I have been in communication with Bob Kreiser, who is one of the Academic Freedom and Tenure professional staff in the national office of the American Association of University Professors. I shared with him Vice-President Gordon's fall letter to faculty and his proposal for changes to the tenure code, as well as a copy of our existing tenure regulations from the Truman "Code of Policies" (Chapter 6, Academic Affairs, Faculty.)

I simply sent him the documents, without any attempt of my own to set a historical or institutional context, so that he could have a clean read as to how the policies and the outline proposal stand on their own, as documents.

In response to our existing policies and procedures, particularly in relation to dismissal for cause, Dr. Kreiser does see some room for improvement and refinement; however our conversation focussed on aspects of Vice-President Gordon's proposal. Dr. Kreiser was surprised at the relative lack of specificity in our current university wide policy concerning the process by which faculty are evaluated and recommended for tenure. He is generally supportive of the impulse of the VPAA's proposal, in that it would provide concrete language to direct practice and in that it would work toward campus wide uniformity. Policy and procedure consistent with the outline proposed by the VPAA would incorporate a developmental dimension of periodic review for probationary faculty and it would make clear and efficacious the primary role of faculty in peer review. The principle of periodic review would be more firmly established. All of this is supported and encouraged by AAUP principles and good practice generally.

However there are some areas of possible concern. In the appeals process (the new appeals process, prior to the VPAA's recommendation to the president, not the present appeals process) it should be clear that the recommendation of the divisional appeals committee goes to the VPAA, not just the division head's first and second recommendations.

Similarly, the finished new procedure needs to be more explicit, based on the standards and reasoning of the 1989 "Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments," that the faculty member who is denied tenure has the opportunity, after due and careful deliberation of his or her best interests, to receive a written statement of the reasons for denial.

More specifically we talked about the process of implementation and transition for existing probationary faculty. It is a longstanding tenet of the "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure" that the terms of appointment be made clear to faculty candidates prior to their appointment. "The precise terms and conditions of every appointment should be stated in writing and be in the possession of both institution and teacher before the appointment is consummated."

The 1989 "Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments" provides more detail. "Good practice requires that the institution (department, college, or university) define its criteria for reappointment and tenure and its procedures for reaching decisions on these matters. The 1940 Statement of Principles prescribes that "the precise terms and conditions of every appointment should be stated in writing and be in the possession of both institution and teacher before the appointment is consummated." Moreover, fairness to probationary faculty members prescribes that they be informed, early in their appointments, of the substantive and procedural standards that will be followed in determining whether or not their appointments will be renewed or tenure will be granted. The Association accordingly recommends: 1. Criteria and Notice of Standards. Probationary faculty members should be advised, early in their appointment, of the substantive and procedural standards generally accepted in decisions affecting renewal and tenure. Any special standards adopted by their particular departments or schools should also be brought to their attention."

Other relevant passages are from the "Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure." From the section entitled, "Probationary Appointments": "(b) The faculty member will be advised, at the time of initial appointment, of the substantive standards and procedures generally employed in decisions affecting renewal and tenure. Any special standards adopted by the faculty member's department or school will also be transmitted. The faculty member will be advised of the time when decisions affecting renewal or tenure are ordinarily made, and will be given the opportunity to submit material believed to be helpful to an adequate consideration of the faculty member's circumstances. "

And from the section entitled, "Statement of Terms of Appointment." "(a) The terms and conditions of every appointment to the faculty will be stated or confirmed in writing, and a copy of the appointment document will be supplied to the faculty member. Any subsequent extensions or modifications of an appointment, and any special understandings, or any notices incumbent upon either party to provide, will be stated or confirmed in writing and a copy will be given to the faculty member."

Any change in the University's policies, including positive changes, necessarily undercuts the information received by faculty at their time of appointment and thus has the potential for difficulty. At some level, it will have been impossible to inform current probationary faculty of procedures not yet developed at the "time of initial appointment."

As such, even if a new process of evaluation in tenure is superior to the old process, the institution should take great care, both in terms of procedures and in terms of substantive judgments, that existing probationary faculty are not disadvantaged or treated unfairly by policies developed after their appointment. As one example, the level of performance in terms of number of publications, should not be increased; it impossible to preclude the possibility that new procedures and new attention to procedures might have effects in terms of substantive judgments. Analogously, new procedures should not work to the disadvantage of existing probationary faculty. Dr. Kreiser observed, for example, that it would be difficult to imagine any sort of ad hoc "third year review" for faculty who have already passed the third year and thus are relatively close to the tenure decision. It would be very difficult to imagine an appropriate "third year review" for faculty who are already in their second year; it is even somewhat questionable as to the fairness of such a review. It is even a bit worrisome to imagine such a review for faculty in currently in their first year. Take the example of second year faculty. The most optimistic and expedited process to be imagined for a new proposal would be that it could be complete and approved by this spring. In that scenario, this year's "second year faculty" could not be formally notified, in letters of appointment, until the middle of the summer, when our letters of appointment normally are sent out. These faculty would, then, within a matter of only a few months, be undergoing an important third year review, at the same time that the divisional and discipline procedures for these reviews would be in development and implementation for the first time.

Considering even the possibility of unfairness that might arise in a shift of procedures, the University should surely err on the side of not disadvantaging the existing probationary faculty member.

Let me repeat that Dr. Kreiser shared the positive reaction that many of us have that this potential for formalizing of faculty input is a significant advance. We do, however, need to be very careful and reflective about the details, both of the content of any new policy and about implementation and transition. Let me also stress that Dr. Kreiser was responding to what currently exists: an outline of a proposal rather than a finished product.

dfg

====================================================== David F. Gruber, Ph.D.

Rector, Missouri Hall Professor of Philosophy Residential College Program Division of Social Science

660.785.5389 660.627.3740 home 660.785.4050 fax

660.626.8538 cell dgruber@truman.edu

mailing address: Residential College Program TRUMAN STATE UNIVERSITY Kirksville, MO 63501

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2000