COLUMN: Conventionality = Tenure

From Jamil Smith's "Invisible Man," Fall '95 From Jamil Smith's "Invisible Man," Fall '95Some information that students are presented with during their collegiate education is very practical. Other information is not as practical and most is completely impractical, depending on your pre-profession of choice. What formerly was a learning-oriented undergraduate education has become for many a process in which memorization by the students and indoctrination by the professors is the norm. Whereas students were formerly taught to think critically -- questioning the knowledge and its source -- the information given to them in class goes directly from the professor's mouth to the student's notebook without any thought. Unfortunately, the administration appears not to know the whole story, because good teachers seem to be few and far between here at the University. Until experience in the classroom proves me wrong, I cannot help but maintain that many professors here do not respect their students as they should and that many tenured professors here are in reality very poor teachers. One of those rare good teachers is Dr. Gregg Camfield, associate professor of English. Dr. Camfield is one the finest teachers that I have ever had, at the University or elsewhere. When students take part in his class, Camfield shows that not only is his knowledge of his chosen field exceptional, but also that he has truly mastered the art of teaching. He is able to provide instruction about a subject without infringing upon a student's right to think for himself. He is willing to take his students seriously, something which I have found to be lacking in most professors. Rather than saying, "Jamil, that may be the way that you see it, but my view is the way that it is," Dr. Camfield is certainly more willing to listen -- and learn -- from his students. His attitude towards teaching is centrally connected to his scholarship. Earning his Ph.D from Berkeley, Dr. Camfield has published one book, Sentimental Twain: Samuel Clemens in the Maze of Moral Philosophy, and has a second book under contract. Since he is willing to listen to his students question the norm or the common opinions, Dr. Camfield demonstrates that excellent work is always creative, challenging the norm. Of course, creativity seems to always stir controversy. Dr. Camfield takes the proper attitude in that he does not believe creative controversy should have a negative connotation. If there is not any original thought in the academic arena, where is progress to be made? How is academic thought moved further along if everyone succumbs to the pressure to conform to old ideas? This effort to suppress original, cutting-edge scholarship and to ignore masterful teaching has manifested itself in the recommendation of the personnel committee to deny Dr. Camfield tenure at this University. In order to truly understand what a travesty this decision was, it is necessary to fully understand how the tenure system works here at the University. When a junior faculty member is brought up for tenure after five years, they are evaluated according to their scholarship, service and teaching. If the professor's department votes for him or her, the candidate's dossier goes to a personnel committee in one of the four schools. This committee consists of 16 faculty members. They evaluate the dossier and give a recommendation to the dean of that school (in Dr. Camfield's case, Dr. Rosemary Stevens of the School of Arts and Sciences). The dean will then give a recommendation to the provost's staff office, where a final approval can be given. An applicant can be denied at any stage of the process. In addition, nine letters of reference are required from scholars at other universities -- three which can be chosen by the professor, six that are chosen anonymously by the department with the approval of the dean. The central problem with the tenure system as constructed, is that it is biased against controversy by exaggerating negatives. Also, it is a system based on fear -- fear of reputation damaged by potential for errors and fear of mistakenly tenuring those who are undeserving. Since scholarship as original and refreshing as Dr. Camfield's is generally looked down upon by the establishment because it may differ from the norm, his chances for tenure are lessened. The tenure system at present discounts positives as partisan and discounts the dialectical value of controversy. This, as a result, rejects cutting-edge work and promotes conventionality. Other problems with the system are that it is completely secret -- professors aren't permitted to see their recommendations or speak on their behalf, so biased lies can be told about them -- and there is no accountability for those lies. How do we repair this broken, biased system? One step is to open up the system. This would not only prevent vendettas against change, but also would force accountability. Next, the deans need to emphasize to the personnel committee that valuable opposition to the norm is a sign of excellence in scholarship, not a sign of danger. The deans need to ask themselves if conventionality and conformity are things the University of Pennsylvania's faculty should come to symbolize. This provocative scholarship should be evident in both print and in the classroom, as with Dr. Camfield's. Last but not least, the deans of the schools need to pay attention to the students' voice by giving us a positive voice in the tenure decision process. Contrary to what some professors and selected administrators might think, students are a bright group of people, for the most part. We were chosen to be the audience for the ideas that make this a university. Unfortunately, since many regard us as nothing more than "kids" or "pupils," we are not accorded our due respect. This respect needs to be institutionalized by giving the students a voice in who presents us the knowledge that we have come here for. The fact that we are not given a voice in this type of decision is contradictory to any notion of exchanging ideas. As Einstein once said, a good teacher is distinguished from others by their ability to inspire the joy of creative expression and knowledge. The administration must stop trying to overload the students with their rhetoric about how most teachers here are excellent and that teaching is equally important as scholarship in determining who gets tenure. The system must be changed. Dr. Camfield reminds us as students how human teachers really are. His willingness to facilitate dialogue -- not to indoctrinate -- and encourage learning -- not memorization -- are just some of the reasons why he is a great teacher. In a corrected tenure system, Dr. Camfield's credentials clearly show why he deserves tenure at the University of Pennsylvania.