Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1996/tenure.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
tenure
``` ---
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu
---
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 14:19:00 EDT
From: Tom Benson 814-865-4201
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | CRTNET | | | | September 10, 1996 | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Number 1526 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | COMMUNICATION RESEARCH AND THEORY NETWORK | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Edited by Tom Benson, Penn State University | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CONTENTS --
-- Tenure at Minnesota (John Louis Lucaites)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 21:43:59 -0500 (EST)
[from] John Louis Lucaites FYI. The following is amemo that has been distributed to
the faculty at the Un. of Minnesota and deserves all of our
attention. I was asked to forward it on. JLL Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 22:07:49 -0500
[from] Kinley Brauer The following email was sent to all University of Minnesota
faculty by the chairs of the Senate committess responsible
for the Minnesota tenure code. It was sent Friday, September
6, 1996. The mail header has been removed and a couple of
line breaks and tabs have been fixed. Otherwise, it is
unchanged. We are sending this to you for your information. The actual
new tenure code can be found in text form at
http://mnnt1.hep.umn.edu/ufa/, which will enable you to
compare this document with the code. The new code was developed by the regents together with
their consultant Richard Chait and also Martin Michaelson of
the Washington, DC firm of Hogan & Hartson. As best we can
tell, the code was worked out between June and the release
date of September 5. We are not aware of anyone outside this
group who knew of the provisions before release. We regard this code as the prototype of tenure revisions
which other university governing boards will attempt to
impose in coming years. It is therefore of national
interest. Paula Rabinowitz, Department of English
Thomas Walsh, Department of Physics
University Faculty Alliance
University of Minnesota --- Dear Colleagues, Our attempt to reach a compromise on revision of the Tenure
Regulations has failed. The Regents have proposed new
amendments at their meeting on Thursday. In effect, they
have accepted the parts of the Faculty Senate draft in which
the faculty made compromises and rejected the parts in which
the administration recognized faculty concerns. Far from
being a compromise, the new proposal goes well beyond any
prior administration proposal. The Regents have asked that the faculty complete review of
their new draft within a month, so that they can take final
action on October 10. The draft contains the most
substantial changes in tenure policy that have been put
forward here in over 50 years. To meet this hectic
schedule, the faculty committees will meet in the week of
September 16, and the Faculty Senate will meet on the first
day of classes, September 26. The Regents put forward their proposal over President
Hasselmo's strenuous opposition. Given the manner in which
the proposal was prepared, the extremely limited opportunity
for faculty consultation on the draft, and their
unwillingness to discuss with us the merits of various
proposals, we must conclude that they intend to move forward
on this proposal. At this point, we can only summarize the major parts of the
proposal. Other details will be provided later. Major
points are: 1. FIRING FACULTY IN CASE OF PROGRAM CHANGE. The proposal
eliminates the tenure protection currently available in
cases of program change. It provides: --60 days' notice of programmatic change. (There is no
other provision for faculty participation in these
decisions.) --reassignment or retraining of tenured faculty, unless "in
the University's judgment" this would be "not practicable."
(Note that it does not require that reassignment or
retrainging be "impracticable," but only that the
"University's judgment" be such. Give the distinction of
the Regents' Washington lawyers who prepared this language,
it is apparent that the intent was to exclude any subsequent
review of the decision.) --one year's notice of termination be given. --there is no definition of "program," so a single faculty
member could be targeted by defining that individual's
specialization for elimination. 2. REDUCTIONS IN BASE PAY. The proposal eliminates the
guarantee of base pay contained in the current regulations.
Instead, it would provide that "Absent reasons found to be
compelling by the Board of Regents or its delegate," "it is
expected that" base pay would be protected. Again,
carefully note the drafting. The first of these clauses
does NOT require "compelling reasons" before reducing base
pay; it only requires that the administrator STATE that his
reasons are compelling. The second clause does not
guarantee base salary, but only articulates a general and
vague expectation in that regard. The language eliminates
any legal claim to base pay. The language, as drafted, would permit reductions of salary
targeted at single individuals. (The statement in the Star-
Tribune this morning that such pay cuts could only be
imposed on groups of faculty, not on individuals, was
apparently based on the oral statements of the Regents'
lawyer in describing the plan. An examination of the actual
text reveals no such limitation.) Indeed, the new
languageprovides no effective protection of salary. The
provision also cuts off any review of such issues by the
Judicial Committee, even in cases of alleged violation of
academic freedom. 3. POST TENURE REVIEW. The post tenure review process has
been substantially rewritten. Rather than the remedial
process we proposed, seeking to improve the performance of
faculty experiencing difficulties, the provision in now
primarily punitive in orientation, emphasizing dismissal and
salary reduction. It now permits annual 10% salary
reductions ad infinitum. Many of the procedural protections
have been removed. 4. FACULTY DISCIPLINE. The faculty discipline section
represents a radical departure from existing rules. It
introduces surprising new language. For example, faculty
members may be punished if they do not "maintain . . . a
proper attitude of industry and cooperation with others
within and without the University community." Discipline,
including dismissal may be imposed when "commonly held
standards of conduct" (not further specified) are violated.
