ASU President Michael Crow's choice to exercise his power to approve or reject tenure candidates has some junior faculty members concerned, professors said.
Following years of former ASU President Lattie Coor's noninvolvement in the tenure review process, Crow weighed in on 44 candidates last spring for the first time. Crow rejected 16 of those candidates - about 36 percent, a rejection rate four times higher than under Coor in 2002.
"That was the moment when consciousness ... went up a notch," said Doris Marie Provine, director of the School of Justice Studies. "This is a subject that [creates] some real anxiety for people," she added.
The reason for that anxiety, said Nora Taylor, an ASU art professor, is Crow's decision to be more involved in the process of granting tenure. Tenure is an institution that assures faculty a high level of job security and academic freedom.
"It makes people nervous because they think someone who doesn't know anything about what we do is evaluating us," said Taylor, who Crow recently granted tenure. "You're always worried you're not going to be understood."
EXERCISING AUTHORITY
By approving and rejecting tenure candidates, Crow exercised an authority the Arizona Board of Regents grants the president. It is one that most university presidents across the country also have. Coor, however, rarely chose to take an active role in tenure decisions, leaving them instead to committees and administrators.
Crow believes granting tenure is essential to his job as University president.
"Because I so firmly believe in the importance of promotion and tenure decisions as the foundation for ASU's continuing and future excellence," Crow wrote in an August memo to faculty, "I believe it is vital that I accept the responsibility of making the final decisions on all promotion and tenure cases."
He added in an interview later, "I want faculty to realize that tenure decisions are the most important decisions the University makes."
Of the 16 professors Crow rejected last spring, two were given a year to find another job, while 14 were given either an extended contract or promoted and told to reapply.
Some of those rejected have filed grievances with the University. Which professors were denied tenure or have filed grievances is private personnel information, according to ASU policy.
Crow said he has met several times with untenured faculty and answered questions and concerns.
Fears junior faculty may have about the process, he added, have "been alleviated through dialogue."
"We haven't changed the standard; we're simply trying to implement the existing standard," Crow said.
As for what he's looking for from tenure candidates? "We're looking for external recognition of the quality of their scholarship and internal recognition of the quality of their teaching," he said.
Tenure-track faculty members were hesitant or refused to speak on the record about changes in the tenure review system.
Karen Powers, a tenured history associate professor, said this could be due to fear of Crow and others who could exert a strong influence over their career future at ASU.
She said getting tenure is a rite of passage in academic circles and not getting it stigmatizes a faculty member.
"[Crow] is a man who now has to look over their tenure packet," Powers said. "So they're hesitant to be critical of him."
While Wayne Phillips, a recently tenured ASU East professor of exercise and wellness, acknowledged an undercurrent of concern among faculty about Crow's involvement, he added he didn't believe changes to the system were negative.
"To think that our president reads all those applicant files, that's a lot to do," said Phillips, who Crow personally approved for tenure. "He has his vision for the University, and that comes with the job description."
NEW VISION FOR TENURE
Now, a Promotion and Tenure Task Force report obtained by The State Press is proposing to standardize the tenure review process across all three University campuses, and it suggests some significant changes.
They include replacing the standing University committee - about a dozen professors and representatives from the provost's office and Graduate College who review all tenure petitions - with ad hoc committees formed for the specific purpose of reviewing a particular candidate's tenure petition.
The ad hoc committee system was suggested by Crow and used at Columbia University, where he was executive vice provost, for 30 years before coming to ASU.
Each committee would include at least two ASU professors and at least two experts in the candidate's field from outside the University.
The report also suggests adding an advocate for the candidate. The advocate would be a new addition to ASU's current tenure system, arguing in favor of the candidate at all levels of review.
The task force, set up by the University provost's office, has submitted its report to Milton Glick, ASU's executive vice president and provost. While he hasn't seen a final version, "I'm not anticipating making major changes before it goes to the Academic Senate," Glick said.
The proposed changes will add more meat to lower review levels, thus making Crow's tenure decisions less arbitrary, said Michael Underhill, an architecture professor and chair of the task force.
"Faculty may feel that the review will be tougher," Underhill said. "But this procedure makes it more likely that higher-level reviews will be more substantive."
However, while the task force was charged with enhancing ASU's promotion and tenure process, some aren't certain the proposed changes will do so.
RELUCTANCE TOWARD CHANGE
Robert Bjork, an ASU English professor and chair of the University Promotion and Tenure committee, said the current system works well and he doesn't see a reason to change it.
"I think the [promotion and tenure] system, as it stands, is actually a thorough, just and fair one," Bjork said. "I would hope that the [task force] comes up with some fine-tuning rather than eliminating the University Promotion and Tenure committee altogether."
David Burstein, an ASU physics professor and chair of the committee on academic freedom and tenure, said the ad hoc system wouldn't improve on the old process because it's less standardized.
Under ad hocs, as opposed to the University Promotion and Tenure committee, the same people would not review every candidate.
"I don't object to this system, but there still has to be a reasonable uniformity on how people are evaluated for tenure and promotion," Burstein said. "If someone wanted to challenge the [University Promotion and Tenure committee] process by saying it wasn't uniform, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But if they wanted to challenge the proposed ad hoc committees, they'd have something."
Additionally, the ad hoc system is "hugely labor-intensive" and slow, Columbia Provost Alan Brinkley said. Columbia has a whole office dedicated to ad hoc committees, he added.
Last year, Columbia, a university with half the students of ASU, formed ad hoc committees for 61 candidates, 55 of whom were granted tenure. That was the "most intensive year of activity since the ad hoc system began," Columbia Vice Provost Stephen Rittenberg said in an e-mail. ASU expects at least about 37 professors to go up for either tenure or promotion this year, said Gail Hackett, ASU vice provost for academic personnel.
Brinkley said he wouldn't discourage ASU from adopting ad hocs because they've worked "reasonably" well for Columbia. "But I don't want you to think it is without difficulties," he said.
Crow said the committees are a plausible option.
"They're used at the best universities in the United States, so implausibility is unlikely," Crow said.
While Glick acknowledged ad hoc committees are a large undertaking, he said they're worth the effort.
"If they come to better decisions, that's not inefficient," he added.
Provine said there would be decreased faculty anxiety as time passes.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
The current standardized tenure-granting process goes something like this: Professors usually are on a six-year tenure track before final review.
Upon review, personnel committees and administrators examine the candidate's teaching, publishing and community service record in six levels of review.
Granting a professor tenure represents a 40-year commitment for the University to a tenured professor, said Antonio Garcia, Academic Senate president.
As long as they complete contractual obligations, tenured professors enjoy job security not given to junior faculty.
Tenure is an old institution, one that's almost sacred at universities across the country.
Jonathan Knight, associate secretary of the American Association of University Professors, said tenure protects "freedom, and you need freedom to get the best quality education."
But for now, a possible rejection still causes anxiety, Garcia said.
Last year when Crow said he personally would make final tenure decisions, the stakes were raised. Before Crow entered the tenure system, candidates were more familiar with what was expected of them, said Anne Schneider, dean of the College of Public Programs.
Now, "the overall effect on junior faculty has been uncertainty," Schneider said, adding that's the expected reaction when anything changes.
"They're uneasy because they don't know what kind of decisions he'll be making."
Reach the reporter at ilan.brat@asu.edu.
