Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> Post-tenure review
Post Info TOPIC: Post-tenure review
Just an opinion

Date:
Post-tenure review
Permalink Closed

Does USM have an official system of post-tenure review?  I note that Auburn is about to implement such a system (from this morning's Opelika-Auburn News):


Tenure review coming
 
Jack Stripling  / Staff Writer
 
June 17, 2005







 

ADVERTISEMENT








If Social Security is the third rail of politics, then tenure is surely the equivalent in academia. The tenure system, designed in part to insulate professors from being fired for taking controversial stands, finds staunch defenders in academia whenever it is questioned. Friday in Auburn was no exception.


Auburn University Interim President Ed Richardson announced Friday that a review of tenured faculty, which could lead to the revocation of tenure in some cases, will be conducted in tandem with a review of academic programs.


“We want to make sure that those (tenured professors) that are not doing well know where the shortcomings are and understand what our expectations are,” Richardson said. “We think that’s fair. But if we have those very rare occasions when people are not performing satisfactorily, then there would have to be some sanctions.”


Richardson noted that tenure review is not unheard of at other institutions, but that didn’t quell a last-ditch effort by AU Senate leaders to delay the evaluations. Willie Larkin, who serves as faculty advisor to AU trustees, pleaded for Richardson to hold off on the plan at least until program reviews are concluded.


“There is no compelling argument that post-tenure review is needed at this particular time,” Larkin said.


Richardson told the Opelika-Auburn News that he had no plan to delay the reviews, despite Larkin’s objections.


 



__________________
Reporter

Date:
Permalink Closed

Just an opinion wrote:

Does USM have an official system of post-tenure review?  

Yes. From approved F.S. Minutes and soon to be posted on FS website:


The University of Southern Mississippi


Faculty Senate Meeting


February 11, 2005


Union Hall of Honors


2:00 p.m.


  


"4.1.1    Post Tenure Review – Dave B. gave a recap of the Post Tenure Review (PTR) document and where it stood as of last Faculty Senate (FS) meeting (see previous meeting minutes.)  At the last FS meeting, the senate passed a motion to send the PTR to the IHL board even though the university counsel suggested that it was not necessary as long as it was put into the Faculty Handbook down the road.  Before Dave B. sent it to the IHL, he wanted to be sure that Provost Grimes was aware of the senate’s action.  So at the next President’s cabinet meeting, Dave B. brought it up.  Dr. Thames seemed surprised that we had not reached an agreement to send the PTR up to the board.  Later that week when Bill Powell and Dave B. were meeting with Dr. Grimes, they were informed that Dr. Grimes, the deans and Lee Gore had met about the PTR.  Dr. Grimes gave Bill and Dave a new version – no preamble, language was changed, etc. – and they were informed that this new version would be going up to the board that day.  Dave and Bill told the provost that they were not happy with this new version.  The provost decided to allow them to have the weekend to make some revisions.  Dave B. got together as many of the PTR committee members (and Bill P. and Myron Henry) as he could and they all reworked the document.  They delivered it to the provost on Monday about 1pm.  They were told that it would still have to be reviewed by Lee Gore and the president.  Later that Monday, Dr. Grimes called and negotiated several points with Dave. B. over the phone.  Several points they could not agree on.  The major changes now in the document are:


 


-         On page 2, trigger is now “less than 2.0” where we had written 1.5.


-         On page 3, we have added that any Portfolio additions (from deans, etc.) must be shared with faculty member.


-         On page 4, we have added “faculty member has the right to appeal faculty development plan to provost who will consult the college advisory committee.”


-         On page 5, the salary freeze was taken out.  Also, the second committee was taken out.


 


Q:  Did it go up to the board with the Preamble?


A:  Yes.


 


Q:  Who maintains the portfolio?


A:  Chair of the review committee, maybe.  It wasn’t specified in the PTR


 


Q:  If IHL has questions, who will they ask?


