On Wednesday, October 25, 2000, a forum was conducted on the subject of Tenure and Promotion at Emporia State University. Participants were split up into discussion groups and a recorder in each group was asked to write down the main points of discussion. The following is a summary of the discussions based on that record. There was no attempt to reach a consensus on any topic so this summary is not intended to represent a final conclusion of the forum. Rather, it is presented in the hope that it will stimulate future discussion.
The discussion time was organized into three blocks. In the first block the discussion was over Tenure and Promotion at the Discipline/Department level. The second block focused on the College level and the third block was on the University level.
At the beginning of the forum it was pointed out that AAUP guidelines indicate that the responsibility for making any personnel decision—including tenure and promotion—should rest primarily with the faculty and mainly at the discipline level. Some of the discussion centered on this topic and it was universally supportive. It was pointed out that communication was better at this level and that most probationary faculty have a better feeling for where they stand within their department. It also was pointed out that this principle is an important ingredient in creating an atmosphere of academic freedom. In order for a non-tenured faculty member to feel comfortable speaking out on university issues he or she must feel some reassurance that personnel decisions at the department level will be respected above.
In at least one department some had the feeling that while there were clear expectations for promotion to Associate Professor the expectations for promotion to Full Professor were not so clear. Some questioned whether or not the methods for evaluating teaching were effective.
The opinion was expressed that departments needed to do a better job of developing an attitude of “investiture in success”. Often it seems that the responsibility for success is placed solely on the shoulders of the individual faculty member. The department should recognize that it has some responsibility for assisting in the development of its faculty.
There was some concern expressed that the departments don’t always do a good job of spelling out the procedures necessary to prepare for tenure. There appears to be a lot of variation among departments. Some departments do not have well-defined timelines or these timelines are not clearly communicated to new faculty. Some departments allow non-tenured faculty to sit on Faculty Recognition Committees (FRCs) while others do not.
While no one spoke in favor of a uniform set of criteria for tenure and promotion across all disciplines there was some sentiment for a standardization of procedures, including deadlines for each stage of the process, and whether or not non-tenured faculty should be able to serve on an FRC. One group recommended that there be an “FRC Document Task Force” to establish basic dates and procedures for all colleges. There was also the suggestion that there be an outside observer on FRCs at the discipline department level. This observer would not vote, but would report on the differences between disciplines.
There was a suggestion that there be a third year tenure prognosis and that this be included in the FRC document.
There was a feeling that at the college level the requirements were more murky. At this level the documentation—the letter of application and the self-reflection letter—is more important.
The role of the College Advisory Council was discussed. It was mentioned that in LA&S the Advisory Council is generally used as a sounding board (with no voting) in the case of a dispute, such as conflicting letters at the Department level. In the Teacher’s College there is an FRC at the College level that does take a vote.
If there is a possibility of a problem at the College level, the system should give advance warnings. Part of the responsibility for this rests with the Chair of the Department.
The opinion was expressed that the decision at the Department level should be respected if there is a consensus. Only split decisions merit input at higher levels. However, some felt that a decision on promotion to full professor might require more input at higher levels.
There was a concern expressed that, in at least one college, there was a formal requirement that a successful candidate be “above the mean”, particularly with regard to teaching evaluations. It was pointed out that it was statistically impossible for everyone to be above the mean and that this system insured that someone would fail.
Some suggested that the process at the university level depends a lot on the personality of the person in the decision-making position. The process would break down if that person is perceived to be vindictive.
It was mentioned that some Departments and Schools are more quantitative. The question was asked (but not answered): should this be a more uniform process? Some quantify everything and this would certainly assist in decisions at the higher level.
It was stated that, since the Vice President’s office approves all FRC documents, there should not be any surprises if those documents are followed.
There was some discussion of the appropriate role of the newly formed Vice-President’s Advisory Council, but no real consensus. Some concern was expressed that, if this Council became a part of the process, it would create another obstacle that the successful candidate would have to surmount.
The opinion was expressed that, for the most part, the tenure and promotion procedures were currently being exercised appropriately at the university level, with the Vice President only intervening in the case of a disagreement among the FRC, Chair, and the Dean.