Tenure_Eval.pdf

American Council on Education

Practice

Good

Te n u r e

Evaluation

Advice for

Tenured Faculty,

Department Chairs, and

Academic Administrators

A Joint Project of

The American Council on Education,

The American Association of University Professors, and

United Educators Insurance Risk Retention Group

American Council on Education

A free electronic version of this report is available through www.acenet.edu/bookstore/

Practice

Good

Te n u r e

Evaluation

Advice for

Tenured Faculty,

Department Chairs, and

Academic Administrators

A Joint Project of

The American Council on Education,

The American Association of University Professors, and

United Educators Insurance Risk Retention Group

American Council on Education,

The American Association of University Professors, and United Educators Insurance

For permission to do so, please send a request stating how many copies will be made and the audience to

whom the document will be distributed. Also, full text of this publication may be downloaded without

charge from www.acenet.edu/bookstore/.

American Council on Education

One Dupont Circle

Washington, DC 20036

Fax: (202) 785-2990

Additional copies of this publication are available by sending a check or money order for $15 to the

following address:

ACE Fulfillment Service

Department 191

Washington, DC 20055-0191

Phone: (301) 604-9073

Fax: (301) 604-0158

Introduction 1

Summary 3

Chapter 1: Clarity in Standards and Procedures for Tenure Evaluation 5

Chapter 2: Consistency in Tenure Decisions 9

Chapter 3: Candor in the Evaluation of Tenure-Track Faculty 15

Chapter 4: Caring for Unsuccessful Candidates 21

Conclusion: Moving Forward 25

Endnotes 27

Bibliography 29

Table of Contents

his report provides guidance on conducting tenure evaluations that are thoughtful and

just. Flawed tenure processes can exact a heavy toll on the unsuccessful candidate, his or

her colleagues, and the institution. Our hope is that the good practices offered here may

lessen the frequency and impact of disputes over tenure. We seek not to debate the merits of

tenure in American higher education, but rather we seek to examine the tenure process and

offer some suggestions to those responsible for conducting it.

Each year, thousands of nontenured faculty members undergo evaluations of their work,

and each year a smaller but still significant number are evaluated for tenure.

A recent study

quantified some faculty concerns about the process. Of 378 faculty members surveyed at 19

four-year institutions, 37 percent said that standards for tenure and promotion were unclear.

This sentiment existed even among senior faculty members who had themselves received

tenure.

It is no startling revelation that problems occasionally arise in tenure reviews. Most

academics can recount a first- or second-hand tale about a difficult case. Unsuccessful candi-

dates may file appeals on their campuses challenging tenure denial, and, with increasing fre-

quency, they resort to the courts for redress of perceived discrimination, breach of contract, or

other legal wrongs. Judges then have the final responsibility to assess tenure standards and pro-

cedures.

This report originated at a meeting convened by the American Council on Education

(ACE), the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and United Educators

Insurance (UE).

These collaborating organizations have complementary interests in American

higher education:

The American Council on Education

ACE is a comprehensive association of the nation’s colleges and universities dedicated to

analysis of higher education issues and advocacy on behalf of quality higher education and adult

education programs. Counted among ACE’s members are more than 1,800 accredited, degree-

granting colleges and universities and higher education-related associations, organizations, and

corporations. For further information, visit www.acenet.edu.

The American Association of University Professors

AAUP is a nonprofit charitable and educational organization that supports and defends the

principles of academic freedom and tenure and promotes policies to ensure academic due

process. AAUP has more than 45,000 members at colleges and universities throughout the

country. For further information, visit www.aaup.org.

Introduction

ACE/AAUP/UE 1

United Educators Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc.

Founded in 1987, UE provides insurance to colleges, universities, and related organizations. It

is owned and governed by over 1,000 member institutions. UE offers policies that cover legal

disputes over the denial of tenure. For further information, visit www.ue.org.

Following the meeting, the organizations developed the specific recommendations offered

here. We hope this report will promote self-reflection by those who evaluate tenure-track faculty,

as well as general institutional dialogue and improvement.

Ann H. Franke, Esq.

Vice President for Education and Risk Management

United Educators Insurance

2 GOOD PRACTICE IN TENURE EVALUATION

ACE/AAUP/UE 3

ractical suggestions for the tenure

evaluation process fall into four major

themes. These suggestions speak to

various audiences—notably department

chairs, senior faculty who participate in eval-

uating tenure-track faculty, and academic

administrators.

Clarity in Standards and Procedures for

Tenure Evaluation

Institutions should ensure that their stated

criteria for tenure match the criteria that, in

actual practice, the institutions apply.

Department chairs and other responsible

administrators should clearly communicate

all criteria, including any special require-

ments applicable within a department or a

college, to a tenure-track faculty member

early in his or her career at the institution.

When the tenure review occurs, complica-

tions can arise if positive developments (such

as the acceptance of a book for publication)

or negative allegations (such as harassment

charges) come to light. Institutions should

anticipate these possibilities and develop

procedures in advance for handling them.

Another potential source of difficulty lies in

the personal opinions expressed to those

responsible for conducting the review. An

institution should adopt a consistent

approach to handling private letters and con-

versations, outside the normal review

process, concerning the merits of a tenure

candidate.

Consistency in Tenure Decisions

Tenure decisions must be consistent over

time among candidates with different per-

sonal characteristics—such as race, gender,

disability, and national origin. Protections

in law and institutional policy against dis-

crimination apply with full force to the

tenure process. Consistency also requires

that the formal evaluations of a single indi-

vidual over time reflect a coherent set of

expectations and a consistent analysis of the

individual’s performance. Department

chairs and other colleagues should not con-

vey excessive optimism about a candidate’s

prospects for tenure. A negative tenure deci-

sion should not be the first criticism the

individual receives. Everyone who partici-

pates in reviews must scrupulously follow

tenure policies and procedures, and admin-

istrators should take special care when

reviewing candidates from their own disci-

plines.

Candor in the Evaluation of Tenure-Track

Faculty

The department chair or other responsible

administrator should clearly explain to every

tenure-track faculty member the standards

for reappointment and tenure and the cycle

for evaluations of his or her progress in meet-

ing these requirements. Periodic evaluations

should be candid and expressed in plain

English. They should include specific exam-

ples illustrating the quality of performance,

constructive criticism of any potential areas

Summary

for improvement, and practical guidance for

future efforts.

Caring for Unsuccessful Candidates

Faculty and administrators must treat an

unsuccessful tenure candidate with profes-

sionalism and decency. The person responsi-

ble for conveying the disappointing news

should use compassion, and colleagues

should take care not to isolate the person

socially. Active efforts to assist the candidate

in relocating to another position redound to

the mutual benefit of the individual and the

institution.

4 GOOD PRACTICE IN TENURE EVALUATION

ACE/AAUP/UE 5

ost colleges and universities have

well-articulated tenure policies.

Over time, their faculty and admin-

istrators have collaborated on crafting stan-

dards and procedures that fit their unique

institutional circumstances. Experience

suggests, however, that some aspects of a

tenure policy may nonetheless be over-

looked, creating the potential for uncertain-

ty or conflict. Faculty and administrations

that anticipate these issues and develop

thoughtful and consistent approaches to

them will be best positioned to defend their

decisions.

The tenure policy should comprehensively list

all the major criteria used for evaluation.

“Teaching, research, and service” is the

standard trilogy for evaluating faculty.

