Dear Colleagues of all stripes,
I found myself impressed and agreeing with so much of what Charly Wright
said about post-tenure review, that it is tempting to keep silent. But
I believe that I can, once again, resist that temptation. I want to make
some bulleted comments on what our final policy should look like. These
are in the way of principles that I think are important, not language for
drafting.
1. PTR must be developmental, not disciplinary. Negative results require procedural protections "Developmental" does not mean someone shaping a professor. It means helping the professor when she or he is interested in outside comments or views. It is purely supportive. To preserve academic freedom and diversity of thought and style in our University, even to the point of eccentricity, actions taken "against" a faculty member (including actions called developmental, but involuntary from the professor's point of view) should be of only two kinds: a. Refusal to increase salary or support, which can be done as a matter of judgment, with few procedural protections. The theoretical justification for offering few protections is that failure to offer more salary or support leaves the status quo intact. b. Actions to decrease salary, impose burdens, issue orders to professors, reassign classes as a matter of discipline, demote professors, or of course dismiss them, which can only be done with full protections of academic due process. 2. PTR should be done regularly but rarely for the vast majority of faculty, and must be done BY faculty.
I am now regretful that, in our Ad Hoc Senate Committee on Post-Tenure Review last fall, we decided to go along with the pressures for third-year reviews for tenured faculty members. I would wager part of my salary (although perhaps only a small part) on the proposition that no AAU research university has adopted third-year reviews -- or at least that none has done so in response to an accrediting commission that mostly looks at 4-year colleges and that cannot clearly point to a properly adopted standard requiring third-year review. When I talked with a law professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champagne, who wrote the book, THE CASE FOR TENURE, he was astounded that we felt pushed to adopt third-year reviews. But he quickly figured out, in his mind, why such a thing could never happen in his university. He said (in rough paraphrase), "Well, we are an AAU research university." Well, so are we.The Provost's Office's draft for PTR of Spring 1998 at least had the concept of a "light" review at the third-year point. We did the same in our draft in the fall, but I think that faculty members did not perceive just how "light" we wanted it to be. We insisted that it be done by colleagues, not department heads or Deans, but we kept it quite light. More recently, Jeff Hurwit's draft seemed to move it in a less-light direction (perhaps I misunderstood, however), and definitely put it back in quasi-administrative or administrative hands.
The best final policy would rather clearly indicate that for the vast majority of faculty, review occurs every six years. Having professors update their information for the files more often seems like no real burden (although I think yearly is too much), but resource-intensive reviews should not take place more often than every six years unless a problem crops up.
3. Peer evaluation of teaching is essential.
Because most teachers WANT to do well, if we are going to devote resources, let us do it not by writing bureaucratic reports that have the potential to "get" a professor who is eccentric or a "troublemaker" for other faculty, the Administration, or society at large. Let us devote resources to visiting each other's classes and offering feedback on teaching.Students have many areas of expertise, and can hold strong opinions. But it is teachers who are more expert on teaching, not students. The fact that alumni often look back on their time in the University and remember fondly the times when they were pushed and pushed to work hard, yet at the time they were students they complained loudly about workload, is enough for me to conclude that evaluation of teaching requires some distance, not the intense, personal involvement that a student has.
4. PTR must be collaborative and cooperative, not confrontational.
Unless one starts with the assumption that professors are in constant search for opportunities to goof off, and are in need of a strong hand applied to them, having post-tenure review consist of outsiders (a committee or an administrator) render judgment "about" a professor, and relegating the professor to signing or appealing the document is not just insulting. It is counterproductive."You catch more flies with honey then vinegar." The vast majority of professors will thrive, and the University will thrive, under a system in which peers work WITH a professor, and listen to what she has to say. The early consultation, collaborative, and mediation aspects of the procedures in the Conference Committee report are the only procedures worthy of a university of the quality of the University of Oregon.
I have more to say, but the sun is rising over the Dniester River
and I will stop.
John (John E. Bonine Professor of Law )