A:  Probably Dr. Grimes


 


It was suggested that the Faculty Senate check with the IHL to see if they accept this plan, that it should go in the Faculty Handbook and that the senate should review it before it is put there."


 


 



__________________
COST faculty

Date:
Permalink Closed

I am told that the IHL-approved post-tenure review document,  including the preamble, will be sent from the faculty handbook committee to the President for final approval shortly. It will then be part of the faculty handbook.

__________________
Invictus

Date:
Permalink Closed


COST faculty wrote:
I am told that the IHL-approved post-tenure review document,  including the preamble, will be sent from the faculty handbook committee to the President for final approval shortly. It will then be part of the faculty handbook.


If and when the president approves it.

__________________
Reporter

Date:
Permalink Closed

Invictus wrote:

COST faculty wrote: I am told that the IHL-approved post-tenure review document,  including the preamble, will be sent from the faculty handbook committee to the President for final approval shortly. It will then be part of the faculty handbook. If and when the president approves it.
Invictus, I thought the president approved the document before it was sent to the IHL.  Wasn't the IHL approval the last step?

__________________
Metaphysical Politician

Date:
Permalink Closed

Post-tenure review is a very good thing. One more thing to point to when people say faculty members are slugs. Of course, if you are a slug, it will be more difficult to hide.

__________________
Invictus

Date:
Permalink Closed


Reporter wrote:
Invictus, I thought the president approved the document before it was sent to the IHL.  Wasn't the IHL approval the last step?


I was simply responding to exactly what COST faculty posted. Re-read his/her post. It looked to me like the board approves it & when the president approves it (again?) it goes in the handbook.

__________________
Moe

Date:
Permalink Closed

Metaphysical Politician wrote:

Post-tenure review is a very good thing. One more thing to point to when people say faculty members are slugs. Of course, if you are a slug, it will be more difficult to hide.

We all have to do post-tenure reviews now because of the failure of most administrators to do their jobs.  There are slugs in academia just like everywhere else.  They persist if administrators persist in treating them like slightly below average faculty members instead of slugs.  Post-tenure review is not going to solve this problem unless we start getting some administrators that are fair but have a little more backbone than the average jellyfish.  If we had done the right thing for the last 30 years with respect to the slugs then the vast majority of us that have been doing our jobs all along wouldn't be catching so much caca.


Sorry for the rant.



__________________
COST faculty

Date:
Permalink Closed

Invictus wrote:

Reporter wrote: Invictus, I thought the president approved the document before it was sent to the IHL.  Wasn't the IHL approval the last step? I was simply responding to exactly what COST faculty posted. Re-read his/her post. It looked to me like the board approves it & when the president approves it (again?) it goes in the handbook.

The President must approve changes/additions to the faculty handbook, even if the changes are already approved policy. It is very unlikely the president will have an issue with including this in the handbook. The handbook committee provided the placement and formatting. Presidential approval in this case is really a formality.



__________________
Slugfest

Date:
Permalink Closed

Moe wrote:

We all have to do post-tenure reviews now because of the failure of most administrators to do their jobs.  There are slugs in academia just like everywhere else. They persist if administrators persist in treating them like slightly below average faculty members instead of slugs. Post-tenure review is not going to solve this problem unless we start getting some administrators that are fair but have a little more backbone than the average jellyfish.  If we had done the right thing for the last 30 years with respect to the slugs then the vast majority of us that have been doing our jobs all along wouldn't be catching so much caca.

Moe, I concur. Tough but fair departmental recommendations have been overturned upstairs. Some productive faculty members have been denied tenure or promotion. Some of the ones you refer to as slugs have been rewarded.


Slugfest


 


 



__________________
Moe

Date:
Permalink Closed

Slugfest,


Cronyism is hard to root out under the best of circumstances.  Currently at USM, cronyism and nepotism or worse are almost official policy.  People have forgotten why we passed civil service reform a century ago.  The current system is cumbersome, but the alternative is worse.  Something about those who don't know history are doomed . . .    If the tolerance for this sort of thing is not checked, MS will become just another moribund backwater wondering how to pay for prisons and medicaid. 


