guidance provided by the Advisory Panel. Therefore, there is no cause for the faculty member being reviewed not to be present during all deliberations of the Advisory Panel. In addition, the faculty member must have the opportunity to enter into the record any and all evidence that he or she deems relevant, to receive copies of all other materials presented, to be present for any other testimony, to question anyone else interviewed by the Advisory Panel, and to have representation present of his or her own choosing.

Recommended Language Regarding Due Process during the Review:

“The faculty member being reviewed shall have the right to be present during all deliberations of the Advisory Panel. The faculty member shall have the right to present personal testimony and the testimony of any witnesses the member chooses and any other evidence that he or she deems relevant. The faculty member shall have the right to observe any testimony taken from witnesses and to question any such witnesses and to receive copies of any written or other materials considered. The faculty member shall have the right to have any representative of his or her choosing present during any deliberations of the Advisory Panel.”

Issue #9: Conclusions and Consequences

The language of the referendum stated, “This review does not change … the circumstances under which tenured faculty can be dismissed from the university. Grounds for dismissal remain those listed in the Faculty Handbook under Faculty Dismissal Procedures.” The expectation given to the referendum voters was therefore that PTR would not be used to impose punitive measures.

No protections, however, are offered against sanctions other than dismissal—sanctions such as demotion, revocation of tenure, decrease in salary, etc. Such language must be included to achieve the constructive and not the punitive vision of PTR. Moreover, as the AAUP has specifically recommended, the findings of a post-tenure review should not be substituted for or used in any disciplinary procedure, lest this lead to a weakening of the evidentiary standards and procedural safeguards of those more formal undertakings.

Recommended Language Regarding Adverse Consequences:

“The policy of post-tenure review does not change the circumstances under which tenured faculty can be dismissed from the university. Grounds for dismissal remain those listed in the Faculty Handbook under Faculty Dismissal Procedures. A PTR Advisory Panel shall not recommend any dismissal, demotion, revocation of tenure, reduction in salary, reduction or removal of perquisites, withholding or denial of leave or other privileges, increase in teaching or other work load, withholding or denial of promotion, reduction in financial or staff support for research, teaching, or extension duties, or other adverse personnel action without the written consent of the faculty member being reviewed. Moreover, the findings or conclusions of an Advisory Panel shall not be used, except at the faculty member’s request, in any other proceeding that may lead to any of these or other sanctions.”

Along the same lines, any recommendations for a shift in the goals or direction of the faculty member’s research, teaching, or extension activities must of course be accompanied by a commitment of the departmental and university resources needed to accomplish the change. Recommending change without providing the enabling resources is pointless.

Recommended Language Regarding the Responsibility to Provide Enabling Resources:

“Any recommendation of an Advisory Panel for new directions or other improvements in teaching, research, or extension activities shall be accompanied by a specific identification of the resources needed to accomplish the recommendation. Both the department and the university shall make good faith efforts to provide these resources within a reasonable time. Such resources shall include but not be limited to paid Faculty Professional Development Assignment leave (formerly known as Faculty Improvement Leave); additional secretarial, research-assistant, teaching-assistant, and computer-programming staff; laboratory, computer, and other equipment; books, journals, reference materials, and computer software and data; office supplies and teaching materials; and financial support for research travel and data acquisition. Recommendations not supported within a reasonable time by the identified resources shall be null and void for purposes of any future PTR or other evaluation.”

Issue #10: Dissemination of Findings

The goal of the PTR process is to assist the faculty member in the creative enhancement of his or her professional life. This self-directed self-examination will be most fruitful if the faculty member can be candid with the members of the Advisory Panel and can receive candid advice in return. This objective will in turn be most effectively facilitated if the faculty member is assured that the commentary that emerges will be held in confidence and disseminated only to individuals or bodies of the faculty member’s own choosing.

In addition, the persistence of dated information from outdated reviews can only serve to make later mischief. Copies of any previous PTR should be returned to the faculty member after the completion of any subsequent review.

Recommended Language Regarding Dissemination of the PTR Findings and Recommendations:

“The faculty member shall receive copies of all findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Advisory Panel and, on request, of any written evidence on which they are based. Neither the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Advisory Panel nor the evidence on which they are based shall be circulated to anyone besides the departmental DEO (or equivalent) without the advance written permission of the faculty member being reviewed. All copies of a faculty member’s PTR file shall be returned to the faculty member following the completion of any subsequent post-tenure or promotion review.”

Issue #11: Rights of Appeal

Since the goal of the PTR process is to assist the faculty member in the creative enhancement of his or her professional life, the PTR must correctly and completely reflect the facts, circumstances, and analysis of a faculty member’s record, and any recommendations in the PTR must be appropriate, responsive, and proportionate to the content of that record. It is furthermore essential that the PTR Advisory Panel follow established departmental PTR guidelines. In the case of a disagreement between the Advisory Panel and the faculty member under review, the faculty member must have the right to comment in response to the review and to request the Advisory Panel to reconsider any part of its report. If that does not resolve the matter, the faculty member must have the right to appeal within the university’s normal and established appeals mechanism(s) and procedure(s). The PTR process must not be allowed to short-circuit or compromise any faculty privileges or protections established under ISU policies or state or federal statutes or regulations.

Recommended Language Regarding Rights of Appeal:

“A faculty member shall have the right to comment in response to a PTR, to challenge the process and findings, and to correct the underlying record. The faculty member shall have a reasonable period, not less than ten working days, in which to respond to the findings of the Advisory Panel, and the Advisory Panel can revise its document in the light of the response. If the faculty member still thinks that the Advisory Panel has not followed due process or disagrees with the record, findings, or recommendations, he or she may appeal by following the appeal processes as described in the Faculty Handbook. Nothing in the PTR process shall be interpreted or construed so as to deny, limit, modify, compromise, revoke, or supersede any faculty rights, privileges, or protections, whether procedural, substantive, or appellate, as may have been or in the future may be established under ISU policies or procedures or state or federal statutes or regulations.”

Appendix: Post Tenure Review Statement Adopted in Faculty Referendum

Faculty in each department are charged with developing and implementing a plan for review of each tenured faculty member in the unit. Such review should be done periodically, at least once every seven years. The review should address the quality of the faculty member's performance in the areas of teaching, research/creative activities, extension/professional practice, and institutional service, consistent with the faculty member's position responsibility statement. Ideally, the review shall result in recommendations for enhancing performance and provide a plan for future development.

This review does not change the university's commitment to academic freedom, nor the circumstances under which tenured faculty can be dismissed from the university. Grounds for dismissal remain those listed in the Faculty Handbook under Faculty Dismissal Procedures.

The plan for review should designate: 1) the review participants; 2) review procedures and timelines; 3) materials to be reviewed; 4) distribution and use of the results of the review including communication beyond the department; and 5) mechanisms for the faculty member to respond. The departmental Post-Tenure Review Plan shall be reviewed, approved, and revised in accordance with the collegiate governance approval process that applies to departmental promotion and tenure documents.