Some institutions have enlarged these crite-

ria with additional factors, while others rely

on the traditional three. Whatever the

formulation, an institution should assess,

through its appropriate decision-making

bodies, whether its policies accurately

reflect the actual operation of its tenure

system. Do tenure evaluators sometimes use

unstated factors? Examples might include

student enrollment, success in attracting

external funding, or long-term institutional

needs.

If a tenure denial is based on a criterion

that does not appear in the written policy, the

unsuccessful candidate may challenge the

decision as unfair and improper. Some courts

are sympathetic to these claims. Other courts

give campuses latitude in interpreting, for

example, “research” as including the ability

to attract external funding, or “teaching” as

including social skills in relating to students.

The safest course is to articulate written stan-

dards that reflect the major criteria that are

actually used.

The evaluators at all stages in the tenure

process should know—and apply—the

criteria.

After the institution identifies the major cri-

teria, the next logical steps are to distribute

and follow them. Many people may be

involved in a tenure evaluation: senior faculty

in the candidate’s department; members of a

campus-wide tenure committee; the dean; the

provost; the president; and, on most campus-

es, the governing board. Each evaluator at

each stage must know and apply the proper

criteria.

Has the candidate’s department adopted

special requirements relevant to its disci-

pline? Fields such as studio and performing

arts, for example, often require creative

output in forms other than traditional schol-

arly publishing. Computer scientists might

use software development to demonstrate

professional achievements. Even depart-

ments such as history or mathematics may

have tailored criteria specific to their particu-

lar goals. The institution should take special

care in evaluating interdisciplinary scholars

to ensure that all evaluators measure the can-

Chapter 1

Clarity in Standards and

Procedures for Tenure

Evaluation

6 GOOD PRACTICE IN TENURE EVALUATION

didate against the same yardstick. Whatever

the criteria, all evaluators should know and

apply them.

The tenure policy should address whether

tenure evaluators will consider positive

events occurring after the tenure application

has been submitted.

Most institutions require candidates to

submit comprehensive applications detailing

their achievements. The policy should

specify whether the evaluation will take into

account developments occurring after the

candidate has completed his or her applica-

tion. A faculty tenure committee may need to

be alert to the possibility, for example, that a

publisher may finally accept a candidate’s

manuscript after the tenure review has

begun. Will this positive development carry

weight in the tenure process? If so, who is

responsible for supplementing the applica-

tion with the new information? Can the can-

didate add the new information at any stage

of the process, or is it at some point too late?

If the candidate adds new information,

should he or she receive reconsideration at

any earlier stages?

While subsequent developments are most

often positive, such as a new publication or

improved teaching evaluations, they need not

be. After applying for tenure, the candidate

might suffer a decline in teaching evalua-

tions, receive a harsh review of a recent book,

or, in rare instances, be found to have

engaged in sexual harassment or plagiarism.

Commentators sometimes use the terms

“static” and “dynamic” to distinguish

between those tenure systems that accept new

information during the review process and

those that do not. An institution is well-

advised to adopt policies that make clear in

advance which approach it will use and, of

course, to adhere to its policies. Positive

developments can extend the tenure process;

negative developments, as discussed below,

may interrupt it.

The tenure policy should indicate what

steps the institution will take if a faculty

member under consideration for tenure is

charged with misconduct or if other negative

events emerge.

The problem of unexpected negative informa-

tion is infrequent but can prove very trouble-

some. An allegation of misconduct may be

made against a faculty member who is under-

going tenure evaluation. For example, a

senior professor may allege during the

departmental tenure deliberations that the

candidate has included on his resume a paper

that was actually written entirely by a

graduate student. Unsigned or signed letters

alleging sexual harassment may arrive from

students. Someone may offer a rumor that the

candidate has been charged with domestic

violence, whether recently or in the distant

past.

We strongly encourage institutions to

seek legal advice in these situations before

completing the tenure review. Beyond this

generic advice, institutions take varied

approaches.

Some institutions will channel such alle-

gations into a campus dispute resolution

mechanism, such as the college or university

sexual harassment procedure. The institution

will suspend the tenure process until com-

pleting the other proceeding. Other institu-

tions give the candidate notice of the

allegations and an opportunity to respond

directly to the tenure committee. Under a

hybrid approach, the institution might offer

the candidate the option of a separate pro-

ceeding or consideration directly by the

tenure committee. Still other institutions may

decline to receive or consider in the tenure

process any unsubstantiated or unresolved

allegations of misconduct. An AAUP investi-

gating committee concluded in one case that

a probationary faculty member charged with

misconduct during the course of a tenure

evaluation should have received written

charges stated with particularity, time to for-

ACE/AAUP/UE 7

mulate a response, and an opportunity to

appear before the decision makers to present

the response. Advice of legal counsel may

well be helpful in ensuring compliance with

institutional policy and legal responsibilities

in these complex situations.

Evidence of serious misconduct might

come to light after tenure has been awarded.

Rather than revisiting the award of tenure,

the better course is to invoke the regular

disciplinary process applicable to tenured

faculty.

The tenure policy should address the voting

protocol when an evaluator serves at more

than one level of review.

A member of the candidate’s department may

serve on the campus-wide promotion and

tenure committee. If someone “wears

multiple hats,” the question arises whether

that individual votes once or twice on the

tenure candidacy. Consider, for example, a

full professor in biology who serves on the

college-wide review committee. If an assis-

tant professor in biology has applied for

tenure, would the senior colleague vote only

within the department, only on the college-

wide committee, or at both levels? Smaller

institutions may face this question most

often. There is no single correct answer. The

best approach is to anticipate the situation,

address it through clear written policies, and

then follow the policies consistently.

Individual faculty members may wish to

express their own opinions about a tenure

candidate to members of the campus-wide

promotion and tenure committee or to the

administration. The tenure policy should

address how the recipients should treat these

individual opinions.

Consider this scenario. A senior faculty mem-

ber strongly believes that a junior colleague

should not receive tenure. She is, however,

unable to convince the department, which

votes to recommend the award of tenure. She

writes a separate letter to an acquaintance on

the promotion and tenure committee, or to

the dean, forcefully explaining her opposition

to the candidate. Is such a letter proper under

the institution’s policies? How should the

recipient handle it? Should the tenure candi-

date be informed about the letter?

Senior faculty members often hold strong

opinions about tenure candidates. They may

seek to express their opinions, whether posi-

tive or negative, privately to individuals with

influence in the evaluation process. They

may write letters or e-mails or engage in con-

versations. From a policy standpoint, the

institution’s rules should clarify whether such

individual opinions may be properly con-

veyed and considered. If so, how should the

recipient use the information? Should it be

shared with evaluators who were involved

earlier in the process, or should it be shared

with the candidate?

The press has reported on one illustra-

tive situation at New York University. A can-

didate who directed an ethnic studies

program received a departmental vote of 17

to 1 in favor of tenure. The lone dissenter, a

former dean, wrote a private 10-page letter to

the incumbent dean sharply criticizing the

candidate’s scholarship. Unknown to the can-

didate or the department, the letter became

part of the tenure file. According to the press

account, the promotion and tenure com-

mittee voted 8 to 2 against tenure, relying in

part on the critical letter. The letter writer

and the department disagreed over the pro-

priety of the separate letter. Was it an exer-

cise of the dissenter’s right to express his

opinion or a subversion of the department’s

democratic process? The administration ulti-

mately offered the scholar a tenured

position.

