The Corporation asked administrators this weekend to submit both a report on hiring and tenure practices at peer institutions and a proposal for how to determine and maintain "appropriate" faculty-tenure ratios. Both documents will be presented in October.
The hiring and tenure report will include suggestions for implementing procedures already in effect at other universities. But further details as to what the report and proposal will entail have not yet been determined, Provost David Kertzer '69 P'95 P'98 said.
Kertzer also said it will be difficult to work on the Corporation's requests until the faculty finishes addressing the tenure procedure revisions currently drafted by the Faculty Executive Committee.
The faculty is scheduled to finish voting on these revisions by the April faculty meeting, according to Cynthia Garcia Coll, professor of education and chair of the FEC.
Garcia Coll said she found the Corporation's request "unclear" because it did not mention what role, if any, faculty would play in crafting the documents.
"We have to be part of the decision-making," Garcia Coll said, "and we have to be kept informed by the work that's going on by their committees." She said the absence of the word "faculty" from President Ruth Simmons' Saturday e-mail announcing the request was a bad indicator, adding that she hoped it did not imply faculty would not play a role in drafting the report and proposal.
Garcia Coll added that she was "disappointed" that the Corporation did not acknowledge the changes approved in the December faculty meeting. But she said that upcoming steps are still up in the air.
"What's it going to bring? We don't know," she said of the Corporation's request. "The next six months — the next three months — are crucial."
Kertzer said the administration would involve faculty in crafting the report and proposal, though he did not know how or in what role.
"I'm sure we will, for parts of this, discuss this with the FEC and potentially relevant faculty committees and faculty as a whole," Kertzer said. "It just happens we don't have any clear plan in mind for how this will work."
Kertzer noted that the report and proposal will be completed by his successor because he is stepping down from his position in June.
Garcia Coll said she predicted a mixed reaction from faculty. She said she has already received e-mails from faculty members with questions about the decision.
Kertzer expressed hope that the faculty would be pleased by the Corporation's interest in tenure procedures, adding that he thinks the Corporation has developed an understanding of the "faculty perspective" on tenure.
"The Corporation made it very clear they don't want to interfere with faculty governance or faculty prerogative," Kertzer said.
James Baird, professor of chemistry, also said he did not think the Corporation's decision would detract from the faculty's role in determining tenure policies.
But Baird added in an e-mail to The Herald that the Corporation would have to be careful with issues such as the proposed tenure-faculty ratio.
"It is not such a bad idea to have tenure ratio goals, but the issues are more complex than goals," Baird wrote. "Blindly sticking to goals — and I am not sure how one comes up with those — would be a mistake. Having a reasonable age mix of young scholars and seasoned scholars seems good to me. It is how you get there that matters."
But Kertzer said the tenure rate may "take care of itself" based on the revisions passed by the faculty or outlined in the upcoming proposal. The revisions could increase the standards for tenure so that the tenure rate declines enough to "mitigate the problem," he said.
"The Corporation members have shown extreme interest in this issue," Kertzer said. "There's no more important issue than ensuring that we have the highest quality faculty possible."
Kertzer said the Corporation's interest in tenure procedures and ratios traces back to 2009, when the New England Association of School and Colleges accreditation committee expressed concern regarding the University's high tenure rate. The issue was originally addressed by the Provost's ad hoc committee to review tenure and faculty development policies before being transferred by faculty to the FEC.