Since I can't do anything about it, I'm trying to take this as an educational experience.  We're all getting a view of what the public sector in the U.S. looked like in the late 19th century or in many current 3rd world countries. 


 



__________________
Perspective, Please

Date:
Permalink Closed

If you know what's going on, then you have three choices:

1. Refuse to conform to the system, all the while complaining about how unfair it is.
2. Conform to the system and reap the benefits.
3. Leave.

Looks like a bunch of you have chosen #1 when the rational choices are 2 and 3.

__________________
USM Sympathizer

Date:
Permalink Closed

Perspective, Please wrote:

If you know what's going on, then you have three choices: 1. Refuse to conform to the system, all the while complaining about how unfair it is. 2. Conform to the system and reap the benefits. 3. Leave. Looks like a bunch of you have chosen #1 when the rational choices are 2 and 3.

PP,


I don't understand your comment (partly because of the ambiguity of your reference to "the system").  Please elaborate.



__________________
Voter

Date:
Permalink Closed


Perspective, Please wrote:
If you know what's going on, then you have three choices:

1. Refuse to conform to the system, all the while complaining about how unfair it is.
2. Conform to the system and reap the benefits.
3. Leave.

Looks like a bunch of you have chosen #1 when the rational choices are 2 and 3.


Seems to me option 1 is the truly American way: save the country while saving ourselves--so what's your point?

__________________
foot soldier

Date:
Permalink Closed

Arguing about the wrong things? In my opinion, this is the problem:

"Dr. Grimes gave Bill and Dave a new version – no preamble, language was changed, etc. – and they were informed that this new version would be going up to the board that day."

The problem is not having post-tenure review--but having decisions imposed from the top down. The problem is lack of shared governance.

__________________
Perspective, Please

Date:
Permalink Closed

My reference to "the system" was intended to bring to mind the situation in which cronyism determines allocation of resources. Cronyism is alive and well in all facets of life: politicians push pork projects that will benefit their respective constituencies, accountants who go to church or play golf with certain business people often get hired to keep books and do payroll and taxes, and sports coaches often hire assistants with whom they played or who played under them. There is an inherent amount of politics in living life.

If I know that my chair (immediate supervisor) practices such cronyism, then (assuming I don't want to leave) I have 2 choices: play the game or not. If I know that playing the game will get me more resources (raises, travel money, secretarial support, etc.), then I am acting rationally if I conduct myself in a manner that leads to the best end-result for me; that is, if I do favors for chairmen and chairmen do favors for me, then I am only being rational. If I choose not to play the game, then I must live with the consequences of my actions and may have to do without mid-year raises, extra travel funds, etc. The question is: What's worth more, my integrity or my financial well-being?

This delimma is, as I have stated earlier, not singular to USM. I don't fault individuals who play the game, because they often aren't making the rules. They're simply getting the most out of the situations life presents them, without regard for the ethics of the situation. I also don't fault those who don't play the game, as long as they don't complain about it too much.

I do fault the chairmen who do not reward achievement. I fault the chairmen who do not appropriately support less experienced members of the organization.

__________________
Perspective, Please

Date:
Permalink Closed


foot soldier wrote:
Arguing about the wrong things? In my opinion, this is the problem:

"Dr. Grimes gave Bill and Dave a new version – no preamble, language was changed, etc. – and they were informed that this new version would be going up to the board that day."

The problem is not having post-tenure review--but having decisions imposed from the top down. The problem is lack of shared governance.


This is one of those situations in which shared governance is not appropriate. If faculty have a hand in completely shaping the post-tenure review process, then they are, in effect, making up the rules of the game (often to suit their particular needs).