From a litigation standpoint, a senior

professor needs to understand that her letter

may become public through the discovery

process. If the candidate about whom she

wrote the letter is denied tenure, that indi-

vidual may file suit and would receive access to

the letter. Suppose, however, that the private,

critical letter is unpersuasive and the candidate

receives tenure. The letter remains in the institu-

tion’s files. Now suppose another scholar is

denied tenure. The letter will come to light in a

lawsuit if the court compares the evaluations of

the successful and unsuccessful candidates. The

trial judge can also order disclosure of verbal

comments.

This problem is not hypothetical. In one

tenure battle that landed in court, a senior his-

torian had written a “confidential” letter to

the dean of the faculty questioning whether a

male historian had been evaluated less rigor-

ously than female historians during their

tenure candidacies. The male historian

received tenure. A female scientist who subse-

quently was denied tenure sued and compared

her qualifications to those of the male histori-

an. The “confidential” letter from the senior

history professor was presented as evidence at

the trial and was reported in the press.

Given the realities of academic life, some

individual faculty members may well wish to

share their unsolicited opinions about candi-

dates with decision makers in the tenure

process. The best course is for institutional

policy to address the possibility. Key issues are

whether the candidate receives notice about

the communication and what weight, if any,

the recipient may place on that communica-

tion. Good institutional rules will offer guid-

ance so that all participants in the tenure

process share a common understanding.

8 GOOD PRACTICE IN TENURE EVALUATION

Checklist on Clarity

✓

The tenure policy should clearly state the cri-

teria for tenure and should encompass all the

major factors actually relied upon in evaluat-

ing tenure applications.

✓

Evaluators at all stages of the tenure process

should know and apply the criteria appro-

priate to the candidate.

✓

The tenure rules should clearly explain

whether evaluators will consider positive

events subsequent to the submission of the

tenure application—such as acceptance of a

manuscript for publication—in making their

evaluations.

✓

The institution should formulate a plan for

handling allegations of misconduct or other

negative information that may arise during the

tenure process.

✓

A senior faculty member who serves on a

college-wide tenure committee should know,

in advance, whether he or she should vote on

a tenure candidate in the department, at the

college-wide level, or both.

✓

The institution’s rules should address what

weight, if any, decisionmakers should give to

informal and unsolicited opinions they receive

about tenure candidates and whether candi-

dates should be informed about such

unsolicited communication.

ACE/AAUP/UE 9

nstitutions strive for the highest stan-

dards of fairness in individual tenure

decisions. They evaluate each candidate

with great care, conducting a time-consuming

and elaborate review. The process places the

candidate’s achievements under intense

scrutiny as his or her application proceeds

through the various levels of review. The goal

is a correct judgment based on the merits of

the individual’s qualifications. Sometimes,

though, evaluators overlook the role of con-

sistency. The fairness of the tenure process

depends not just on the outcome of an indi-

vidual decision, but also on the consistency of

multiple decisions over time.

The faculty, administration, and governing

board should strive for consistency in the

operation of the institution’s tenure evaluation

process.

The challenge of consistency of evaluation is

well known to anyone who has graded a large

stack of student essays. Does the professor

judge the first paper by the same standards as

the one at the bottom of the pile? Consistency

in tenure decisions presents a larger chal-

lenge. Evaluators make tenure decisions pri-

marily on an individual basis rather than a

comparative one. Student essays are graded

within a relatively short time frame, but

tenure decisions are made on an ongoing,

periodic basis and through a process of suc-

cessive recommendations leading to a deci-

sion. Candidates come from different

disciplines. Most significantly, tenure

decisions require a highly nuanced assess-

ment of professional achievement.

From a legal standpoint, consistency in

tenure decisions is a central concern. In

1972, Congress decided that colleges and uni-

versities must abide by the federal laws pro-

hibiting employment discrimination. Tenure

decisions thus receive close scrutiny from

judges and juries as to whether the institution

has equitably treated tenure candidates of

different races, genders, national origins,

religions, ages, or disability status. Sexual

orientation may be relevant under state or

local law or campus policy. Institutional poli-

cies typically list the types of discrimination

that the institution prohibits. Inconsistency

in tenure decisions, legally termed “disparate

treatment,” is the essence of legal challenges

alleging that an institution’s tenure process is

discriminatory.

The courts typically allow an unsuccessful

tenure candidate who sues for discrimination

to compare his or her situation to those of

scholars who have received tenure. An

African-American electrical engineer suing

for racial discrimination, for example, will

point to the qualifications of white electrical

engineering faculty members who have

received tenure. A court may allow the plain-

tiff to compare his candidacy to those of white

professors in other departments such as civil

engineering, physics, or even more remote

fields such as languages or social sciences. Yet

different disciplines may apply different stan-

dards for tenure. Clinical programs are a good

Chapter 2

Consistency in Tenure

Decisions

example. Departmental tenure standards that

articulate the different criteria will facilitate

the legal review of the consistency of deci-

sions.

Given that judges and juries will compare

the institution’s tenure decisions over time

and across disciplines, faculty and administra-

tors need to pay heed to the consistency of

tenure decisions. Reviewers at each level,

from the department to the ultimate decision

maker, should ask, “How does this candidate

compare to others we have evaluated for

tenure in the recent past?” Each tenure candi-

date is unique, and the evaluation process is

anything but mechanical.

Even in the face of these difficulties, how-

ever, the institution needs to be alert to incon-

sistencies, particularly gross or blatant ones.

One institution gives its university-wide com-

mittee a special role in checking for consis-

tency. The committee members’ terms are

staggered so that at any given time at least one

member of the committee has served for six

years. With each new tenure decision, the

committee compares the candidate to the can-

didates it has evaluated over the past six years.

Whether using this type of mechanism or oth-

ers, the committee best devotes its attention

to the consistency of decisions before a lawsuit

is filed rather than after.

The faculty and administration should strive

for consistency over time in their review of the

work of each nontenured faculty member.

It is important for the department chair and

other reviewers to be consistent over time

when evaluating an individual candidate. An

assistant professor may, for example, receive

five successive annual evaluations from her

department chair that praise her for excellent

teaching. In the sixth year, the department

chair begins to criticize her teaching. The

change may be due to an actual decline in the

candidate’s performance, or it may be due to a

change in the chair’s approach to the evalua-

tion. The institution should strive for consis-

tency in the successive evaluations of an indi-

vidual candidate. If challenged in a lawsuit, an

institution is placed at a distinct disadvantage

if an unsuccessful candidate for tenure

received only excellent evaluations up to the

point of tenure rejection.

Consistency in successive evaluations, of

course, does not require that evaluators pho-

tocopy the same written comments and reuse

them annually. Successive evaluations should,

rather, faithfully reflect the candidate’s per-

formance, including both improvements and

declines. A careful department chair will

review the prior evaluation before writing the

next one as a check on both the expectations

that were conveyed and the candidate’s

progress in meeting them. The evaluations

may also be useful items to include in the

tenure application file. Faculty and adminis-

trators who conduct tenure reviews may bene-

fit from seeing the earlier annual evaluations.

If a candidate received earlier excellent evalu-

ations but is rejected for tenure, he or she will

be understandably frustrated by what appear

to be capricious and misleading actions.

A department’s counseling of nontenured

faculty members should be consistent with its

and the institution’s tenure requirements.

The department bears the major responsibility

for ensuring that a tenure candidate receives

appropriate ongoing counseling during the

probationary period. In several recent tenure

disputes, departments have been faulted for

providing inconsistent counseling or guidance

to a junior faculty member.

