A roomful of professors and administrators discussed proposed revisions to tenure review procedures at a faculty forum Tuesday night.
Faculty will vote on the set of motions — established by the Committee to Review Tenure and Faculty Development Policies, chaired by Provost David Kertzer '69 P'95 P'98 — to address faculty concerns about timing of tenure applications and letters of recommendation, at the next forum Oct. 5.
Chair of the Faculty Forum and Professor of History of Art and Architecture Dietrich Neumann mediated the discussion.
The proposed guidelines would push the beginning of tenure review several months earlier relative to the end of an assistant professor's probation. But combined with another proposed motion to lengthen the probationary period by a year, this motion would give the candidate more time before review.
A date has not been set to vote on the latter proposal, though Dean of the Faculty Rajiv Vohra P'07 told The Herald that he hopes the forum will address the motion at its November meeting.
Some faculty members expressed concern that keeping the two proposals separate will confuse matters. Professor of Sociology Gregory Elliott said approving the one currently under consideration before the other would be "putting the cart before the horse."
Kertzer responded with hopes that they both will pass. Adding a year to a candidate's probationary period would give potential tenured faculty the chance to accomplish more and establish themselves before their evaluation, he said.
The rest of the proposal deals with selection, submission and tracking of recommendation letters for tenure candidates. Currently, at least five letters are required, a number which would increase to eight under the proposal.
Professor of Neuroscience Jerome Sanes, who sits on the Tenure, Promotion and Appointments Committee, said most candidates receive more than five letters anyway. "I don't really see this as a big issue. It's already protocol," he said.
Most universities require more references, with many asking for 12 to 15, said Professor of Africana Studies Tricia Rose, who said the purpose of a tenure review is "to have a wide range of people who assess the candidate."
During the current review process as outlined in the faculty rules, the candidate submits a list of potential referees to an academic department, which then selects at least three of the suggested names and may add others it deems appropriate. The dean of the Faculty or the dean of Medicine and Biological Sciences receives these recommendations and meets with the Tenure, Promotion and Appointments Committee to discuss the promotion.
Under the new proposals, the department would be required to add names for letter requests and submit a list to the dean, who may add to this list.
In addition, names of recommendation writers would no longer be known to the candidate. Instead, the candidate would be asked to inform the department if there is a particular scholar who should not provide a reference.
Some faculty members objected to the dean's ability to request references, saying it would increase the power of the administration outside the academic department. Under the proposed change, the dean would add names "in consultation with the department."
The revisions also sparked debate about transparency. Professor Emeritus of East Asian Studies Steve Rabson said someone could file a lawsuit for being denied information on referees. Professor of Cognitive, Linguistic and Psychological Sciences Andrea Simmons expressed concern that not informing candidates of their letter-writers was "messing around with the honesty of the process."
Submitting the names of inappropriate people to contact poses its own problems, said Professor of Comparative Literature Dore Levy. "That can be an extremely dangerous document for the candidate to produce" if he or she objects to a certain referee for "embarrassing" reasons such as "because you refused to sleep with him," she said.
Professor of Cognitive, Linguistic and Psychological Sciences Sheila Blumstein, a member of the Committee to Review Tenure and Faculty Development Policies, said the motion would not decrease transparency. She said she knew a professor who would not give a reference because the candidate would see the name.
"I hope very much that the motion passes," Blumstein told The Herald, adding that she hopes there is "a very strong faculty turnout" at the next meeting.
Kertzer said at the meeting that "it's harder to imagine a more important decision" than how to "have the best review and fullest review for tenure faculty."
If passed, the motions will go into effect in July.