Dear Colleague:
We are writing to urge those who have not yet cast their ballots to VOTE NO on Question #1 of the Faculty Senate Ballot for Evaluation/Review and Promotion and Tenure Documents--the "post-tenure review" question. We believe that this proposal (printed on the blue pages) represents a significant threat to academic freedom at this university and to the institution of tenure that protects that freedom.
There are many flaws and hidden dangers in this proposal, some of which we will address below, but we first want to convey one key piece of information. There appears to be no significant interest in the Iowa Legislature in changing tenure at the regents' universities. One or two isolated legislators may have grabbed a headline or two with comments on tenure, but, after checking various sources in and around the Capitol, we are assured that this issue is just not on their agenda. Thus, the argument on post-tenure review that says "we should do it to ourselves before somebody else does it to us" is without foundation. But fundamentally, the question is whether the proposal itself makes sense and is in the best long-term interests of those who are served by this university as well as the best long-term interests of the faculty.
The document has been changed some from the version that was so widely opposed last spring, but many of the troublesome elements remain. For example:
The candid discussion of "dismissal" has been replaced by the more veiled "professional growth and/or redirection." Where do you think people are going to be "redirected" to?
The five-year interval has been moved back to seven years, but the language actually says "at least every seven years." That could mean every seven years--or every five or every two.
The specifics of implementation are still deferred to a later date. We are still being asked to sign a blank check.
The implementation is left to each department. The result will be a hodge-podge of different systems with inconsistent standards, which often leads to unfair and inequitable treatment.
No process is specified for appeal of an unfavorable review.
While the introductory paragraph aspires "to support faculty development," it becomes clear in the subsequent discussion that the creation of a "faculty development plan" is a pejorative, if not punitive, response. The tenured faculty member is being put on probation.
Such a plan may be created "if the faculty member, review group, and/or DEO see the need." The use of "and/or" rather than "and" indicates that a plan may be ordered even if the faculty member disagrees that the plan is needed.
The consequences of failing to perform according to the plan are not specified.
It is stated that "the standard should be that of good faith on both sides." If good faith could be relied upon, we would not need a Constitution or a Bill of Rights or the institution of tenure. We do not live in that world.
The potential for abuse is clear. What is not clear is why we need any additional evaluation mechanism at all. There is no external pressure to change the system. We already go through annual performance reviews and salary determinations. Why do we need the added paperwork? And, why invite a process that will divide colleague from colleague and divert so many resources away from teaching, research, and extension?
The greatest danger is that the review process will be used to pressure and intimidate faculty, who will become increasingly reluctant to undertake teaching, research, or extension tasks that are likely to be opposed by outside pressure groups. In the opinion of many, the danger of such pressure and attempts at intimidation are the greatest in modern time. Examples of attempted pressure tactics are well known on this campus.
In the interests of maintaining this university as an objective source of knowledge and insight, and in the interests of not encumbering faculty with a burdensome requirement that would likely reduce productivity, please vote NO on Question No. 1.
Please feel free to share this letter with any colleague eligible to vote on this matter. Thank you.
Signed,
Neil E. Harl,
Distinguished Professor of Economics
Carolyn Heising,
Professor of Industrial, Mechanical, and Nuclear Engineering
Herman C. Quirmbach,
Associate Professor of Economics
Leigh S. Tesfatsion,
Professor of Economics and Mathematics