In one situation, the president of a

research university addressed a grievance filed

by an unsuccessful tenure candidate. In decid-

ing the grievance, the president wrote to the

candidate explaining that he was assessing

“whether you were substantially misled about

your progress in meeting University stan-

dards.” The president concluded, “In light of

the exceptionally incautious feedback that you

received from your department, you may not

10 GOOD PRACTICE IN TENURE EVALUATION

ACE/AAUP/UE 11

have taken every opportunity available to you

to make more progress on your second project

before your tenure review . . .” Based on this

flaw in the department’s treatment of the can-

didate, the president upheld the grievance,

offering as a remedy additional time and

another tenure review.

Departmental evaluations that are incon-

sistent with the institution’s requirements can

also be problematic. At Trinity College in

Connecticut, the chemistry department had

supported the tenure candidacy of Dr. Leslie

Craine. When the college’s Appointments and

Promotions Committee voted against Craine,

the department wrote to the committee

asking for reconsideration. As quoted in the

Chronicle of Higher Education, the depart-

ment blamed itself for not doing a better job of

counseling Craine. Two years before the

tenure decision, the department had evaluated

whether Craine was on target for tenure. The

department explained to her the publication

requirement and, two years later, in the

department’s opinion she had satisfied the

requirement. After the negative tenure deci-

sion, the department wrote to the committee,

“To change the rules between the second and

the final [review assessing her progress towards

tenure] is fundamentally unfair.”

According to

the press account, the department faulted itself

for causing the institution to treat Craine incon-

sistently over time.

These cases illustrate the serious problems

that can arise if a department’s approach to a

tenure candidate is inconsistent with the institu-

tion’s requirements as interpreted by other bodies.

Tenure files should contain the proper informa-

tion and should be retained after the decision.

The tenure process is laden with paper. The

department chair and other responsible offi-

cials should take care in assembling the review

materials. They need to attend to what is com-

piled and who is responsible for its safekeep-

ing. The candidate may later complain that

the department chair or dean improperly

excluded certain items favorable to her from

her tenure dossier. Alternatively, she might

complain that the chair or dean improperly

included unfavorable items. Consistency is

key. In challenging the composition of the

dossier, an unsuccessful candidate will use

other tenure files to illustrate proper and

improper items. Some institutions give the

candidate the right to inspect the dossier dur-

ing the tenure process or shortly thereafter.

Safekeeping the materials is critical if the

institution must later explain its decision.

Occasionally a situation may arise in which

the tenure dossier disappears after the deci-

sion is made. Under federal regulations, insti-

tutions receiving federal funds are required to

retain records concerning promotion or ter-

mination for at least two years after the date of

the action (29 CFR § 1602.49, 41 CFR § 60-

1.12). State laws or institutional protocols may

specify a longer period. One recommended

approach is the retention of all employment

records through the duration of the individ-

ual’s employment and for seven years there-

after.

If the candidate is in the same discipline as an

administrator involved in the tenure process,

the administrator should handle the tenure

application consistently with other applica-

tions.

An administrator should take care in review-

ing the tenure application of a candidate spe-

cializing in the same discipline as the

administrator. The administrator should treat

the application the same way as those of can-

didates in other fields. While the administra-

tor can certainly draw on his or her detailed

knowledge of the discipline, the safest course

is not to deviate in other respects from the

normal tenure review process.

Consider, for example, a provost who is a

political scientist. She might be tempted,

when reviewing the tenure application of an

assistant professor in political science, to call

a few trusted colleagues at other institutions

for their opinions. If she departs from normal

practice, and if the candidate is rejected, the

candidate may argue that the outsiders were

unduly influential. The candidate might argue

further that the provost specifically sought

negative opinions in an effort to scuttle the

tenure application.

Another example is the administrator who

will soon return to the faculty. If the adminis-

trator recommends against tenure for a candi-

date from the same field, the individual may

allege that the administrator acted out of

biased self-interest. The candidate may assert

that the administrator wished to save a “slot”

for his or her return to the faculty or did not

want to compete with the more successful

junior scholar.

Fortunately, these situations are relatively

uncommon. They underscore, however, that

special circumstances enhance the need for

consistency.

All reviewers should follow tenure procedures

to the letter.

An unsuccessful tenure candidate may seek to

overturn the decision by pointing to irregular-

ities in the handling of his or her tenure

review. It is easy to state the abstract proposi-

tion that a college or university should faith-

fully and consistently follow its own

procedures. Turning this abstraction into a

reality requires ongoing vigilance and atten-

tion to detail.

The use of outside letters of reference

offers a ready illustration. In one case at

Kansas State University, a federal judge noted

a departure from institutional rules on ex-

ternal letters:

The tenured faculty voted without having

reviewed letters from faculty out

side of the school (outside reviewers),

which was the school’s practice,

although the school’s written procedures

provide for such information to be available

or review prior to voting.

In another case, the University of

Minnesota solicited more than 40 external

review letters about a female mathematician,

while the normal number would have been six

to 10.

The best written rules are not always

easily applied to actual situations, but all eval-

uators should strive to adhere as scrupulously

as possible to the institution’s tenure review

procedures. Letters of reference are one

potential point of contention. A fuller list of

the key steps in the tenure process that

require close attention includes:

• Compilation of the tenure application file.

• Procedures for identifying external

referees.

• Voting eligibility of departmental mem-

bers (including faculty on leave).

• Availability of written materials to com-

mittees and individual administrators who

vote on the candidacy.

• Informal communications made outside

the official review process about the can-

didate.

One institution has built a procedural

check into its tenure process. Before notifying

a candidate of tenure denial, those evaluators

who have had major responsibility for the

review meet and work through a checklist to

confirm that they have handled each proce-

dural element of the tenure process correctly.

Such a review can flag missing materials,

missed deadlines, or other irregularities.

Departures from the tenure procedures

may be reviewed in the unpleasant context of

litigation. The institution will probably argue

that the irregularity was not legally defective.

Even if the institution prevails, the distraction

and expense of litigation might have been

avoided had the procedural error never arisen.

12 GOOD PRACTICE IN TENURE EVALUATION

ACE/AAUP/UE 13

Checklist on Consistency

✓

Ensure that tenure decisions are consistent

over time among candidates who have

different personal characteristics that are

legally protected such as race, gender,

disability, ethnic origin, and religion.

✓

Ensure that the formal evaluations of non-

tenured faculty and what they are told infor-

mally about the quality of their work are based

on a consistent set of expectations. A negative

tenure decision should not be the first criticism

of the individual’s performance.

✓

The department should provide advice to fac-

ulty during the probationary period that is con-

sistent with its and the institution’s

expectations for tenure. Departments should

be cautious about conveying excessive opti-

mism about prospects for tenure.

✓

The tenure application dossier should include

all required materials and exclude items that

the institution has not used for other candi-

dates.

✓

Administrators should take special care, when

reviewing candidates in their own disciplines,

that they not depart from standard tenure

processes.

✓

All reviewers should scrupulously follow tenure

procedures. Deviations can be used as evi-

dence that the institution breached its obliga-

tion to conduct a fair review.

ACE/AAUP/UE 15

he concepts of clarity, consistency,

and candor are useful in analyzing

tenure evaluation procedures.

Admittedly, though, the categories overlap

somewhat. If, for example, tenure criteria are

not clear, then it will be difficult if not impos-

sible to counsel a tenure-track faculty member

candidly about his or her progress in meeting

them. Examining institutional processes from

the perspective of tenure-track faculty can be

instructive. Here are some observations from

tenure-track faculty that illustrate the stress-

es they face.

Their concerns also illustrate

the overlapping nature of clarity, consistency,

and candor:

“What does it take to get tenure?

