Faculty
and Trustees
A Conversation
With the Chancellor
New Lecturer and Clinical Policies
Following its tradition of providing opportunities for the
airing of important issues on campus, the AAUP organized a Spring Forum on
the topic, “Building a Faculty: Does Our Tenure Process Accomplish our
Goals.” The discussion extended from the procedural issue of how tenure
criteria in our university handbook are determined and modified to the more
substantive issues involving the criteria themselves. The Academic
Handbook states that tenure at IU can be earned either by demonstrated
excellence in research, teaching, or service or by near-excellence in all
three areas, the “balanced case.” What messages do our new faculty get from
these criteria for tenure and from our present tenure granting process?
Tenure dossiers are typically weighty affairs. Is the time consumed in the
building of this massive collection of evidence by our young faculty well
spent? And, must a colleague be “collegial” to be tenurable?
Remarks from three panel members, David Zaret, Ben Brabson, and Susan
Eklund started the discussion. David is Professor of Sociology and
Executive Associate Dean of COAS; Ben is Professor of Physics and President
of the IUB chapter of AAUP, and Susan is Professor of Education and
Associate Dean of the Faculties. Bob Eno, President of the Bloomington
Faculty Council, moderated the lively discussion.
The Procedural Issue:
One recent event prompting this Forum topic was the recent circulation of a
draft “Enhancement Plan” for the College, which proposed replacing current
tenure expectations of excellence in one of the three areas of teaching,
research, and service, or on the basis of the balanced case, by a
“teacher-scholar” model, where tenure is granted only to outstanding
researchers who are also excellent teachers, eliminating the balanced case
option in the College. During the discussion there was general agreement
that changing the policy set forth in the Academic Handbook must
proceed through the normal channels of faculty governance and approval of
the Board of Trustees. Though the weight given to individual tenure
criteria is left to units to decide, all campus units must follow the stated
policy.
Principle vs. Practice:
David Zaret pointed out that while the stated principle of tenure is similar
from one institution to another, there is considerable variability in how
the principle is applied. At IU, for example, the principle has been
applied quite flexibly. The practice of granting tenure has often included
considerations of a balanced set of criteria and capabilities. IU faculty
work toward a performance level rather than against a quota and some three
quarters of candidates achieve tenure.
The Teacher-Scholar Model:
David explained the teacher-scholar model. He quoted Dean Subbaswamy’s
formula: “Excellence in research is indispensable and uninspiring teaching
is no longer tolerable.” David suggested that this model, which does not
suggest the possibility of tenure with less than outstanding research, gives
a more accurate picture to new faculty of the standard route to a successful
tenure review, at least in the College. Shouldn’t new faculty at a research
university be told explicitly that excellence in research is the
sine-qua-non for tenure?
The University-Centered Model Ben Brabson argued for the recognition of faculty who contribute to the
mission of the university in a variety of ways. University faculty are asked
to be good at several things at the same time. Being excellent researchers
is not enough, in his view. Faculty are asked to establish a research
program, to lecture, to mentor both undergraduate and graduate students, to
enhance the curriculum of their departments, to provide outreach for their
students, to participate in the governance of the institution, to write
letters of recommendation, to serve on university wide and departmental
committees, and to work for the betterment of their profession--all at the
same time.
In the sciences excellent researchers
often find themselves at the national laboratories where research alone
is sufficient. What tenure criteria best give new faculty the message that
they are expected to contribute to the university mission in a variety of
ways? How, exactly, do new faculty develop the habit of contribution to all
aspects of an excellent university?
Flexibility in Building a Faculty: Susan Eklund made the case
that a bargain is struck between the university and its faculty. The
university agrees to provide a secure employment environment where academic
freedom protects novel and heterodox views. In exchange, the faculty
provide responsible research, teaching, and service conducted in an
exemplary manner. Though the usual tenure situation is research excellence,
exceptionally COAS and the professional schools grant tenure at IU on the
basis of the balanced case or excellence in teaching or service. Susan
provided some actual numbers. For example, some 15% of the cases in the
Business School are granted on the basis of the balanced case, and even in
the College, 4% of successful tenure cases are granted on the basis of the
balanced case.
Extensive dossiers:
How do our elaborate procedures and extensive dossier expectations--designed
to protect candidates and let them exhibit their strengths--actually shape
our junior colleagues' career development and campus experience? While
David Zaret held in one hand the slim folder of a tenure dossier of the
1960s, Susan Eklund showed pictures of trunk-size dossiers submitted this
year. Comments from members of the audience focused this part of the
discussion. The ideal dossier should reveal the “quality of mind” and an
“understanding of the elements of a research program.” Can we persuade our
new faculty to present only their best work and can we convince ourselves
that that is sufficient to allow us to assess their potential?
Collegiality: How
should Bloomington respond to the growing national debate on whether
“collegiality” should bear on tenurability? Though most agreed that
non-collegial behavior rising to a level that obstructs excellence in
teaching, research, and service is unacceptable, there was deep concern
about identifying collegiality as a separate category for tenure. Given the
vagueness of criteria for collegiality, such a category could be subject to
abuse and become a threat to academic freedom.
Summary: Bob Eno
closed the discussions with three observations: First, that campuses in the
IU system have significantly different missions and that our criteria for
tenure as stated in our Academic Handbook must be broad to be
flexible enough to serve these different missions. Second that by keeping
our criteria broad, we are able to keep the people we really want to keep
and construct a diverse and balanced faculty. And third, if we want to
build a faculty that can accomplish the complex mission of the campus, we
must find ways to guide junior colleagues to develop as campus citizens,
accommodating their needs to develop as teachers and grow into roles in the
campus community as they establish the quality of their research.
