Under normal circumstances, post-tenure review might actually be a good thing, but recent events in Mississippi suggest that the process could be abused to punish outspoken faculty and to further rig the system in favor of cronyism, nepotism, and back-room deals.  Before he acts on post-tenure review, Klumb should focus on such PRE-tenure review matters as (a) legitimate national searches; (b) making sure that upper-level administrators are not related to each other by blood, marriage, or business ties; (c) making sure that people hired to deal with issues of tenure are themselves tenurable or that they have earned tenure elsewhere.  How can Klumb expect anyone to take seriously his interest in "post-tenure review" until the corruptions of the current administrative system have been remedied?

As with many other universities, USM and other state universities most likely see Post-Tenure review as something that is "triggered" by bad evaluations. Notice that is plural. Just one bad evaluation does not trigger a post-tenure review, but more than one does. Notice, too, that it is triggered by bad evaluations by the direct supervisor, NOT by a chicken plant employee who knows not the first thing about tenure or post-tenure review, or by the IHL president either.

IHL may want to change all of those rules, but they would be going against a post-tenure review trend that stretches across the country.

The "post-tenure review by the end of June" attempt at the IHL meeting shows just how misinformed the people are who we actually work "for".

Letters are needed to educate them, and we need USM's own post-tenure review process to be much better advertised. Whoever is out there that knows the process and also has access to the USM web site needs to (please) push this along. We should not stand for some misguided, strong-armed process to be pushed down the throats of faculty in Mississippi. Things have been put in place already, but they need to be made more evident.

 

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"I posted about this on another thread as well. Clemson has had a post-tenure review process since 1998.  Post-tenure review takes place every 6 years and is done by the department chair and a special department committee.  It's a binary judgment: satisfactory or unsatisfactory.  If both chair and committee judge your performance as unsatisfactory, you have to present a plan to improve your performance, and you get three years to bring it up to par. The USM process is pegged to annual evaluations and is therefore stricter (at least in theory) than Clemson's already.  I doubt that it offers so many safeguards against upper administrative interference either (at Clemson a dean or the provost cannot unilaterally impose a rating of unsatisfactory). As for the most prestigious institutions in the USA (most of which are private), no, they don't do post-tenure review, but most others now do.  Clemson is not a Top 20 public university, nor (despite the aspirations of our current president) is it likely to become one soon, but it does rank in the top 100 universities, and the top 40 state universities, according to US News and World Report. Robert Campbell  "

---

It would be interesting to find some data on post-tenure review and post it here (I'll offer to do the research if anyone would like to point me in the right direction).  I had a feeling that it would fall along private/public institution lines, and perhaps other trends would emerge.  Any leads for good info?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Anon
"A google search yields many hits for post tenure review. The first one was a position paper from AAUP. The link is: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/rbpostn.htm"

---

Thanks, Anon.  Here are some other sites (and interesting information from them):

University of Colorado's Post-Tenure Review policy (revised in 1998):

http://www.cu.edu/policies/Personnel/posttenure.html

Excerpts from Texas A&M's Post-Tenure Review Policy:  http://www.tamu.edu/faculty_senate/post-tenure.html

"In the academic community, tenure has traditionally meant that a faculty member has demonstrated, over a specified number of years and to the satisfaction of peers, a sufficiently high level of performance in teaching and scholarship to warrant the granting of a permanent position on a university faculty. Tenure protects academic freedom, the right of faculty members to pursue original research, or study ideas that are new, unpopular, or misunderstood. Such freedom of thought can only benefit society. Tenure has developed over hundreds of years, and forms the foundation of the modern university in Western society. Its value in encouraging new generations of scholars and sustaining the quest for knowledge should not be taken lightly."

Also this:  "A typical faculty member at a major research university devotes fifty hours per week to teaching, research, and public service, according to numerous studies...Compared with other professions, academic careers involve considerable financial and personal sacrifice. Most academics receive a salary for only nine months of the year, and it is much lower than they would receive in the marketplace for their abilities. Faculty accept lower salaries for their "life of the mind," academic freedom, and the security of tenure. Society has traditionally encouraged that trade-off, and has received great economic benefit from it. Any significant diminution in either freedom or compensation for faculty will cause long-term deterioration of the professorate and ultimately the university. Worthy faculty may be forced out, and there will be a great disincentive for bright young people to enter the academic world."

And this: "Three-fourths of our peer institutions have no post-tenure review. Because we compete with these universities for new faculty, it is essential that a post-tenure review policy at Texas A&M University have positive effects."

And, for those of you who have subscriptions to The Chronicle, here's an interesting article I found about a post-tenure review process that seems to work:

http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v50/i12/12a01001.htm

So, lots of different views.  Wonder if El Presidente Klumb and Co. are reading these articles in The Chronicle?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Austin
""

---

I posted the basics of our procdure on another thread. It is a "trip" procedure, when there are several successive years of poor anual reivews.

This procedure was created at the IHL's request a few years ago while Myron Henry was Provost.

The issue for Klumb and Robinson will be:

 

whether or not to standarize the proceedures through the system.

To more closely define (Rboninson says "more tightly structured") the terms of the review that may create new vulnerabilities for faculty.

Remember, Roy has publically indicated he wants to eliminate tenure or at least change it significiantly. I think this isn't ideological in that he wants to get rid of "liberal" professors for instance.

But he wants the presidents (IE the CEO's as he sees it) to have more flexibility in reshaping the "workplace". Once again, a business approach to managing of resources . . .  there is little innate concern with "quality" here -- or little grappling with hat constitutes quality and how this process might affect it for better or ill. Although he would deny it (because he doesn;t know any better) Klumb sees this as necessary in order to make the "business" run "efficiently."

We are a long way from the day when 1) we believed that everyone had a right to a public education that extended through the bachelor level; 2) education meant stimulating and refining the intellect in the broadest sense; (3) the success of the education process cannot be measured by any one yardstick and its full value may not be known for many years after a student has graduated and that 4) ultimately the only person who can capitalize on the educational process is the student --  you can put the wheel into a driver's hands but you cannot make him/her drive the car.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd
" I posted the basics of our procdure on another thread. It is a "trip" procedure, when there are several successive years of poor anual reivews. This procedure was created at the IHL's request a few years ago while Myron Henry was Provost. The issue for Klumb and Robinson will be:   whether or not to standarize the proceedures through the system. To more closely define (Rboninson says "more tightly structured") the terms of the review that may create new vulnerabilities for faculty. Remember, Roy has publically indicated he wants to eliminate tenure or at least change it significiantly. I think this isn't ideological in that he wants to get rid of "liberal" professors for instance. But he wants the presidents (IE the CEO's as he sees it) to have more flexibility in reshaping the "workplace". Once again, a business approach to managing of resources . . .  there is little innate concern with "quality" here -- or little grappling with hat constitutes quality and how this process might affect it for better or ill. Although he would deny it (because he doesn;t know any better) Klumb sees this as necessary in order to make the "business" run "efficiently." We are a long way from the day when 1) we believed that everyone had a right to a public education that extended through the bachelor level; 2) education meant stimulating and refining the intellect in the broadest sense; (3) the success of the education process cannot be measured by any one yardstick and its full value may not be known for many years after a student has graduated and that 4) ultimately the only person who can capitalize on the educational process is the student --  you can put the wheel into a driver's hands but you cannot make him/her drive the car. "

---

Is this post tenure review policy officially online somewhere?