That’s the million dollar question.

Standards change, and you never

know how many articles you need.”

“I had a book contract, and in my

second year review, they said I should

concentrate on articles, not the book.

So I did. In my fourth year review,

they said, ‘Where’s the book?’”

“I’m in business, but my field is in

psychology, so about half my work is

published in psychological journals.

My department chair told me that

was fine.” The dean of this individual,

however, told the interviewers,

“What advice would I give to a young

faculty member? I’d tell them to

publish in business journals. We are

a professional field and we should

service the profession. To publish

elsewhere would be a risk.”

“Almost 50 percent of my time is

[spent] on committees. The problem

is that we don’t have enough senior

faculty to go around, and those who

are senior don’t want to serve. The

department chair feels he doesn’t have

a choice, and the dean seems oblivi-

ous. There are always good reasons to

put me on a committee; it’s just that I

don’t think it will help me get tenure.”

A faculty member at a small college

described her third-year review:

“That year the review was just a mess

so it wasn’t particularly helpful . . .

They wanted names of three poten-

tial reviewers and so I did my

research about people who were in

appropriate institutions and so on

and submitted the names. Then some

time passed and finally I got word

that all the reviewers had to be local

and none of the reviewers I had given

them were local. That meant that in a

matter of two or three days I had to

come up with new names. It was

incredibly stressful.”

Responsibility for candor falls most

squarely on the department chair or other

individual charged with the direct, ongoing

review of a tenure-track faculty member.

Chapter 3

Candor in the Evaluation of

Tenure-Track Faculty

Mathematician John B. Conway has described

for fellow department chairs the overriding

importance of candor in evaluations:

“On humanitarian and professional

grounds, junior faculty should get a

clear understanding of their status

long before tenure is considered.

“It is the head’s solemn duty to

report to the candidate any bad news

that comes out of the retention

review. In a serious situation, the can-

didate should be asked to respond in

writing. No one likes to communicate

bad news. (Well, almost no one.) But

it is absolutely essential that you do

this, especially now. A head who puts

on kid gloves at such a time is doing

no one a favor. If the report is so bad

that it seems irredeemable, terminate

the candidate now before tenure is

considered.

“There is the legal question, but

there is also your obligation as a

human being and the unofficial

mentor of this young colleague. Do

you really want them to spend the

next few years thinking there is noth-

ing to correct? That what they have

been doing is leading toward tenure?

And meantime the faculty is anticipat-

ing change and will conclude, when it

fails to appear, that this person did

not heed a warning and, hence, is

unworthy of tenure. I have known of

cases where a department head did

not pass on the faculty’s concerns.

When tenure was eventually denied,

the candidate was shocked, the facul-

ty discovered their warnings were not

transmitted, and the head’s prestige

and reputation suffered.

“A word of caution here is advis-

able. With five or six years of contact,

people can become very friendly.

Sufficiently friendly that hard deci-

sions are almost impossible.

Remember you are running a depart-

ment, not a club. Chumminess is not

an area where excellence suffices for

tenure. Nice young mathematicians

do not invite harsh judgments, but

your job, and that of your colleagues,

is to promote the well-being of the

university. It is not to promote the

sociability of the department.”

The temptation to put social concerns

ahead of academic needs is real. In an article

about a multimillion dollar jury verdict in a

tenure denial case involving a chemistry pro-

fessor, the press reported:

“David Henderson, then chairman of

the chemistry department, said

recently that he and his colleagues

incorrectly perceived their roles as

Ms. Craine’s advocates. ‘She was a

friend,’ he explained. ‘We’d worked

with her for six years . . . Today, Mr.

Henderson describes some of the

things that he wrote in the depart-

ment’s letter of appeal as ‘hyperbole,’

part of a ‘calculated strategy’ to meet

the requirements for appealing a neg-

ative tenure decision.”

Against this backdrop, we offer three gen-

eral principles to guide the candor of faculty

evaluations.

An institution owes every tenure-track faculty

member a clear explanation of the require-

ments for tenure.

The institution should give every new faculty

member an explanation of the requirements

for reappointment and tenure. Members of the

search committee might convey some infor-

mation about standards during the interview

process. Whatever the nature of discussions

during the search process, after appointment

the department or administration should fur-

16 GOOD PRACTICE IN TENURE EVALUATION

nish a thorough explanation. Subsequent eval-

uations then provide an opportunity to review

the requirements with the candidate. AAUP

recommends that:

Probationary faculty members should

be advised, early in their appointment,

of the substantive and procedural stan-

dards generally accepted in decisions

affecting renewal and tenure. Any spe-

cial standards adopted by their particu-

lar departments or schools should also

be brought to their attention.

It is vital that the institution promptly

inform the candidate of any changes in the

standards. Interdisciplinary scholars may

require special attention. Faculty members

who are affiliated with more than one depart-

ment face a particular risk that the institution

will not clearly define the overall standards for

evaluation of their performance, or will

change these standards frequently over time.

An institution owes every tenure-track faculty

member clear advice about his or her progress

in meeting tenure requirements.

The institution’s primary goal in the evalua-

tion is to give the candidate a full understand-

ing of his or her progress to date in meeting

the requirements. Candor is critical to both

the institution and the candidate. The evalua-

tion should be specific and should cover the

full review period. Evaluators should avoid

broad generalizations such as “Don’s teaching

has improved over the past year.” Add specific

details, such as “In his introductory readings

course, Don succeeded in motivating the stu-

dents, stimulating class discussion, and

preparing them for upper-level work. His new

compilation of reading material will have last-

ing value for our curriculum.”

The evaluation should cover the entire

review period, not just the most recent few

weeks or months. Normally the department

chair shares the written evaluation with the

candidate. In a meeting to discuss the evalua-

tion, the department chair should take the

opportunity to engage the faculty member in a

substantive discussion about work to date and

realistic prospects for the future. Use the

meeting as an occasion for two-way communi-

cation, not just a one-way critique.

Most flawed academic evaluations tend to

be excessively positive. A sugar-coated review

is easiest for the chair to dispense and for the

candidate to swallow. But over the long run, it

can prove harmful to everyone.

William Tierney and Estela Mara

Bensimon have explained the importance of

constructive criticism of tenure-track faculty:

[C]andidates should not be betrayed by

the system. If evaluations throughout

the first five years have been positive,

yet the candidate is denied tenure,

then a mistake needs to be rectified.

Formal evaluation can be helpful to an

individual if it deals with areas for

improvement as well as strengths. An

organization that does not take evalua-

tion seriously is apt to disable a candi-

date for tenure because he or she has

never received adequate feedback. In

effect, the greater blame goes to the

organization, but the unsuccessful

candidate must pay the penalty.

In today’s legal climate, the institution

can pay its penalty in the lawsuit that the

unsuccessful candidate brings against it.

Evaluators should state their constructive

criticism in plain English rather than couch-

ing it in the argot of diplomacy. Consider this

example. A chair tells a candidate that her

most recent published article was “good.” The

chair means that, while the article was basical-

ly acceptable, it did not meet the department’s

high standards of excellence. The candidate,

for her part, perceives the comment as praise.

A jury later deciding a lawsuit would likely

interpret “good” in the same way as the candi-

ACE/AAUP/UE 17

date. The chair’s diplomacy has led to a funda-

mental miscommunication. Chairs, senior fac-

ulty, and academic administrators need to pay

increasing attention to the potential “down-

stream” interpreters of their verbal and writ-

ten remarks. Today these interpreters may

include judges, juries, and investigators from

the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission.

