Procedural Reviews of Tenure Track Promotion-Related Decisions
The
Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility
(CCAFR) serves as an appellate body for faculty who claim that the
University failed to adhere to appropriate policies
and procedures
in evaluating them for tenure and promotion. Per Section #11 of the
University’s
General Guidelines for the Preparation of Supporting
Materials and the Management of Tenured And Tenure-Track Candidate
Promotion Files (fall 2005):
Should either a candidate or the president request a review of the
case by the Committee of Council on Academic Freedom and Responsibility
(CCAFR), CCAFR shall advise the president as to whether, in its judgment,
the procedures followed in the candidate's case accorded with both
the University's and commonly accepted professional standards for promotion
and tenure.
Consistent with this directive, five faculty members brought to our
committee’s attention possible violations of University policies
and procedures as to how their promotion and tenure reviews were conducted.
Two of these faculty members filed formal complaints with our committee,
both of which were investigated by subcommittees and reported upon
to the president. In both of these cases the subcommittee determined
that contrary to University guidelines negative material was inserted
into the candidates’ dossiers after they had received favorable
votes from their departments. The candidates were not informed that
these materials had been inserted and thus were denied an opportunity
to examine and refute the unfavorable comments. They then received
unfavorable votes by subsequent promotion and tenure committees.
To help ensure that candidates are made aware of all materials that
are included in their dossiers and that they are afforded an opportunity
both to review and to respond to them, we recommend the following revisions
to the
General Guidelines for the Preparation of Supporting Materials
and the Management of Tenured And Tenure-Track Candidate Promotion
Files:
| 1. |
At the end of the first paragraph under Section 8 of the Guidelines,
add the following:
However, any adverse information, whether written or oral, and then recorded
or relied upon in any document which is included in the dossier is critical
to the legitimate interests of a candidate. Basic fairness and principles
of due process require that the candidate have access to such information for
purposes of explanation and/or rebuttal. See Section 2 of the Addendum.
|
|
2. |
Create sub paragraphs under numbered Section 2 of the Addendum by
| a. |
adding "a)" before the paragraph "Review
of materials."
|
| b. |
adding a new sub paragraph "b)" as follows:
Although ex-parte communications regarding the merits of a candidate may be impossible
to eliminate totally, any member of a review committee, chair or dean who is
offered such advice should refuse to discuss the matter and advise the would-be
source that such information should be presented in writing with the understanding
that it will be called to the attention of the candidate who will have the
opportunity to explain and/or rebut.
|
| c. |
adding a new sub paragraph "c)" as follows:
If any additional input is solicited or accepted for inclusion in the dossier,
it should be in writing and handled in accord with the letter and spirit of Section 8
of these guidelines. The candidate should be notified of the addition of this
material and permitted an opportunity to explain and/or rebut.
|
| d. |
adding a new sub paragraph "d)" as follows:
In any case in which these directives have been violated and adverse information
has been included in a dossier without notification to the candidate after
a departmental committee has discussed and voted, the dean shall determine
whether this information, without the candidate's response, might have had
a substantial effect on the department's discussion and vote. If it has had
a substantial effect on the department’s discussion and vote, the dean
shall direct that the candidate be informed of the material. If the candidate
wishes to present a rebuttal, the committee shall reconsider its decision on
the basis of the newly-completed dossier. Similarly, should the addition be
made after the College Committee has discussed and voted, the provost shall
determine whether this information, without the candidate's response,
might have had a substantial effect on the College Committee's discussion and
vote. If it has had a substantial effect, the dean shall direct that the candidate be
informed of the material. If the candidate wishes to present a rebuttal, the
Committee shall reconsider its decision on the basis of the newly-completed
dossier.
|
|
| 3. |
Add a new paragraph “8” to the Addendum as follows:
Rule of construction. In any
instance in which participants at any stage of this review
process find ambiguity as to the meaning of the language of the
Guidelines and Addendum, the language shall be construed so as
to assure transparency and procedural protection for the candidate. |
The investigations of our committee made it clear that faculty who
are being considered for promotion and tenure as well as both faculty
and administrators who participate in the promotion and tenure review
process may be unaware of the existence of the
General Guidelines
for the Preparation of Supporting Materials and the Management of
Tenured And Tenure-Track Candidate Promotion Files, to say nothing
of their specific provisions. We urge, therefore, that the administration
take all appropriate measures to inform deans and chairs of the guidelines,
and that they in turn, make the faculty members of their respective
schools and departments aware of them. Further, the administration
should make known its expectation that all participants in the tenure
and promotion process will adhere to these guidelines.
It has also become apparent to our committee that fundamental, common sense
personnel practices are not always followed. In particular, we have
become aware of situations in which the criteria for promotion and
tenure are poorly defined, not adequately communicated to faculty,
and are inconsistently applied at the various levels of review. We
recognize that in an academic environment it is neither possible nor
desirable to have explicit, unambiguous criteria. Further, it is understandable
that faculty members and administrators at different levels of the
review process would differ both as to a candidate’s merits
and the standards to which he or she should be held. Nevertheless,
we believe that promotion and tenure decisions should result in few
surprises. By the time they are being evaluated for promotion and
tenure, most faculty should be aware whether they are strong, weak,
or marginal candidates. To this end we recommend:
|
Department chairs and executive committees develop promotion and tenure criteria
that are as specific as feasible. These criteria should be approved by appropriate
division heads and deans. They should be communicated to faculty members eligible
for promotion and tenure and to all participants in the promotion and tenure
process.
