Tenure process still sparks controversy

The rejections of several well-respected professors have led students and faculty to question the tenure process. As academic positions become scarce, tenure and the promise of guaranteed employment remain a constant source of dissent in the competitive academic community of upper tier colleges. And Penn is no exception. Tenure has been an issue at the University for time immemorial, with complaints ranging from sexual discrimination and personal differences, to misunderstandings over research quality. Other bones of contention have concerned the role of student and departmental input in the process and in the final tenure decision. And although students fought hard last year for a greater role in the tenure process, student efforts to reform the tenure process have all but disappeared this year. Tenure is a controversial process at any university, since tenured professors may hold their positions for life, an issue which led the University of Minnesota to draft a mechanism for removing ineffective tenured faculty. At Penn, the process is considerably longer than at many other colleges, although it is fairly consistent with the rest of the Ivy League. After the third year of a seven-year tenure process, professors are reviewed and promoted to "tenure track." They are considered for tenure in their sixth year. Tenure applications are initially reviewed by the tenured faculty in the candidate's department. If the review is positive, the candidate's dossier is passed on to the personnel committee for consideration. School of Arts and Sciences Interim Dean Walter Wales explained that while teaching has become an increasingly important factor in tenure decisions throughout his 25-year career at the University, scholarship, mentoring and service are also important considerations. While students have complained that teaching is not weighed heavily enough, administrators say "great teachers who don't do great research become poor teachers over time," according to former Student Committee on Undergraduate Education Chairperson Ben Nelson, a Wharton senior. But Nelson and some faculty members have called into question the personnel committee's evaluation of some candidates' research. In the recent rejection of Religious Studies Professor Edward Breuer's bid for tenure, Religious Studies Department Chairperson Stephen Dunning alleged that the committee members were counting pages rather than examining their quality when evaluating Breuer's research. And the focus on research has also served to limit student involvement in the tenure process, according to former Undergraduate Assembly member Dave Futer, a College sophomore. Although increased student participation in the process was a goal of the UA, the English Undergraduate Advisory Board and SCUE last year, the first two groups have largely abandoned the fight. Futer, who tackled tenure as part of the UA's academic committee, said his research showed that student opinion and recommendations were used in an advisory capacity to determine the quality of a candidate's teaching. But since research is a huge factor, and students are not capable of evaluating research quality, Futer and the committee determined there was little they could do to increase student involvement. College senior and English UAB member Tali Aronsky said the UAB has largely abandoned its work on the issue for similar reasons. SCUE, however, will continue its fight for increased student involvement, according to current Chairperson and College junior Ari Silverman. Silverman said SCUE will continue to insist on the establishment of student members of the personnel committee, despite several refusals by administrators. The committee needs students, according to Silverman, since committee members tend to weigh research more heavily than teaching and because students are more qualified to evaluate their teaching needs. Professors are also concerned with the weight their opinions are given. English Department members were shocked that Professor Michael Awkward -- recommended unanimously by the department --Ewas rejected by the personnel committee. Others professors are concerned that the situation with Awkward --Ewho was lured to the University from a tenured position at the University of Michigan -- will prevent other top professors from coming to the University. Despite such concerns, it seems unlikely that the tenure process will change drastically, since most top administrators support the process. Provost Stanley Chodorow defended the process in an guest column in The Daily Pennsylvanian, claiming that several factors, including student and departmental opinions, teaching, research and service are weighed. He explained that while certain groups may be upset that their positive recommendation was not followed, they must understand that there may have been other opinions factored into the decision. "Most of the time the many voices heard in tenure files sing a harmonious chorus? Sometimes, however, the voices are discordant? given the weightiness of the decision for the University, which must plan on having a tenured faculty member remain in its service for 25 to 35 years, the process should err on the side of caution," Chodorow said.

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