The evaluation should include guidance for the

future.

A good evaluation will include some guidance

for the candidate’s future efforts. A depart-

ment chair may encourage a candidate whose

teaching is acceptable to devote attention to

publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals.

The chair might encourage a candidate who

has only co-authored publications to write as a

18 GOOD PRACTICE IN TENURE EVALUATION

Annual Faculty Evaluation

Professor Pam Poe

Teaching

The student evaluations place Pam right at the median within the department. She continues to teach

the sophomore introductory lecture course every fall. In addition, her development of the new critical

methods seminar for department majors has been a big project. She rolled up her sleeves last summer

and produced the new course, offered this spring, that has contributed substantially to the quality of our

program.

Research

Pam’s research has been showing good progress. We look forward to the publication later this year of the

book version of her dissertation by State University Press. In the past year, she has submitted two papers that

are under consideration by

The International Bulletin of Methodology, one of the leading journals in her field.

Service

Pam’s service record is outstanding. She chaired the committee that conducted the campus-wide study

of life and learning issues for female students. She was the primary author of the committee’s report,

which made major recommendations for reform in the areas of curriculum, housing, and student activi-

ties. On campus, both female and male students eagerly seek her assistance with academic counseling.

In the local community, her effective work on the board of the local United Way has brought credit to the

college.

Pam is in her fourth year in a tenure-track position. In addition to the across-the-board salary increase, I

am pleased to recommend her for an additional 1.5 percent for merit.

Dr. Paul Murky, Department Chair

Sample Evaluations

These are two evaluations of a tenure-track faculty

member. Consider their relative candor and usefulness

to Professor Poe.

sole author. The conscientious chair will

anticipate the needs of the candidate and the

department and will guide the individual in

how best to direct his or her energy.

Future guidance should not, however,

take the form of promises. For example, “If

you get your book out within the next two

years, I’m sure you’ll be a shoo-in for tenure.”

Many things can change over two years. The

book, when published, may not be good. The

institution may decide it does not have a long-

term need for the candidate’s specialty. A dif-

ferent department chair may assess the

candidate’s research productivity differently.

So, while future guidance is an important ele-

ment of an evaluation, the chair should couch

it as guidance rather than a guarantee.

ACE/AAUP/UE 19

Annual Faculty Evaluation

Professor Pam Poe

Teaching

The student evaluations place Pam right at the median within the department. She continues to teach the

sophomore introductory lecture course every fall. In addition, her development of the new critical methods

seminar for department majors has been a big project. She rolled up her sleeves last summer and produced

the new course, offered this spring, that has contributed substantially to the quality of our program.

Over the next two years, I hope to see Pam devote attention to honing her teaching skills. One area she

could usefully address is finding ways to encourage broader student participation in discussions. She is not

undertaking any new course preparations in the coming year, which will give her an opportunity to consider

new creative approaches to student involvement. I would be glad to consult with her on strategies and, if she

wishes, to visit her classes occasionally.

Research

Pam’s research has been showing good progress. We look forward to the publication later this year of the book

version of her dissertation by State University Press. In the past year, she has submitted two papers that are

under consideration by

The International Bulletin of Methodology, one of the leading journals in her field.

Pam understands that the college does not place substantial weight on the publication of dissertations (or

other research projects undertaken elsewhere before a scholar joins our faculty). For a successful tenure can-

didacy, she will need to show a strong record of publication in peer-reviewed journals. At a minimum, the

publication of three substantial articles will be required.

Service

Pam’s service record is outstanding. She chaired the committee that conducted the campus-wide study of life

and learning issues for female students. She was the primary author of the committee’s report, which made

major recommendations for reform in the areas of curriculum, housing, and student activities. On campus both

female and male students eagerly seek her assistance with academic counseling. In the local community, her

effective work on the board of the local United Way has brought credit to the college.

Pam and I have discussed the weight that the college gives to service in evaluating faculty. While impor-

tant, it stands behind teaching and research in our priorities.

Pam is in her fourth year in a tenure-track position. In addition to the across-the-board salary increase, I

am pleased to recommend her for an additional 1.5 percent for merit for her role in the development of the

new seminar.

Dr. Charles Candid, Department Chair

An institution is vulnerable to challenge if

it gives short shrift to any of the elements of

candor. Particularly dangerous is the situation

in which the institution has offered a candi-

date glowing evaluations for five years but

then denies tenure on the basis of some inade-

quacy that no one ever communicated during

the entire probationary period.

20 GOOD PRACTICE IN TENURE EVALUATION

Every tenure–track faculty member

deserves:

✓

A clear explanation of the requirements for

reappointment and tenure, including any

criteria specific to the department or school.

✓

Periodic evaluations of his or her progress in

meeting the requirements.

✓

Candor in all evaluations.

✓

Specific examples that illustrate the quality of

his or her performance.

✓

Constructive criticism outlining any potential

areas for improvement.

✓

A review covering the entire evaluation period,

not just the recent past.

✓

An evaluation in plain English.

✓

Practical guidance for future efforts to meet

the requirements, without promises or

guarantees that the institution may not be able

to honor.

✓

An understanding of how a review (or reviews)

during the probationary period differs from a

later tenure review.

ACE/AAUP/UE 21

lmost no one in the history depart-

ment has talked to me this entire

semester. I’m like someone who has

been airbrushed out of a Kremlin photo-

graph.”

— Historian denied tenure at Yale

University

“It’s like you have leprosy.”

— English professor denied tenure at the

University of Michigan

At most institutions, a denial of tenure

means that the unsuccessful candidate will

remain one final year and then depart.

Faculty and administrators should continue

to treat a candidate who has been rejected for

tenure as a professional colleague. The insti-

tution can take many steps to help the indi-

vidual with what may be a difficult transition.

If the institution provides assistance and

expressions of concern, it may reduce the

anger and desire for revenge that some unsuc-

cessful candidates feel. Caring for unsuccess-

ful candidates is a humane and decent thing

to do. It is also a good way to prevent some

lawsuits.

Deliver the bad news with compassion.

Consider how your institution notifies candi-

dates that they have been denied tenure. The

most impersonal way is a short letter. How

would you feel if you received this letter?

Dear Professor Jones,

It is my responsibility to advise you

that the governing board voted last

week to deny your application for

tenure and promotion. You will

receive a terminal one-year contract

running through next June. Let me

offer thanks for your years of service

to our college and wish you well in

your future professional endeavors.

Sincerely,

President Smith

One immediate question would be why

the president did not send the letter more

promptly after the board voted. But beyond

that relatively minor detail, the letter is

highly impersonal. It essentially abandons

Professor Jones to face the future alone.

Written notice of the tenure denial is

important from a legal standpoint. A better

letter would provide an opportunity to meet

with the provost or other high-level academic

administrator to discuss the decision and any

relocation assistance that the institution

could provide.

Experience suggests that the provost, or

similar official, should meet with each candi-

date denied tenure as soon as possible after

the decision. The meeting can begin the

process of repairing damage to the individ-

ual’s self-esteem. The provost uses the meet-

ing to say, in effect, “You’re still a good

person. You have many fine skills and talents.

Chapter 4

Caring for Unsuccessful

Candidates

“

At the present time, unfortunately, you and

the institution were not a good long-term

match.” The provost should allow the candi-

date to express feelings about the situation,

which can provide the individual with some

catharsis. The provost can also begin to out-

line ways in which the institution may be able

to assist with the candidate’s transition.

Encourage colleagues to interact profession-

ally with the unsuccessful candidate after the

denial of tenure.