|
|
Chairs should supplement mandatory three-year reviews with
fourth- and fifth-year reviews in which they provide faculty
members with candid assessments of whether they are on-track
to be promoted and receive tenure. They should also provide guidance
on how the faculty members should direct their productive efforts
in the time remaining until they are scheduled for their promotion and tenure
review. However, in no case should a favorable assessment be considered a commitment
of any type with respect to the final promotion and tenure decision. |
Post-tenure Reviews
Per the
Handbook of Operating Procedures, the
purpose of the post-tenure review is as follows:
The purpose of the sixth-year period performance evaluation
is to assess whether the tenured faculty member is making
a contribution consistent with that expected of a tenured
faculty member. These contributions can vary widely in
terms of individual professional responsibilities. They
can be 100% administrative. They can include teaching
in more than one program, and they can include substantial
duties in advising students. In each and every case, the
focus of the review needs to be commensurate with the
specific professional responsibilities the faculty member
has been assigned. For faculty members performing substantial
duties outside their department, the evaluation committee
shall consider information from University personnel who
are familiar with the faculty member's performance outside
the department.
Per Section 3.14 of
the Handbook of Operating Procedures (Annual
Review and Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty):
The Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom
and Responsibility is charged with monitoring this review
process and with reporting its findings annually to
the Faculty Council and the UT Austin administration.
If its findings warrant, the committee shall recommend
revisions of the procedures for annual reviews and periodic
performance evaluation of tenured faculty at UT Austin,
the UT System Guidelines for Periodic Performance Evaluation
of Tenured Faculty, or both.
In fulfillment of this charge, our committee sent an
email to the entire UT faculty soliciting comments on
their experiences with the post-tenure review process.
The letter said in part:
Our committee is especially interested in any implementation
problems you may have encountered or any unusual issues
that you had to resolve. We welcome any positive or negative
experiences that you may wish to share and any suggestions
as to how the process can be improved.
In response to this solicitation we received thirty
written comments. Most of the respondents viewed the
post-tenure review process as working reasonably well
and being a relatively innocuous inconvenience. One
email, however, was particularly negative toward the
process, charging that the process was abusive and commenting
that “[t]he
small percentages of ‘unsatisfactory’ and
subsequent outcomes should not hide the fact that the
PTR should not be misused, not even once, in this arbitrary
manner.”
In addition, four faculty members either visited in person
with the committee chair or spoke with him by phone. In
each case the faculty member complained that the process
was abusive, unfair, arbitrary, vindictive and carried
out with an intent to harass. Our committee did not investigate
the validity of their charges or attempt to obtain reaction
from the parties involved in their reviews.
In each of the cases the faculty member was judged unsatisfactory
in one or more aspects of his or her performance and considered
the judgment to be unfair. Moreover, the faculty members
believed that their unsatisfactory ratings stemmed from
clashes with their chairs or deans over issues unrelated
to their performance. In one case, for example, the faculty
member was a very productive researcher, an excellent
teacher and had an extensive record of service to the
department. In recent years, however, he [or she] adopted
a research agenda that could not be expected to generate
outside research grants – contrary to the goals
of administrators within his college. The unsatisfactory
review was one element in a pattern of punitive measure
taken against him – reduction of professorship funds,
unfavorable teaching assignments, and removal as director
of a center that he had established. When he requested,
as is his right, a second committee to review his performance,
the dean appointed the same members to the second committee
as the first (as is permitted by the
HOP when the college
does not have departments).
In another case, a faculty member was judged satisfactory
in research and teaching but unsatisfactory in service.
Indeed he [or she] is an active and accomplished researcher
and consistently earns teaching evaluations of 4.5 and
above. Moreover, he offered evidence that he has, in fact,
provided what is commonly accepted on this campus as an
acceptable level of service to his department as well
as to national academic associations. This faculty member
has an extensive history of conflicts with his chairman
(as well as other members of his department). In this
case, like the other, there is reason to suspect that
the faculty member was held to standards or judged by
criteria more harsh than those more commonly applied in
post-tenure reviews.
The faculty members who complained that the post-tenure
reviews were conducted in an abusive manner with intent
to harass did not fault the post-tenure review procedures
per se. They did not recommend changes to the
HOP or
to the administrative guidelines that were set forth in
a provost’s memo of April 6, 2000. Rather they accused
the parties who carried out the review of being malevolent,
biased against them and vindictive. Accordingly, our committee
sees no need, at this time to amend either the
HOP or
the UT administrative guidelines. Nevertheless, we believe
that the administration should be aware that there have
been several alleged instances in which the post-tenure
reviews have not been conducted in the spirit that they
were intended. We urge, therefore, that the administration
review carefully, and take seriously, the complaints brought
to its attention by individual faculty members who receive
unsatisfactory reviews. In addition, it must emphasize
to deans and chairs the importance of ensuring that post-tenure
reviews are based on performance criteria that are
objective and applied uniformly and that all negative
findings are carefully and thoroughly documented. To this
end, it would be useful if the administration conducted
periodic workshops for both administrators and faculty
to inform them of applicable post-tenure review policies
and procedures and provide guidance on how post-tenure
reviews should be conducted. We also recommend that, as
part of its monitoring role, CCAFR track by department
serious complaints about the manner in which post-tenure
review was conducted and make such information available
to the administration.
Michael H. Granof, chair (accounting)
Robert W. Jensen (journalism)
David Justin (theatre and dance)
Dominic Lasorsa (journalism)
Tess Jo Moon (mechanical engineering)
Edward W. (Ted) Odell (mathematics)
Megan Seaholm (history)
Michael M. Sharlot (law)
Jerome Williams (advertising)
