[Below is the slightly edited text of two emails sent to T. Heckert as Social Science representative to Faculty Senate and Faculty Senate President. Clarification from VPAA Gordon suggests that he is proposing that new policy be mandatory only for new faculty yet to be hired.]

I am generally in support of the impulse of the proposal, which I take to stress and implement faculty responsibility, in both senses of both faculty autonomy in peer evaluation and of the faculty's duty to perform peer evaluation. In both senses, I understand the spirit of the proposal to be moving in the direction of a proper emphasis on the primary role of faculty in the processes of tenure and promotion--in terms of a better system of peer review, in the discipline, periodic and systematic review, and a richer, faculty based system of appeal. As this is currently an outline, I could not give blanket support: there is much to be worked out in the details.

There are some shortcomings in our present system of appeals and actions for dismissal for cause, butI am here bracketing that to focus on the proposal.

It is still the case that the details of the proposal could be more appropriate. -The statement of the discipline's review needs to go forward to the VPAA as a dossier, not just the division head's summary of it. This keeps the stress on the faculty's primary role and responsibility. This should not be a problem in terms of confidentiality as only signed comments are accepted. -Similarly, if the faculty member wishes to appeal the division head's recommendation and an appeal is heard by the divisional committee, that committee's report should go forward to the VPAA as well, not just the division head's first and then second recommendations. -Finally, and most importantly, and where Truman's policies have historically been most weak. If a faculty member is not renewed, he or she should be entitled to receive a written statement of the reasons for non-renewal. Notice that this would not automatically generate a written statement of reasons in addition to a written notice of non-renewal; the written statement of reasons would be produced only after the reflective decision of the faculty member.

I have one additional thought. It is possible that not only procedures but also standards would change with a new policy. If this were to be a possibility, we should be careful that those changes are a function of reflective deliberation about the standards, not simply a function of having changed the procedures.

Apparently one division head holds the interpretation of VPAA Gordon's proposal that he, the division head, will appoint the disciplinary review committees and the divisional appeals committee. It is very important, if this new process is to have credibility and to be rooted in peer review, that the disciplinary and divisional faculties select the membership of those committees, not the division head.

Thank you for your work on these important matters. As the character of the faculty is the critical condition of the character and success of the university, nothing else is more important.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2000