__________________
USM Sympathizer

Date:
Permalink Closed


Perspective, Please wrote:

My reference to "the system" was intended to bring to mind the situation in which cronyism determines allocation of resources. Cronyism is alive and well in all facets of life: politicians push pork projects that will benefit their respective constituencies, accountants who go to church or play golf with certain business people often get hired to keep books and do payroll and taxes, and sports coaches often hire assistants with whom they played or who played under them. There is an inherent amount of politics in living life. If I know that my chair (immediate supervisor) practices such cronyism, then (assuming I don't want to leave) I have 2 choices: play the game or not. If I know that playing the game will get me more resources (raises, travel money, secretarial support, etc.), then I am acting rationally if I conduct myself in a manner that leads to the best end-result for me; that is, if I do favors for chairmen and chairmen do favors for me, then I am only being rational. If I choose not to play the game, then I must live with the consequences of my actions and may have to do without mid-year raises, extra travel funds, etc. The question is: What's worth more, my integrity or my financial well-being? This delimma is, as I have stated earlier, not singular to USM. I don't fault individuals who play the game, because they often aren't making the rules. They're simply getting the most out of the situations life presents them, without regard for the ethics of the situation. I also don't fault those who don't play the game, as long as they don't complain about it too much. I do fault the chairmen who do not reward achievement. I fault the chairmen who do not appropriately support less experienced members of the organization.


Thanks for a very clear explanation.  I'm not sure I find the ethos suggested her very attractive, but at least I now understand your definition of rationality.



__________________
Ethics

Date:
Permalink Closed


Perspective, Please wrote:




 I have 2 choices: play the game or not. If I know that playing the game will get me more resources (raises, travel money, secretarial support, etc.), then I am acting rationally if I conduct myself in a manner that leads to the best end-result for me; that is, if I do favors for chairmen and chairmen do favors for me, then I am only being rational.


That is being "short sighted".  You would be damaging the whole to benefit the few.  You are being selfish and neglecting the long term effects of your actions.


If I choose not to play the game, then I must live with the consequences of my actions and may have to do without mid-year raises, extra travel funds, etc. The question is: What's worth more, my integrity or my financial well-being?


Your integrity is worth more.  When what you do becomes public it wil be obvious to you.


This delimma is, as I have stated earlier, not singular to USM. I don't fault individuals who play the game, because they often aren't making the rules. They're simply getting the most out of the situations life presents them, without regard for the ethics of the situation.


There is nothing "simple" about violation of ethics.  A society that thinks that way will have a lot to pay for later.


I also don't fault those who don't play the game, as long as they don't complain about it too much.


People who are ethical can complain all they want.  They earned it.   People can't call it a "fault" just because your conscience is bothering them.  Is this why so many of the business community don't like the faculty to speak out? 


I do fault the chairmen who do not reward achievement. I fault the chairmen who do not appropriately support less experienced members of the organization.


 



__________________
Voter

Date:
Permalink Closed


Perspective, Please wrote:


The question is: What's worth more, my integrity or my financial well-being?

This delimma is, as I have stated earlier, not singular to USM. I don't fault individuals who play the game, because they often aren't making the rules. They're simply getting the most out of the situations life presents them, without regard for the ethics of the situation. I also don't fault those who don't play the game, as long as they don't complain about it too much.




For most people in academe, integrity is of paramount importance--as many have said on this board, if money were truly the main object, we would not be at a university at all. Seems to me what PP is talking about here boils down to corruption, which surely undermines morale and productivity. Why shouldn't we complain? Shared governance is indeed a more ethical approach than the cronyism described. Complaining has produced change even in the retrograde and repressive atmosphere of the imploding Thames regime. Glad more people in 1770s America didn't follow PP's advice--wish more people in 1930s Germany had.

__________________
Jameela Lares

Date:
Permalink Closed

Perspective, Please wrote:

The question is: What's worth more, my integrity or my financial well-being?
Your integrity.  Every single time.

__________________
Voter

Date:
Permalink Closed


Voter wrote:





Glad more people in 1770s America didn't follow PP's advice--wish more people in 1930s Germany had.


Should have been: wish so many people in 1930s Germany had not.

