New tenure and promotion guidelines produce growth pains

Abstract

Traditionally administrators routinely determined tenure and promotion decisions. Few faculty members were denied either tenure or promotion if they had put in their time. Today, however, the old system has been scuttled and the new one is characterized by strict adherence to well-delineated guidelines and procedures developed by faculty members and administrators. For a faculty member to receive consideration for tenure or promotiod, his credentials must usually be scrutinized by a departmental peer committee, departmental chairperson, a college committee, college dean, and vice president for instruction before final recommendation to the president at the university level. At each step along the way the candidate may receive either a negative vote or a positive one with the president having the last vote before final approval by appropriate state authority. Should the candidate fail to receive tenure and/or promotion he may appeal that decision before a university appeals committee. The process has been systematized; it has become an inevitability in the growing-up of colleges and universities; it is also one requiring deep soul searching and professional commitment among the decision makers. For some time now faculty have wanted more control over policies governing themselves. New guidelines generally have produced this result as faculty committees have become part of the evaluative process. Professionally speaking, a faculty member is expected to make valid, unbiased decisions as he serves on tenure and promotion committees to which he has been elected by peers or appointed by administrators. This task is difficult, and the opportunity to serve in this capacity we may approach with some ambivalence. To decide negatively about a colleague is painful, and many faculty now say administrators can decide more objectively and calculatingly from their particular vantage point. This is particularly true when faculty committees are charged with the responsibility of evaluating the candidate for tenure and/or promotion in light of departmental, college, and university goals. Does the candidate offer the unique type of professional preparation and experience needed by his department? Or should his position go to an individual with specific competencies that would further the university's goals? This new system of evaluation has created several ramifications both for the game and the people playing it. It has led to dismissal of some faculty and created considerable unrest and distrust among others. Among many faculty of marginal ability, anxiety and fear have become manifest as they experience the new growth pains. These new procedures also have led to a more productive faculty as the emphasis has shifted from passive mediocrity to scholarship and