Social isolation can exacerbate the unsuc-

cessful tenure candidate’s sense of failure.

Colleagues should take care to interact sensi-

tively and professionally with the individual

after a negative decision. Take time for con-

versation and social interactions. Common

courtesies can reduce some of the sting of the

outcome.

One unsuccessful candidate described

the awkwardness of hosting at her home a

gathering for prospective students. She was

obliged to “sell” them on the value of an

institution that had recently rejected her.

Should the gathering have been held else-

where? The best approach probably would have

been for the chair to ask whether she preferred

to host what was an annual event one final

time or to let the task fall to someone else.

Unilaterally shifting the function without

consultation probably would have been

unwise. Open lines of communication can

help the candidate through a difficult period

and reduce the prospect of disputes over

small or large issues.

22 GOOD PRACTICE IN TENURE EVALUATION

ACE/AAUP/UE 23

Checklist on Caring for Unsuccessful Candidates

The institution can take many steps to help the unsuccessful tenure candidate get back on his or her feet else-

where. Here are some possibilities.

✓

Networking about available positions at other institutions. Senior faculty in the department can be an enor-

mous help in identifying possibilities at other institutions. They can contact colleagues nearby or in other parts

of the country and urge them to consider the candidate for open positions. If the department, however, was

strongly opposed to the award of tenure, the networking function might be better performed by a senior acad-

emic administrator. If the tenure denial was based on malfeasance, it would be irresponsible for the institution

to help the individual relocate to another campus without adequate disclosure of the problem.

✓

Funds for travel and attending conferences. The unsuccessful candidate may find it helpful to have access to

funds for attending conferences that have a recruiting component, other travel related to the job search, or

maintaining professional contacts. The institution can specifically earmark a reasonable amount for the candi-

date’s use.

✓

Subscriptions to periodicals that have vacancy announcements. A personal subscription may relieve the can-

didate from the burden of hunting down the department’s shared copy of any publications that include posi-

tion listings.

✓

Photocopying assistance. The search for an academic position requires large amounts of photocopying. The

institution can designate someone to assist with this function. If the institution closely monitors copying

charges, the candidate might be given a special allotment.

✓

Advice about academic job searches. Some candidates may be out of touch with the logistics of finding an

academic position. Colleagues or the placement office may be able to offer “how to” advice on current tech-

niques. The candidate might, for example, welcome advice about online information and networking

resources and how to prepare a resume for electronic distribution.

✓

Release time, if the candidate desires it. The institution and the candidate may mutually decide that their

interests would be best served if the candidate were relieved of certain duties during the terminal contract

year. The candidate might, for example, be offered a reduced teaching load. Take care, though, that the deci-

sion is mutual. Involuntarily imposing a substantial change in responsibilities on someone denied tenure may

create risks. Such action may anger the individual and increase his or her readiness to sue. The faculty hand-

book may limit the institution’s ability to change faculty responsibilities at particular times or in particular

ways. If the institution relieves the individual of teaching, the action may violate AAUP’s recommended stan-

dards on suspension. Mutually agreed-upon release time is, however, acceptable.

✓

Portable research support. Occasionally, institutions have provided financial support to continue the faculty

member’s research at another institution. Such “portable” support can signal the perceived value of the

research and enhance the candidate’s attractiveness for another position.

✓

Other support that fits the individual’s unique circumstances. Take the time to learn about the candidate’s

needs and desires for future professional employment. Then consider whether the institution can help satisfy

them. Retraining, tuition waivers, the payment of professional society dues, and library access are but a few

resources that the institution may be able to deploy. Every situation is different, so examine each with care.

Take care that any oral or written recommendations are consistent with the grounds for the tenure decision. If the

candidate files a lawsuit, those recommendations may crop up as evidence.

ACE/AAUP/UE 25

ow can an institution move forward

in refining and improving its evalua-

tion process? Collaboration among

faculty and academic administrators is a key

ingredient. Advice from legal counsel may

also be appropriate. We offer institutions the

following approaches:

• Conduct workshops for department

chairs on the appointment and evalua-

tion of tenure-track faculty. Cover topics

such as the importance of following insti-

tutional procedures, communicating well

with tenure-track faculty, and preparing

and retaining appropriate documenta-

tion. Possible presenters include experi-

enced chairs and administrators, legal

counsel, and outside experts. This report

could serve as a basis for discussion.

• For smaller colleges, collaborate with

neighboring institutions to develop joint

annual or semiannual retreats or work-

shops for chairs and senior faculty.

• Encourage faculty and chairs to attend

external programs on evaluation and

tenure practices. Some ongoing work-

shops are listed in the bibliography.

Disciplinary association meetings also

sponsor occasional sessions. To

compound the benefit of external pro-

grams, ask the attendees to share the

insights they learn with others back on

campus. Institutions often overlook the

steps of sharing information and promot-

ing campus dialogue with people who

return from external programs.

• Have a small working group analyze situ-

ations of tenure denial that have

occurred in the recent past and formulate

recommendations for improvement.

Don’t limit the recommendations just to

revising the wording of campus policy.

Also address the behavioral issues of how

candidly and consistently the evaluators

apply tenure standards.

• If lawsuits or other disputes have

occurred, learn from those experiences

and make appropriate changes. Calculate

the intangible and tangible costs of dis-

pute and devote comparable resources to

preventing the next problem that might

otherwise occur.

• Engage in a dialogue with tenure-track

faculty about their perceptions of the

tenure process. Ask about their under-

standing of the tenure standards and

procedures, as well as the quality of the

ongoing evaluations they are receiving.

The information could be solicited infor-

mally through conversations or more

formally through surveys. Use your find-

ings to identify areas for possible

improvement.

Consideration for tenure is a pivotal

moment in the life of the candidate and the

institution. The good practices detailed here

Conclusion

Moving Forward

are designed to avert problems that can

detract from the hard work of evaluating

academic achievement. They are also designed

to enhance the fairness of the tenure process.

A few of the suggestions address institutional

policy. Most speak to the words and deeds of

the people who implement that policy. We

commend these practices to the serious atten-

tion of department chairs, other faculty

involved in tenure evaluations, and academic

administrators.

26 GOOD PRACTICE IN TENURE EVALUATION

ACE/AAUP/UE 27

Introduction

The tenure process has evolved over time.

Today, for example, senior faculty colleagues

typically vote at the department level on a

tenure candidate. In 1959, however, only 26

of 80 institutions surveyed involved faculty in

tenure recommendations. The survey authors

proposed that tenure procedures “should

provide for official action by the faculty, at

one or more levels, on all decisions about

acquisition of tenure.” Commission on

Academic Tenure in Higher Education,

Faculty Tenure (Jossey-Bass, 1973), 218.

Yesterday’s recommendation has become

today’s reality.

National Center for Postsecondary

Improvement, “Why Is Research the Rule?

The Impact of Incentive Systems on Faculty

Behavior,” Change 32 (March/April 2000):

53, 55.

Those involved in the session, held in

October 1998, were: Dr. Michael Baer, Senior

Vice President for Programs and Analysis,

ACE; Peter Byrne, Professor, Georgetown

University Law Center; Donald Hood,

Professor, Columbia University; Dr. Jonathan

Knight, Associate Secretary, AAUP; Sheldon

Steinbach, General Counsel, ACE; Patricia

Sullivan, Chancellor, University of North

Carolina–Greensboro; Donald Wagner,

Professor, State University of West Georgia;

David Lascell, Esq., Harter, Seecrest &

Emery, LLP; and, from United Educators,

Janice Abraham, President; Robb Jones,

General Counsel; Laura Kumin, Vice

President; and Ann Franke, then-Director.