- Ben Brabson, Physics
back to top
Faculty and Trustees
For a number of years, the Bloomington AAUP has strongly
backed legislative bills that would mandate faculty trustees for all Indiana
institutions of higher education. While previous bills have been killed
without hearings by the state Senate leadership, despite bipartisan House
support, this year, strong lobbying by the AAUP State Conference and
sponsorship by influential Senate Republican Murray Clark brought the bill
to a hearing in Senate Committee, where it was defeated by a single vote.
Mark Kruzan, author of previous faculty trustee bills, attached the bill to
a different bill concerning residency requirements for IU trustees. As this
bill approached conference committee, very strong lobbying against the bill
by state college and university administrations led to the removal of the
faculty trustee language.
During this process, members of the University Faculty Council asked
President Brand to enter into dialogue on the merits of the bill and the
concept of faculty trustees. President Brand explained his personal
opposition, which he said could be subject to rethinking, and stated that
although a member of the IU university community had spoken against the bill
in hearings and our institutional lobbyist had made similar statements, IU
was taking no position on the bill, and had declined to join with other
institutions in a letter of opposition.
During UFC discussions with President Brand, he proposed a change of
formal policy at IU that could produce many of the benefits the AAUP foresaw
in having faculty trustees while avoiding what President Brand sees as the
danger of boards losing the effectiveness of their public advocacy role by
including as members institutional employees. In recent years, it has been
traditional that the senior co-secretary of the UFC (alternately the Faculty
Council president of IUB and IUPUI) be invited to attend the executive
sessions of IU trustee meetings, President Brand proposed that official
policy be drafted providing that the co-secretary be included in all
sessions by default, with certain limited exceptions, such as sessions or
portions of sessions dealing with personnel, collective bargaining, or
litigation issues, where, in many cases by statute, non-trustees cannot be
present.
In March, the current UFC co-secretaries met with IU’s University
Counsel to work out details, and President Brand has now proposed such an
arrangement to the trustees, asking the UFC for prior endorsement. It is
understood by all involved at IU, that this arrangement is intended to serve
as a state model. If it broadly adopted, significant goals of the faculty
trustee bill may be accomplished.
- Bob Eno, EALC
back to top
A Conversation with the Chancellor
Faculty who attended the April 9 Spring meeting of the AAUP-Bloomington
Chapter were treated to a frank and open discussion with Chancellor Brehm
regarding her experiences and perspectives on academic freedom and faculty
governance. Noting that some faculty will always have unpopular positions,
Chancellor Brehm asserted that the university must protect all university
citizens' right to express those positions, following the example of Herman
B Wells’ defense of the right of Kinsey researchers to conduct human
sexuality research in Indiana. While stressing the centrality of the
principle of academic freedom to the business of the university, however,
she gently probed some of the more challenging and interesting complexities
that arise when the principle is applied to real-life situations. She
explored some of the difficulties inherent in defending the rights of all
people to express opinions, referring to some responses to the recent Benton
mural controversy where individuals strongly supported the right and
responsibility of the university to continue showing the mural as an
expression of free speech while simultaneously expressing intolerance for
the right of others to argue that the mural should be removed.
Chancellor Brehm described her
experiences with faculty governance and her commitment to it. To indicate
the importance of shared governance, she noted that although in her view a
campuswide general education curriculum would benefit Bloomington, if she
cannot persuade faculty to endorse it, she will not follow the lead of some
other institutions by mandating it. Control over the curriculum is one
indispensable feature of strong faculty governance.
The Chancellor urged the AAUP to work
to influence decisions that will make the university a free and inviting
community that will entice faculty to come and stay. She acknowledged the
tremendous pressures on pre-tenure faculty, and asked the AAUP chapter to
participate in the socialization process of junior faculty to understand
their role in faculty governance following tenure. She also spoke of the
importance of family-friendly policies to attract and retain the best
faculty to IU, expressing admiration at the recent passage of Domestic
Partner Benefits at IU. She asked the AAUP to help institute family-friendly
policies, and referred the group to the 2001 AAUP policy, "Statements on
Principles of Family Responsibilities and Academic Work".
- Julie Bobay, Library
back to top
New Lecturer &
Clinical Policies
Since the mid-1990s, faculty governance at IU has been
struggling to develop policy to regulate non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty
teaching appointments in Clinical and Lecturer categories. Last year, the UFC
created and the Trustees adopted new systemwide policies for NTT
appointments. The purpose of the new policies was to improve terms and
conditions of employment and strengthen academic freedom protections for
non-tenure-track colleagues, and to reduce incentives to expand NTT ranks for
primarily financial reasons, at the expense of tenure-track slots. Although
rapid growth of NTT faculty is a national trend, the rate of growth at IU has
been slower than elsewhere, and remains relatively modest in Bloomington.
The new
policies have been used on other IU campuses to convert substantial numbers
of part-time NTT positions to regular ones governed by the favorable terms
of the new regulations, part of a three-year program of conversion mandated by
the Trustees. This Spring, the Bloomington Faculty Council adopted
campus procedures to regulate promotion, teaching loads, service expectations,
and other facets of NTT appointments in Bloomington, in the spirit of the UFC
provisions. Key features include a cap of six courses per year,
expectations of substantial professional development, and a campus review
process for promotion and appointment to long-term contracts. Individual
schools have drafted relevant policies this year, and while adjustments
will be required in some cases to conform with system and campus provisions,
the long process of developing appropriate policies to regulate NTT
appointments has moved several steps closer to completion.
- Bob Eno
back to top
