COLUMN: Good teachers and researchers

From Andrea Ahles's, "Hawaiian Style," Fall '97 From Andrea Ahles's, "Hawaiian Style," Fall '97 Camfield. Boyajian. Breuer. Deudney. The names are familiar to many College of Arts and Sciences students as assistant professors who didn't get tenure. Did they deserve to be rejected? As students, we don't know what went on behind closed doors at the provost's staff committee or at the departmental level. But each year a professor who is popular among undergraduates is denied lifetime employment by the University, students become outraged. Camfield was a popular American literature professor and in 1995 he was denied tenure by the School of Arts and Sciences personnel committee. Members of the committee said Camfield had not done enough scholarship in terms of getting articles and books published. "When I went up for tenure I had two books and when I was denied I was told to give them more," Camfield said after being denied the second time. "So I got a third book contract and that was still not enough." (Popular prof loses his final bid for tenure, DP, 3/25/96) Camfield seemed to have the right stuff -- popular among students, glowing recommendations from fellow professors and two books. But it wasn't enough. As much as undergraduates want all of their favorite teachers to be granted tenure, if the professor hasn't published at all the chances of tenure are slim. And rightly so. But whether the professor has published books or articles varies between discplines. Professors in the natural sciences tend to write more articles as opposed to books which appear to be necessary for tenure in humanites. Penn is a research institution, priding itself in being a leader in several humanities and science fields. If the University gave tenure to those who were only good teachers and not good researchers as well then Penn wouldn't belong in U.S. World and News Report's top 10. Scholarship does need to be stressed during the process because those making the decisions to grant tenure need to think about the University's future. Those committee members need to decide if Penn wants this particular candidate for the next 30 to 40 years. If a professor is not doing research and keeping up with what other researchers in his or her field are conducting, then her or she will not be as good a teacher as he or she once was 10 years ago. Penn needs not only good teachers but professors who can provide research opportunities for undergraduates. In the Agenda for Excellence, Penn hopes to increase these opportunities for undergraduates in all fields. This academic plan, announced in 1995, also calls for the restructuring of the Political Science Department. And it is this reorganization that puts a different spin on Deudney's case. Here is a professor who has published numerous articles as any student in his classes knows, and who is well-known in international politics circles. He also has five or six book manuscripts in the works. Students give rave reviews to his international theory and environmental politics classes (he was given a 3.6 out of 4.0 in the Penn Course Review last year). The University needs to hold on to professors who are able to attract and stimulate students interest in learning about a particular subject. A leading expert in a particular area of political science may also attract other experts to the department in areas that are lacking such as the American politics concentration. And a professor like Deudney being granted tenure may cast Penn in a positive light for cultivating new and young faculty scholars. The University does not need to sabotage the concentrations that are the departments strength and it may do just that if Deudney decides or is forced to leave Penn. His case reached the highest level of review in the tenure process before being rejected. And someone who has the support of not only his department but the entire School of Arts and Sciences must be doing something right in terms of research. Tenure, however, is a complicated process and it is unsure of how Deudney's case will turn out compared to those before him. But for the students who think more stress should be placed on undergraduate teaching, that shouldn't be the case. The stress placed on scholarship by the committee members is appropriate for an institution of Penn's caliber. Because without good researchers, Penn will simply become a place with good teachers, but without innovators.