A university policy proposal aiming to hold tenured professors accountable for their performance was crushingly defeated at a University Senate meeting yesterday, ending months of debate and speculation on the issue.
In an overwhelming vote, university faculty – some of whom were forced to stand through the almost three-hour-long meeting because the room was filled to capacity – voted down the post-tenure review proposal with little opposition, most of which came from students, who were not given a chance to speak because debate was cut short. The decision ends months of contention, though university officials and members of the task force that drafted the policy proposal said the vote did not surprise them.
“I knew that many of the faculty members [at the senate meeting] came today with the strong intention of opposing this policy,” English professor and chair of the post-tenure Review Task Force Adele Berlin said. “In a time of furloughs, no salary increases and hiring freezes, salary reduction will not be a big winner.”
The post-tenure review plan called for increased oversight of tenured professors by allowing elected departmental committees to examine the performances of their tenured faculty members on a yearly basis. Faculty members’ salaries could be increased or decreased based on their performance.
“We did not invent the idea of salary reduction,” Berlin said. “This is not intended to be a threat to the tenure system. It is intended to protect it.”
But many faculty members said they did see post-tenure review as a threat, adding it could effectively undermine tenure, which many see as an essential protection to their income, job security and academic freedom.
“This policy is counterproductive and unnecessary,” history professor Gay Gullickson said. “I find it impossible to believe that anyone will think this policy isn’t punitive. It is punitive. It is intended to be punitive. And it will make us worse, not better … [it’s] not worth the time and effort.”
After spending the first half of the meeting debating six amendments – two of which were proposed by Provost Nariman Farvardin and would have shifted the burden onto the university to demonstrate that a faculty member’s overall performance merited a pay decrease, and another that would have established a five-year trial period for the program – members of the senate were given the chance to speak on the policy.
Professors from more than 15 departments approached the microphone, some clutching statements from their constituents, to speak out against the policy. Not one speaker voiced support for the proposal.
“A sledgehammer is being used to hit a tack,” education professor Sharon Fries-Britt said. “This is a terrible message to send. Vote it down now.”
But there were still lines of people – including students – leading up to the microphones when a senator moved to stop all debate and vote on the proposal. Though the senate had three people on call to count the senator’s votes, the results were so apparent that counting wasn’t necessary, Senate Chair Ken Holum said.
But Student Government Association President Jonathan Sachs and Graduate Student Government President Anupama Kothari were next in line to speak when the vote was called, and they said by not allowing them – the only students who rose to participate in the final debate – to voice their concerns, the faculty-dominated senate was disregarding student voices.
“I thought it was a bit ridiculous that they couldn’t extend debate to hear the opinions of just one student instead of pontificating on their own points,” Sachs said.
In an attempt to emphasize how important the issue of post-tenure review is, the two leaders said they have united to face down what Kothari described as arrogance by tenured faculty members, in the interest of all students.
“No population on this campus should be so arrogant as to think they’re above review,” Kothari said. “Professors are not a distinct race. They shouldn’t be put on a pedestal. And that’s what this did. [The proposal] made them feel like they’re just like everyone else; and they are.”
Sachs added that though the policy was voted down, he and Kothari plan to work with the administration to come up with a new approach to address the issue.
“People were afraid of change, but I maintain that something needs to happen,” Sachs said.
Though university President Dan Mote retains the power to override the senate’s recommendation and implement university policies as he sees fit, he said he intends to respect the senate’s decision.
Farvardin, who is in charge of implementing the university’s 10-year strategic plan that addresses the issue of post-tenure review, said the policy will be revisited.
“Looks like it’s back to the drawing board,” Farvardin said. “We have been doing post-tenure reviews without consequences informally, if not at all. But it’s not working. We need to create a policy that hold professors accountable – one that works.”
langdbk@gmail.com
