COLUMN: Tenure's Irony

From Peter Morrison's "Think for Yourself," Fall '95 From Peter Morrison's "Think for Yourself," Fall '95Currently, all tenured English Department faculty members are deciding whether to resubmit popular Assistant English Professor Gregg Camfield's case to the School of Arts and Sciences Personnel Committee to decide if he should get tenure. When he was originally denied tenure, he had been awarded the English Undergraduate Advisory Board's first annual teaching award and had consistently received a 4.0 for teaching in the Penn Course Review. He had already published one book and was under contract for a second. And, he participated on the College's writing committee, which helped institute the writing requirement. Not only does Camfield seem to meet the qualifications necessary for tenure, but, more importantly, his qualifications include excellent teaching. At a university that has emphasized the importance of a challenging and stimulating undergraduate academic experience, it would be absolutely hypocritical if the English Department and the SAS Personnel Committee did not heavily weigh Camfield's teaching record. As the Monday deadline for the English Department's secret-ballot vote nears, the tenured English professors must decide whether to give Camfield a second chance. This second chance will depend heavily on "additional materials." "The SAS Personnel Committee last year rejected a departmental recommendation to promote, after hearing our best arguments and reviewing our most persuasive materials," English Professor Robert Lucid said last month. "Can we come up with a sufficiently stronger and better case than the one we have already submitted and had rejected? That is the question that we must consider and answer." Lucid added that the English Department has been gathering more material all summer trying to improve Camfield's chances. But based on his accomplishments to date, should Camfield's dossier have to be improved? Add to the Camfield decision the denial of promotion to two other accomplished and popular professors, Assistant Geology Professor George Boyajian and English Graduate Chairperson Vicky Mahaffey, and you seem to have one fairly disjointed, esoteric system. (Boyajian was given unanimous support from his department.) These strange tenure decisions scream for intense scrutiny of the process itself. So, here goes. First, the irony built into the process is striking. During the first six years that a professor works at the University as an assistant professor, he or she is expected to accomplish a tremendous amount. He must do in-depth research and publish findings that are on the cutting edge of his field. He has every incentive to work especially hard so that his accomplishments speak for themselves when he is evaluated for tenure. (Keep in mind, the professor has no incentive to teach well.) At the same time, this assistant professor must be wary of the type of research he is doing. He cannot do research that will upset the tenured faculty in his department or he will never be supported for tenure. So that rules out any research that might be controversial or might refute a colleague. In essence, the assistant professor's academic freedom is limited while he is seeking tenure. This is where the irony lies. Proponents of the "tenure for life" system argue that promoting a professor to the permanent ranks ensures that he will have complete academic freedom while doing research at the University. But during the time that a professor has the most incentive to do his best and most far-reaching work -- when he is still seeking tenure -- is when he is most limited. The incentives built into the system are backward. Many will argue that professors enter academia because they want to do research, and I would agree, but while some professors may be independently motivated, others know that, whether they produce or not, they have a job for life. Second, the system is too secretive. What is the SAS Personnel Committee trying to hide? Do members take personal pot shots at professors up for promotion? Is it a mud slinging contest? What is such a matter of University security that the public cannot know how some of the most important decisions for undergraduate education are made? I ask the University to remove the shroud of secrecy and the mystery behind this unusual process. The public should know exactly who sits on the tenure committees and should be able to hold them responsible for their statements. This would force committee members to base objections on substance not personal, perhaps unjustified, criticisms of the opinions of the professor up for tenure. Last, I advocate a reformed system in which professors are reevaluated every 10 years. A decade should be more than enough time for someone to complete even a tremendously large project, and should also avoid the academic freedom argument. If a professor wants to do controversial research, then so be it -- 10 years should be enough time. Furthermore, if a professor were fired at one of these reevaluations because of the content of his research, then I'm sure at "Water Buffalo" U. there will be severe consequences for the administration. Far too much dead weight exists at the University. Many tenured professors are the poorest teachers and could care less about their departments. As long as they get their money to do their little research projects then they are happy. Reevaluations every 10 years would provide an incentive to remain engaged in the University and cutting-edge research. It would also provide opportunities for the University to correct tenure mistakes it may have made in the past. An open tenure system with reevaluations every set number of years would ensure an active, bright faculty that not only performs quality research, but, hopefully, also has the energy to be a good teacher in the classroom. Gregg Camfield is this type of professor. Giving him tenure will correct an injustice in the short term, but reforming the system itself will eliminate similar injustices in the future.