__________________
The Archangel of Ethics

Date:
Permalink Closed

Perspective, Please wrote:

I don't fault individuals who play the game, because they often aren't making the rules. They're simply getting the most out of the situations life presents them, without regard for the ethics of the situation. I also don't fault those who don't play the game, as long as they don't complain about it too much..

Perspective Please,


I would not want to live in a place such as you describe. It sounds like the way things are down there with BezzleBubba



__________________
Lupo

Date:
Permalink Closed

I'm a model citizen on campus.  That's 8 to 5.  I'm free to complain my a$$ off on my own time. 


As for rationality, I'll leave when it suits me.  I'll continue to use the institution to further the welfare of my students and my own welfare.  Unfortunately the welfare of the institution no longer concerns me.  It has been hijacked by those who see USM as a way to further their own welfare without the slightest regard for the welfare of the students, alumni, or employees.  Since those that are supposed to be monitoring the management of the institution do not see fit to rectify the situation, I can only presume that they likewise do not care. 


This is now like the proverbial bad movie line.



__________________
Perspective, Please

Date:
Permalink Closed

Who is to say that integrity is worth more than dollars? It may be for you, but your values don't apply to everyone; they apply only to you. Forcing your values on others is like forcing your religion (or lack thereof) on others. Claiming that there is an absolute "right" and an absolute "wrong" is ludicrous. People act in the manner that best benefits them at that point in time.

Further, this is not an ethics question. The system in place at USM allows administrators to reward those who the administrators feel serve the university, college, and/or department best.

I can hear a lot of academic mindset from these responses, but I hear very little "real world" experience. Since I have both, I can tell you that this goes on everywhere and at every university, regardless of SACS status, regardless of who the president is, and regardless of how much or how little "shared governance" takes place.

If you question this, think of that student (and you all have had one) who had a borderline grade that you bumped "up" because they were pleasant, came to class, and "tried hard" (whatever that means). If you have ever done this, then you gave rewards based on a set of subjective criteria.

__________________
Fountain Specialist

Date:
Permalink Closed

I agree, PP. Too many people want a "laundry list" of things that, if done, will result in rewards. Ours is a dynamic system that may require subtle action (or inaction) and loyalty to administration, both of which are lacking in many of the members of this board.

Sometimes saying "yes, boss" to a task and doing it is rewarded. Again, since this is a known situation, everyone has a choice. Griping about it when you act to keep your integrity is like griping about cars passing you on the interstate. The cars that pass you will get there more quickly, but they also have a greater chance of getting a ticket. If you follow the speed limit, you will not get there as quickly, but you also won't get a ticket for speeding. Make your choices and live with the consequences.

__________________
Equine Whine

Date:
Permalink Closed


Lupo wrote:
I'm a model citizen on campus.  That's 8 to 5.  I'm free to complain my a$$ off on my own time. 
As for rationality, I'll leave when it suits me.  I'll continue to use the institution to further the welfare of my students and my own welfare.  Unfortunately the welfare of the institution no longer concerns me.  It has been hijacked by those who see USM as a way to further their own welfare without the slightest regard for the welfare of the students, alumni, or employees.  Since those that are supposed to be monitoring the management of the institution do not see fit to rectify the situation, I can only presume that they likewise do not care. 
This is now like the proverbial bad movie line.


So you never act in a manner that best benefits you alone? Then you, Lupo, are a messianic character and a true altruist. Or, you're full of ****.

__________________
The Archangle of Ethics

Date:
Permalink Closed

Perspective, Please wrote:

Who is to say that integrity is worth more than dollars?
At least my take on you the first time was right. I hope my kids don't enroll in you class.

__________________
Lupo

Date:
Permalink Closed

My sincerest apologies for failing to use or instead of and. 


Thank you for your input.



__________________
ST

Date:
Permalink Closed

Faculty:

This has been a great Father's Day for me. I am glad to see you are all suffering vis-a-vis the Post-Tenure Review plan. I have many more such tricks up my sleeve for the next two years.

Your Daddy,

Shelby

__________________
1 2 3  >  Last»  | Page of 3  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> Post-tenure review
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard