Tenure—a contractual arrangement that grants job security to veteran faculty members—has been a feature of American higher education since the late 19th century. Over the years, much ink has been spilled debating its pros and cons. Some view it as necessary for the preservation of academic freedom. Others argue that it shields ideological zealots and unproductive professors from accountability.
No matter one’s views on tenure, the existing system is a reality of academia. Universities have been trying to cope with the costs of that reality for decades, and the University of North Carolina is no exception. In June, it took a step to make tenured professors more accountable through a revision to the state’s policy of post-tenure review.
Post-tenure review—a periodic evaluation of professors’ productivity—began to take shape in the 1980s and ‘90s as public universities across the country responded to pressure from trustees and legislators to rid campuses of “deadwood.” Today, most public university systems and about half of private colleges have some form of post-tenure review.
In 1997 the UNC system adopted its version of post-tenure review, designed ostensibly to connect already-existing annual faculty reviews with more substantive multi-year reviews. UNC Policy 400.3.3 policy called upon universities to provide a “clear plan and timetable for improvement of the performance of all faculty found deficient,” and impose “serious sanctions” when “performance remains deficient.” It also referred to rewarding “exemplary faculty performance.”
Ambiguous terms such as “exemplary faculty performance” and “serious sanctions” show that the policy was more like a statement of principles than a definitive guideline or plan of action.
In fact, the report that accompanied the 1997 policy indicates that great deference should be given to faculty leadership and departments when implementing post-tenure reviews. The report was sprinkled with praise of faculty: “[Few] other types of work require such constant review and assessment of worth and performance as does the work of academicians,” it said. It comes across as a reassurance for tenured professors; the status quo will not be ruffled.
The UNC system’s board of governors amended its post-tenure review policy in June. The amendment was the end result of a working group created in January at the behest of BOG member John Fennebresque, who now serves as chairman of the full board.
What makes this post-tenure review policy different, it appears, is that it will force the process outside close-knit faculty groups by requiring a series of evaluations.
“Both the department chair/unit head and the dean must conduct an evaluative review in the cumulative review process,” says the policy.
Previously, tenure reviews were conducted predominantly by the professor’s peers. There appears to have been a “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” element that may have made the reviews less than meaningful. By requiring deans to provide their evaluative reviews in addition to the existing peer reviews, another layer of oversight has been added to the process, one that the working group hopes will give tenure review more teeth.
Furthermore, each year, university provosts will have to certify that reviews are in line with the new policy. The UNC General Administration will be responsible for conducting system-wide audits to ensure compliance.
The working group has created three assessment categories: meets expectations, exceeds expectations, and does not meet expectations. Going forward, the Board of Governors and the universities in the system will look at rewarding professors financially if they consistently exceed expectations. The designers of the plan see this provision as the starting point for encouraging and incentivizing better teaching and research performance.
Some encouragement for professors, perhaps, may be included in the plan but that wasn’t enough for a single faculty senate—not one out of 16 campuses—to be in favor of the overall changes. It’s likely that the provision requiring extra tenure evaluations from deans and provosts contributed to that overwhelming rejection.
Nevertheless, members of the working group initiated by Fennebresque believe that the amendments will produce real results. The group included: George A. Sywassink, who served as chair of the group and who now chairs the board’s Committee on Personnel and Tenure; Western Carolina University’s chancellor, David Belcher; N.C. A&T’s chancellor, Harold Martin; East Carolina University’s provost and vice chancellor of academic affairs, Marilyn Sheerer; David Barlow, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Fayetteville State University; the chair of the Faculty Assembly, Catherine Rigsby; Suzanne Ortega, now-former senior vice president of academic affairs; and Therence Pickett, a member of the BOG’s Committee on Personnel and Tenure.
“We all want the review process to be positive and lead to better job satisfaction, less turnover, and improved productivity,” said Sywassink, in a recent interview with the Pope Center.
Sywassink envisions future tenure reviews being more conducive to constructive criticism. To that end, he and the working group recommend that the UNC General Administration oversee “evaluator training” that emphasizes human resources skills and fosters collegiality in the review process. “The process should be about encouraging and improving the professors we have, not firing them,” Sywassink said.
Nationally, critics of post-tenure review generally fall in two camps: those who think the process is ineffectual, merely a rubber stamp for tenured professors, and therefore a waste of time and resources, and those who think it diminishes faculty power and erodes the institution of tenure.
One consistent and vocal post-tenure review opponent is the American Association of University Professors, which in a 1999 report stated that such reviews “ought to be aimed not at accountability, but at faculty development.” Its current policy states that it “cautions…against allowing any general system of evaluation to be used as grounds for dismissal or other disciplinary actions.”
In 2012, the AAUP came out strongly against the University of Texas system’s changes, which are almost identical to UNC’s new policy. The Board of Regents there added an “exceeding expectations” designation to the review process and requires deans and department chairs to conduct additional evaluations.
The AAUP’s worries may have been unfounded.
- Daniel Hamermesh, an economics professor at UT-Austin, told Inside Higher Ed that his school’s review process is “a complete waste of time” and amounts to busywork. He said the school’s administrators are “deluged” by annual reviews and only devote serious attention to a few professors each year.
- The Chronicle of Higher Education analyzed post-tenure review policies in 2002 and revealed that faculty firings resulting from post-tenure reviews were extremely rare.
- And in 2001, only four tenured faculty out of 2,711 in the Arizona university system were given overall unsatisfactory ratings.
Sywassink made it clear to me that under the UNC system’s new policy, professors and departments are not being micromanaged. Departments will be given latitude to adopt tenure assessment categories unique to their missions and goals. And a professor’s personal, “directional” goals, the working group says, will serve as a “guide for the professional growth of the faculty member over the five-year period.” As long as those goals align with broader institutional and system-wide policies, post-tenure compliance has been achieved.
All in all, the latest amendments appear to be an improvement over the previous UNC system policy because they don’t give faculty peers sole responsibility to oversee the review process. Oversight is enhanced through the additional evaluations. But because faculty, deans, provosts, and the General Administration must now work together and become more connected to the post-tenure review process, it will take time to see how—and if—they cooperate.