The year-long study on tenure at the University of Colorado, touched off by one professor’s incendiary public comments, arrived at recommendations that have percolated in higher education for years, according to two national experts.
Cathy Trower scanned the summary on the CU website Monday afternoon and sounded underwhelmed as she read recommendations that mirror familiar concepts.
“I don’t see a lot of anything that’s groundbreaking in there,” said Trower, a research associate in Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education. “This seems like an awful lot of time and money spent because of one case. But that’s often what happens.”
Although the writings of ethnic-studies professor Ward Churchill stimulated the probe of how CU deals with granting and monitoring tenure, the study’s results were similar to those covered by Christine Licata in the books on tenure and post-tenure review she has co-authored.
“We found that when institutions really didn’t have the resources to put behind faculty professional development and attach clout to sanctions, the process was not viewed as being effective,” said Licata, associate vice president for academic affairs at Rochester Institute of Technology/National Technical Institute for the Deaf.
One of nine case studies Licata and co-author Joseph Morreale examined was Georgia State University, whose post-tenure review policies the CU report recommends giving strong consideration. Georgia State emphasized faculty development and helping faculty shift responsibilities as their careers progress and their interests change, Licata said.
“It may just be getting on the radar screen at the system level, although this is not a novel concept,” Licata explained. “As people are staying in positions longer, with mandatory retirement no longer a factor in higher education, that lends more power to the argument that we need to find other ways for faculty, over their careers, to continue to contribute in an effective manner.”
She also noted that one point raised in the study – the recommendation of more specific language defining behaviors that warrant firing – may have been slightly off the mark.
“I think the language already in their policy covers behavior in the classroom,” Licata said. “More the issue is how much evidence is required, what kind of paper trail. That’s where we fall down in terms of what’s expected in building a case. How much is enough?”
But the CU report did address several key points, both experts said.
Trower noted that the recommendation for training department chairs how to systematically review and evaluate faculty focused on a recurring concern.
“Chairs are not well trained in documenting progress toward tenure or promotion, and in giving feedback that will help guide the person,” she said. “So absolutely, training is required – not just in what the heck are the policies and procedures, but also in the informal stuff, the unwritten rules that are so important to junior faculty like, ‘Whose toes do I not step on?’ – the things they don’t put in writing.”
Both Licata and Trower praised the concept of keeping more precise data to track tenure issues, and said it would help in several areas, such as in promoting faculty diversity.
But while impressed with the scope of CU’s undertaking, Trower remained disturbed that such close examination of an institution such as tenure comes only as a reaction to one controversial incident.
“We in higher education wait for a crisis before we do anything, instead of listening to all of the researchers out there saying that the tenure process is broken,” she said. “When will we do something about it systematically from the top, instead of one case at a time? Reports are being produced, but very little change is happening.”
