Email This Story

Editorial: Tenure process lacks transparency

March 28, 2008

Ben Humeniuk/Lariat Staff (Click here for larger view)

Twelve out of the 30 candidates for tenure were denied it earlier this month, causing several candidates to plan appeals and many faculty members to question the decision-making process. At 40 percent, the denial rate was unusually high.

However, the problem is not that a large number or even a large percentage of tenure applicants were denied. The problem is that there is a breakdown in the communication between the players in the tenuring process and that the denial of some candidates' tenure bids came as a complete shock to many of them and their colleagues.

Several tenured faculty members have said the surprise at the tenure results stems from the discrepancy between tenure committee and departmental recommendations and the final decisions made by administrators.

While these denials may set back many candidates professionally, there is no doubt that those candidates undeserving of tenure should not be granted it merely to improve the approval percentage. In the same vein, however, whoever is denied tenure needs to be denied it on the basis of their accomplishments or lack thereof, not for any other factors.

For those who aren't familiar with the intricacies of the academic world, gaining tenure is a rigorous process.

For professors hired on a tenure track, the process takes six years. Tenured faculty have almost unlimited job security. Tenure candidates are evaluated by their departments on a yearly basis. The year the candidates go up for tenure, they are evaluated by their department a final time. The department votes on whether the candidate should receive tenure, and that vote is then sent to the tenure committee for review.

The tenure committee reviews all the departmental votes and evaluations, as well as each candidate's tenure notebook -- a document that demonstrates why a candidate should receive tenure. One of the purposes of the tenure committee is to ensure that all departments hold candidates to similar standards.

After the tenure committee votes on tenure candidates, its recommendations are sent to the president and provost for approval. Ultimately, these administrators have final say on which candidates are tenured.

If Baylor is serious about becoming a top research university while still maintaining its Christian values, the administration needs to make several changes to the tenure process.

First, there need to be reasonable expectations. Having reasonable expectations does not mean lowering the standards which would make this university a top-tier research institution, but those standards should be explained clearly and definitively.

Faculty senate chair Matt Cordon told The Baylor Lariat on March 26 that tenure candidates should "exceed expectations." This is not an unreasonable suggestion: in work and in life, no one should aim just to complete the bare minimum of what is required.

However, Cordon also said, "My understanding is that it's a good idea to aim for doubling or tripling the number of articles the tenure guidelines specify."

It's unfortunate that this understanding of the requirements exists. Asking candidates to double or triple the required number of articles is an unreasonable demand and one the administration should not be making. It's one thing to ask tenure candidates to aim for excellence. It's another thing entirely to require them to triple the number of publications you initially ask from them. Telling your tenure hopefuls that they have to write eight articles and really expecting them to write anywhere from 16 to 24 is downright ridiculous.

And while requiring external letters of recommendation is not unreasonable, that requirement (as well as others) should have been clearly communicated in advance to everyone involved -- early enough that no one was scrambling to find recommenders. Requiring the letters is a good step in helping evaluate the candidates, but standards should not be put in place suddenly.

Baylor also needs to make sure that the lines of communication are open from the top down. Communication between the administration, tenure committee members, department members and chairs and tenure candidates needs to improve. Administrators should take the recommendations of the tenure committee very seriously, since its members have more direct contact with both the departments and the tenure candidates.

Another important step in gaining credibility is making the process transparent. While certain aspects of gaining tenure, such as departmental or committee voting, must necessarily be private, no one should be shocked by who does -- or does not -- receive tenure. As one (tenured) faculty member said, "If the university is doing things right, at tenure time there should be no surprises."

Yearly departmental evaluations are in place for this reason. Tenure candidates receive clear reports on their progress (or lack thereof) and can adjust their performances accordingly. The reports and evaluations are communicated to the tenure committee, then passed on to the president and provost. Because candidates can see what their departments think of their progress, they should be aware of their tenure prospects.

And when tenure candidates are denied tenure and their contracts are not renewed, the administration owes them a specific and individually tailored explanation of the reasons behind the decision.

While they might not be able to know in advance how administrators will feel about their achievements, tenure candidates should be able to carry out their work without worrying that their tenure letter will read like a bad April Fool's Day joke.

More News ...