U. Minnesota tenure revisions draw attacks

Regnets consider tying salary to peer review ratings, ending guaranteed employment Proposed revisions to the University of Minnesota's tenure system have sparked harsh criticism from faculty at universities nationwide -- including Penn. Although Minnesota officials have backed off on some of the most extreme proposals, they are still considering several drastic measures. The proposed changes include the ability for administrators to lay off professors whose departments have been eliminated -- and provisions for disciplinary action, such as pay reductions for grave misconduct. One of the proposals that has garnered the harshest words from professors nationwide is a post-tenure review process. Minnesota officials are considering two recommendations. One would permit the school's administration to guide the review process, while the other would be faculty-driven and would allow faculty members to improve their performance before pay is reduced. Faculty members and the Board of Regents at Minnesota have struggled with tenure reform for more than a year. But the changes they are considering have drawn severe objections from many university professors who fear academic freedom could be constrained. In a letter to the chairperson of the Minnesota's Board of Regents, Penn Faculty Senate chairperson Peter Kuriloff, expressed the unanimous "profound opposition" of Penn's Faculty Senate Executive Committee to Minnesota's proposed tenure revisions. Calling the proposals an "assault on the basic elements of the traditional tenure system," the education professor encouraged the Regents to reconsider their actions. "The tenure system maintains the secure conditions for freedom of scholarly, scientific inquiry that are the very foundation of American universities' long-standing success," Kuriloff said in the letter. "Without such unfettered freedom, it is impossible to imagine many people taking the kinds of intellectual risks that are required to maintain our competitive advantage in research and scholarship." Kuriloff added that the Faculty Senate views American higher education as the best in the world and that the tenure system contributes to its strength. "Yet the Regents' proposals would effectively destroy tenure -- and the benefits it confers to our society -- by diluting the conditions of tenure through salary reductions, suspensions and performance reviews," he said. While tenure reform is necessary, Kuriloff told The Daily Pennsylvanian, Minnesota administrators have gone too far. Kuriloff said he supports a post-tenure peer review system to ensure that professors stay "active and alert" in terms of their teaching and research. Officials from several other institutions -- including the University of California at Berkeley and Florida State University -- and educational organizations like the American Association of University Professors have also spurned Minnesota's proposed tenure revisions. At Berkeley, officials passed "The Motion on Minnesota's Threat to Tenure" in April, condemning the university's actions. And the American Association of University Professors has taken an active role in keeping the tenure revisions to a minimum. AAUP staffer Jack Nightingale, who is currently in Minnesota for the third time to assist the faculty during the reform process, said many of the proposed revisions run contrary to the notions of academic freedom. "There have been a number of proposals that have been floated at the university," he said. "Many of those are in violation of AAUP policy." According to Nightingale, the faculty senates of Indiana University and the University of Michigan have also sent letters of opposition to Minnesota officials. And he said the reforms have even received international attention -- the Canadian Association of University Teachers has expressed concern about the proposals. "There are attacks being made to tenure and we need to be responsive to those attacks," said Nightingale, adding that professors must have the freedom to teach and do research without worrying about the consequences of their actions. Despite these criticisms, Minnesota's top administrators, including President Nils Hasselmo, have continued to advocate some sort of tenure reform -- partially for financial reasons. Supporters of reforming the university's tenure system cite the closing of the school's Waseca, Minn., campus in 1991 as a reason for the changes. While 13 tenured professors who taught at that campus took advantage of a retirement package offered by the university, 20 others had to be reassigned to positions at other university campuses -- some of which were created solely for the sake of reassignment. Under one of the proposed revisions, administrators would not be required to relocate professors in similar situations, but rather could fire them and provide them with one year's pay and health benefits. Kuriloff said in an interview that if Minnesota's tenure reform becomes a precedent, it could diminish higher education in the United States. He added, however, that the reforms would probably have few effects on private schools. "The risks to great private research universities are slim because they're very insulated," Kuriloff said. "They tend to understand the values of tenure better and don't have legislatures to influence them. "The loss of the University of Minnesota would be a tragedy to higher education," Kuriloff added. "Penn and all these other places would swoop in and raid the university of all its top people." Like the critics from across the nation, the majority of students at Minnesota have expressed support for more limited tenure revisions -- and are hopeful that the dispute will be resolved quickly. "The university's had a long history of academic freedom," Minnesota sophomore Christopher Johnson said. "The reforms are going to make it really hard for the school to recruit and keep professors -- and it could diminish the university."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.