ISU Promotion and Tenure Documents

Perceptions of the proposed revision to the Promotion and Tenure document vary widely among ISU faculty. There is much confusion concerning the intent of the proposed revision. A substantial number of faculty view the document as an assault on tenure. Committee members vigorously deny that there has been any attempt to weaken the tenure system. These extreme views must be reconciled. The committee should attempt to produce an unambiguous document that will have wide-spread support from faculty across the campus.

The reasons for the differing views are understandable. Linking together changes in criteria for awarding tenure with changes in processes for review of tenured faculty and at the same time introducing new language about dismissal of tenured faculty has led to a confusing array of issues. Some parts of the document are ambiguous. In addition, the document was introduced to the faculty along with (e.g., on the same Web page as) the controversial views of Richard Chait. The memos sent to inform the faculty about the proposed revision contained no explanation as to why changes were being proposed at this time and what problems with the current policies and procedures these changes are intended to address. The open forums were scheduled at one of the most busy times of the year for teaching faculty, and were inadequately publicized. Stated deadlines for submitting comments to the committee were overly stringent. For some faculty members, all of this has made the proposed changes in the Promotion and Tenure document look like a smoke screen for alternative, unstated, motives.

The proposed revision to the Promotion and Tenure document raises important issues. The resolution of these issues has the potential to have profound effects on the University for decades. Each of the main issues deserves careful consideration by the faculty. A wrong move now could seriously damage our chances to meet our goal of becoming the best Land Grant university in the country. Making the right moves could improve our chances. It is unfortunate that the open forums were sparsely attended. Virtually all of the discussion at these forums focused on the perceived attempt to weaken the tenure system.

The Department of Statistics met twice to discuss the main issues and to construct this memo. The views and opinions of our faculty are quite varied on some of the issues. The discussion was healthy. We hope that there will be similar discussion of these same issues in other departments and, subsequently, in University-wide faculty forums and in the Faculty Senate.

The following are some suggestions, both procedural and substantive, upon which the Statistics faculty voted unanimously to submit to the committee. We expect individual faculty members will be writing to express other points to the committee.

Procedural Suggestions

The three main issues in the revised Promotion and Tenure document should be separated into different main subjects, as is currently done in the Faculty Handbook:

Promotion and tenure issues
Periodic review of tenured faculty
Procedures and policies for dismissal of tenured faculty

We recommend that these issues, if they are to be revisited in an effort to revise the appropriate sections in the Faculty Handbook, should be considered, presented, and addressed separately in a specified sequence. An appropriate schedule might consider one of these issues each semester.

When an important issue is presented to the faculty for discussion and feedback, there should be adequate time for discussion in departments and in open forums to provide ample opportunity to construct, revise, and provide feedback to the drafting committee. One or two weeks is not a sufficient amount of time, especially at the end of a semester. The committee should use feedback to produce proposed changes that will have wide-spread faculty acceptance.

These issues are too important to be left to any single faculty body, such as the Faculty Senate, to decide. The faculty as a whole should vote on the proposed changes by a secret mail ballot, with the results to be tabulated by an independent organization.

Substantive Comments and Suggestions

Issues Relating to the Awarding of Promotion and Tenure

The University and the Promotion and Tenure document must affirm, in the strongest possible terms, the principles of tenure and academic freedom, as it has been understood traditionally. For example, without a strong commitment to tenure, ISU would be at a serious disadvantage in recruiting and retaining outstanding faculty members. In a close decision (which are common in our experience) a candidate will be more likely to accept a position perceived as a "real tenure track" position.

The draft document proposes to replace the three possible areas in which one could demonstrate excellence by the phrase: "performance of his or her position responsibilities." This is open to possible abuse because position responsibilities can be arbitrarily changed or defined so as to be impossible to fulfill. How, when, and by whom position responsibilities are to be defined or changed must be clearly stated.

Criteria for awarding tenure should require "excellence" in some well-defined area or areas of scholarly activities.

Issues Relating to Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty

Departments are already required to have procedures for annual DEO review of all faculty. The justification for, in addition, a required peer review "at least every five years" is not compelling.

There are differing strong opinions on the wisdom of using regular peer-review when evaluating tenured faculty. For example, feedback from faculty with broader experience than that of the DEO could be useful. On the other hand, the potential cost in faculty time and effort is huge. The benefits are questionable. There are serious risks that peer-review of tenured faculty could radically change the atmosphere of cooperation that exists in many departments and that is so important for the production of outstanding creative work.

Rather than mandate that peer-review be used, it would be better to allow individual departments to decide democratically on an appropriate review process within broader university guidelines.

In departments that elect not to have peer review there should be an option and a process for a faculty member, who is unhappy with the outcome of the DEO's annual review, to request a peer review.

In the case of tenured faculty, periodic review should be primarily for the purpose of enhancement of teaching, research, and professional practice activities. These reviews may not be used to decide issues of competence, negligence, or dismissal.

Issues Relating to Dismissal of Tenured Faculty

Most faculty do not view tenure as a "job for life" but rather as acceptance into the academic community and the assurance that one's job will not be at risk for expressing unpopular opinions, doing research that might be deemed "inappropriate" by some, or otherwise exercising what has come to be known as academic freedom. Dismissal policies should be constructed carefully so that academic freedom is not compromised, in appearance or in substance.

We believe that there would be wide faculty support for the development or refinement of University policies that would lead to dismissal of individuals who are incompetent or who otherwise cannot or will not live up to their responsibilities as tenured professors.