9/20/99
Dear
Colleague:
Attached
is a copy of the AAUP Guidelines for the
Development of ISU Departmental Post-Tenure Review Policies. This document was officially adopted by the
Iowa State chapter of the AAUP on September 8.
It is intended to help and support the sixty-plus departments at ISU as
they each shoulder the burden of last spring’s faculty referendum to devise a
departmental post-tenure review (PTR) policy.
Devising
a careful, thorough policy that respects and protects faculty rights could be a
long and difficult task for your department.
We believe that by adopting or adapting the language offered in the Guidelines, the workload of your
department can be substantially lightened—and that the resulting policies will
be much more uniform and fair across departments.
The
Guidelines also provide important
protections for your department’s academic freedom that were missing from the
faculty referendum. The referendum
language last spring was reassuringly simple and brief. Unfortunately, that hid many dangers.
For example, the referendum
stated, “This review does not change … the circumstances under which tenured
faculty can be dismissed from the university.”
However, there was no prohibition against sanctions short of dismissal. Unless further protections are built into
your department’s PTR policy, the review process could result in any or all of
the following:
·
reduction
of your salary, or denial of your raise;
·
reduction
in your rank, or denial of your promotion;
·
removal
of your tenure;
·
increase
in your teaching load and/or administrative duties, without compensation;
·
denial
of your leave;
·
reduction
in your office space, computer access, and/or TA and secretarial support.
The Guidelines
prohibit these outcomes from arising from a PTR.
Another example: The referendum stated, “Such review should
be done periodically, at least once every seven years.” Most faculty believed that meant they would
be reviewed at seven-year intervals.
Reading more carefully, however, reveals that “at least once every seven years” would allow reviews every four
years or every two years or every six months.
There is no limit to how often you or your colleagues could be subjected
to scrutiny. The Guidelines limit the review cycle to at most once every seven years and also eliminate duplication of
effort with hiring, promotion, and tenure evaluations.
The Guidelines also address your rights to due process and appeal and
how far the results of your PTR report can be circulated without your
permission. There is further general language
ensuring the fair and thorough evaluation of teaching, research, and outreach
activities. These standards, of course,
need to be adapted to the modalities of each discipline.
Doing
post-tenure reviews carefully and fairly will be time consuming. If poorly implemented, the process could
also easily become highly divisive and even litigious, ultimately destroying
departmental collegiality and seriously distracting us from our true missions
of teaching, research, and outreach.
In the Guidelines, we have tried to offer a different vision of PTR. All of us certainly recognize the value of
reflecting on and renewing our scholarly goals and methods from time to
time. If implemented in a supportive
and not a punitive fashion, a review process could lead to constructive
self-renewal. There are, unfortunately,
many dangers that must be avoided to achieve that goal.
In her September 1
memorandum to the general faculty, past Faculty Senate President Denise Vrchota
observed that “the strength of the [PTR] policy is its locus of control within
each department,” and she “urge[d] you to participate in discussions in your
department to ensure the resulting policy that will guide your post tenure
review is one you are willing to live with.”
We couldn’t agree more. Please read the Guidelines, inform yourself, and participate. Your academic freedom
is at stake.
Respectfully,
Bob Hollinger
Iowa State University Chapter, AAUP
rholling@iastate.edu