An independent study of tenure throughout the University of Colorado system has found that the process is well-designed and generally well-managed, but recommended the university add rigor to annual post-tenure reviews and to provide additional policy guidance for certain areas where policy can be improved or does not currently exist.
"Post-tenure reviews and the related professional plans do not seem to be an effective means for faculty development and evaluation," the independent study group said in the report. "Doubt has been expressed at each campus about effectiveness of post-tenure review, both with respect to faculty development/reward (incentives) and performance evaluation/remediation (sanctions)."
The group recommended that post-tenure review should continue to occur via peer review and should be subject to review at dean and vice chancellor levels. "Each campus must be charged with assuring a more rigorous process of evaluating faculty performance and strengthening faculty development," the group said.
Another significant concern of the independent study group was that on at least one occasion a decision was made concerning a tenure case that had no foundation in written policy. The incident involved an administrative determination to extend a probationary period, allowing for an extra year in a tenure situation where procedural errors were discovered.
"When no policy exists to guide issues of a specific case, issues need to be highlighted and raised to Vice Chancellor's Advisory Committee or its equivalent," the group said. "The committee should make a recommendation that it believes in the best interest of the university and forward it to the vice chancellor and chancellor for approval."
The group also recommended that the university make all new hires sign a statement that urges the faculty member walk a fine line when dealing in controversial material, both in and out of the classroom.
"The faculty member is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing the subject, but should be careful not to introduce into teaching controversial matter that has no relation to the subject," reads a draft Statement of Responsibility of the Faculty. The statement goes on to say that faculty members should be free from university censorship or discipline when speaking or writing as citizens, but that "their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As faculty members, however, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and institution by their utterances."
This proposed statement may most clearly represent the fact that this entire tenure review process was kicked off as a result of controversial statements made by CU-Boulder ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill in an online essay that compared some victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to a Nazi bureaucrat. Churchill's statements were made in an essay written days after the terrorist attacks, and were picked up almost four years later by a college journalist on the East Coast prior to Churchill speaking on his campus. There was great public outcry for Churchill's academic head, and legislators and Colorado Gov. Bill Owens called for his job. When it was revealed that Churchill had tenure and was entitled to due process as a result, state legislators questioned the tenure system itself, and the CU Board of Regents responded by launching a dual-track review of tenure related procedures that launched an internal and external review of its tenure system after a resolution passed by the CU Faculty Council.
This report represents the work of the independent body, but it was written by members of both internal and external review groups. The independent group was led by General Howell M. Estes, III, and included representatives from each CU campus and a student from the Health Sciences Center campus. University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center downtown campus representatives are professor Robert Damrauer of the Chemistry Department and Provost Mark Heckler.
The next step is for the entire committee to conduct a month of briefings and public hearings, including meetings with interested public officials. Final recommendations will be presented to the Board of Regents during its June meeting, and the Regents could vote on changes this fall.
The overall conclusion of the independent study was positive.
"If recommendations contained in this report are fully implemented, (the) University of Colorado will have (a) tenure program that supports health and well-being of university, its faculty, and its students, and that can be understood and supported by the public at large," the group said.
Be the first to comment on this article!