Chapter 1

Relatively little has been written about the

intersection of misconduct and tenure evalua-

tion. A few accounts, however, discuss spe-

cific situations:

• Koerselman v. Rhynard, 875 S.W.2d 347

(Tex. App. 1994). When Professor Rhynard

was evaluated for tenure, his senior col-

leagues inquired about rumors of sexual

harassment allegations against him. The

case details the actions of the department

chair and dean in handling the allegations

and their documentation.

• Ruth Shalit, “The Man Who Knew Too

Much: A Professor’s Probing Teaching

Methods Put His Career in Jeopardy (and

His School in Court),” Lingua Franca 8

(February 1998): 31–40. Discussion of a

college’s handling of student letters com-

plaining about problems with a tenure can-

didate, including complaints of harassment.

• American Association of University

Professors, “Academic Freedom and

Tenure: University of Southern California,”

Academe: Bulletin of the AAUP 81

(November–December 1995): 40–49. See

also “Northwestern University: A Case of

Denial of Tenure,” Academe: Bulletin of the

AAUP 74 (May–June 1988): 55–70.

“Peer Review,” Chronicle of Higher

Education 45 (March 12, 1999): A47.

Endnotes

Courtney Leatherman, “$12.7-Million

Judgment in Tenure Case Leaves Many

Academic Experts Stunned,” Chronicle of

Higher Education 45 (February 5, 1999): A14.

Chapter 2

Courtney Leatherman, “$12.7-Million

Judgment in Tenure Case Leaves Many

Academic Experts Stunned,” Chronicle of

Higher Education 45 (February 5, 1999): A14.

T. Hajian, J. Sizer, and J. Ambash, Record-

Keeping and Reporting Requirements for

Independent and Public Colleges and

Universities (Washington, DC: National

Association of College and University

Attorneys, 1998).

El-Ghori v. Grimes, 23 F.Supp. 2d 1259,

1264 (D. Kan. 1998).

Ganguli v. University of Minnesota, 512

N.W. 2d 918 (Minn. App. 1994).

Chapter 3

The quotes are all drawn from William G.

Tierney and Estela Mara Bensimon,

Promotion and Tenure: Community and

Socialization in Academe (Albany, NY: SUNY

Press, 1996), 65, 69, 71.

John B. Conway, On Being a Department

Head: A Personal View (Providence, RI:

American Mathematical Society, 1991),

43–48.

Courtney Leatherman, “$12.7-Million

Judgment in Tenure Case Leaves Many

Academic Experts Stunned,” Chronicle of

Higher Education 45 (February 5, 1999):

A14.

American Association of University

Professors, “Statement of Procedural

Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of

Faculty Appointments,” AAUP Policy

Documents and Reports (Washington, D.C.:

AAUP, 1995), 15, 16.

William G. Tierney and Estela Mara

Bensimon, Promotion and Tenure:

Community and Socialization in Academe

(Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1996): 137–8.

Chapter 4

Robin Wilson, “‘It’s Like You Have

Leprosy’: The Year After Losing a Tenure

Bid,” Chronicle of Higher Education 44

(March 6, 1998): A12.

28 GOOD PRACTICE IN TENURE EVALUATION

ACE/AAUP/UE 29

Books

American Association of University Professors

(AAUP). Policy Documents and Reports.

Washington, D.C.: AAUP, 1995.

Baez, Benjamin, and John A. Centra. Tenure,

Promotion, and Reappointment: Legal

and Administrative Implications.

Washington, D.C.: ASHE-ERIC, 1995.

Commission on Academic Tenure in Higher

Education. Faculty Tenure: A Report and

Recommendations. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass, 1973.

Conway, John B. On Being a Department

Head: A Personal View. Washington, D.C.:

American Mathematical Society, 1991.

Creamer, Elizabeth G. Assessing Faculty

Publication Productivity. Washington,

D.C.: ASHE-ERIC, 1998.

Kaplin, William A., and Barbara A. Lee. The

Law of Higher Education. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass, 1995.

LaNoue, George R., and Barbara A. Lee.

Academics in Court: The Consequences of

Faculty Discrimination Litigation. Ann

Arbor: The University of Michigan Press,

1987.

Leap, Terry L. Tenure, Discrimination, and

the Courts. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1993.

Tierney, William G., and Estela Mara

Bensimon. Promotion and Tenure:

Community and Socialization in

Academe. Albany, NY: State University of

New York Press, 1996.

Toth, Emily. Ms. Mentor’s Impeccable Advice

for Women in Academia. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997.

Articles

Davis, Lennard J. “Beyond Tenure: A

Tortuous Journey Through Academe.”

Chronicle of Higher Education 44 (April

17, 1998): B6.

Douglas, Lawrence, and Alexander George.

“Gaining Tenure: Rules Your Chairman

Never Told You.” Chronicle of Higher

Education 46 (May 5, 2000): B10.

Franke, Ann. “When Tenure Is Denied:

Reducing the Risk of Litigation,” in

Proceedings of Sixteenth Annual

Conference on Academic Chairpersons:

Transforming the Academic

Department. National Issues in Higher

Education. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State

University, 1999.

Franke, Ann. “Why Battles Over Tenure

Shouldn’t End Up in the Courtroom.”

Chronicle of Higher Education 46

(August 11, 2000): B6.

Many, Paul. “The Fine Art of Saying No.”

Academe: Bulletin of the AAUP 82

(September–October 1996): 70.

National Center for Postsecondary

Improvement. “Why Is Research the

Rule? The Impact of Incentive Systems

on Faculty Behavior.” Change 32

(March/April 2000): 53.

Special Committee on Education and the Law

of the Association of the Bar of the City

of New York. “Due Process in Decisions

Relating to Tenure in Higher Education.”

Journal of College and University Law 11

(1984): 323.

Bibliography

Swift, Eleanor. “Becoming a Plaintiff.”

Berkeley Women’s Law Journal 4

(1989–90): 245.

Wilson, Robin. “‘It’s Like You Have

Leprosy’: The Year After Losing a Tenure

Bid.” Chronicle of Higher Education 44

(March 6, 1998): A12.

Programs, Workshops, and Conferences

Chairing the Academic Department

The American Council on Education annually

sponsors workshops at several locations

around the country. Each workshop features

five or six expert presenters who lead in-

depth sessions. The two-and-a-half-day inter-

active program attracts chairs and deans from

all types of institutions. For more information

call ACE at (202) 939-9415, or visit them on

the web at www.acenet.edu.

Annual Conference for Academic

Chairpersons

Kansas State University sponsors an annual

conference every February in Florida for aca-

demic chairs. The overall goal is to help

chairs better fulfill their responsibilities. The

program format consists of general sessions,

paper presentations, panels, and workshops.

The proceedings are published annually. For

more information, call Kansas State

University at (785) 532-5575, or visit them on

the web at www.dce.ksu.edu/dce.

Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences

(CCAS)

CCAS sponsors annual seminars for deans

and department chairs in eastern and western

locations. For more information, call CCAS at

(480) 727-6064, or visit them on the web at

www.ccas.net.

Others

The American Association of University

Professors (AAUP), the American

Conference of Academic Deans (ACAD),

and many disciplinary associations such as

the Modern Language Association are

among other groups that sponsor occa-

sional programs and sessions on tenure

evaluation practices.

30 GOOD PRACTICE IN TENURE EVALUATION

American Council on Education