A new ground for firing a faculty member, "other grave
misconduct" is added. A whole new category of "lesser sanctions" is created,
including PAY CUTS (which may be permanent and are not
limited in amount) and suspensions from duty. These may be
imposed by the administrator after notice and an opportunity
to respond, but the discipline "need not involve formal
proceedings of any kind." For example, this would authorize
a dean to impose a permanent 50% pay cut without a hearing
before an impartial body. The Judicial Committee is also
excluded from review of these actions, although the faculty
member might file a grievance with an outside arbitrator. 5. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE PROCEDURES. Although access to the
Judicial Committee has been cut off in many cases--including
many possible cases involving academic freedom issues--new
major restrictions are imposed upon the operation of the
Judicial Committee. These include: --Judicial committee proceedings will be presided over by a
law officer, who must not be a faculty member. --The President will no longer be required to respect the
Judicial Committee's report and recommendation. The current
regulations contain a legal limitation (he can overrule the
committee only for "compelling reasons") and a procedural
check (he can do so only after meeting with the Judicial
Committee). The Regents' draft deletes both provisions,
giving the President total freedom to ignore the hearing
panel's report. --The new draft permits a dean to suspend a faculty member
without pay, in certain circumstances, while a proceeding to
dismiss is underway. * Two other points should be made: Some of the proposed changes track language in other
universities' tenure regulations. But those universities
may have long-established practices or other policies that
effectively limit the exercise of the power granted by the
tenure codes there. If we adopt the bare language of those
universities, but not the other limitations that exist
there, we will be deviating sharply from the norm. There
seems to be no effort to simultaneously adopt the practices
of other institutions. Given the radical nature of these changes, this is not
merely an attempt to respond to the Faculty Senate
proposals. It seeks to impose a radical changes in the
relations of faculty, administration, and Regents. Given
the controversy that has been generated, we must assume that
the Board intends to exercise fully the powers that they are
creating by these changes. Take these proposals seriously and act accordingly. The
Regents intend to act on them on October 10. Sincerely yours FRED L. MORRISON, Professor of Law
MARY DEMPSEY, Professor of Biochemistry
VIRGINIA GRAY, Professor of Political Science
ED FOGELMAN, Professor of Political Science
DAN FEENEY, Professor of Small Animal
Clinical Science Chairs of the respective Faculty Senate Committees --- Professor Kinley Brauer, Chair
Department of History
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0409 --- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| CRTNET is edited by |
| |
| Tom Benson | INTERNET: t3b@psu.edu |
| Dept. of Speech Communication | BITNET: T3B@PSUVM |
| Penn State University | FAX: 814-863-7986 |
| 227 Sparks Building | OFFICE: 814-865-4201 |
| University Park, PA 16802 USA | HOME: 814-238-5277 |
| | DEPT: 814-865-3461 |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| BACK ISSUES |
| |
| LISTSERV@PSUVM archives CRTNET; if you are able to use |
| interactive messaging, try TELL LISTSERV@PSUVM HELP to get |
| started; for an index of CRTNET files, try TELL LISTSERV@PSUVM |
| INDex CRTNET. You may also send the same command in a note; send |
| the note to LISTSERV@psuvm.psu.edu with the command INDEX CRTNET |
| by itself, as the content of the note. Detailed directories of |
| CRTNET contents 1985-1992 are available in CRTNET numbers 866-874; |
| contents for January 1993 - May 1995 are in numbers 1222-1226; |
| contents for June 1995 - December 1995 are in CRTNET 1473; |
| contents for January 1996 - June 1996 are in CRTNET 1474. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| SUBSCRIPTIONS |
| Subscriptions to CRTNET are free to all. Send electronic mail |
| requests to editor T3B@psu.edu or CRTNET@PSUVM.psu.edu -- please |
| be sure to include your name with the request. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| CONTRIBUTIONS |
| Readers are encouraged to contribute abstracts, articles, book |
| reviews, announcements, comments, questions, and discussion to |
| CRTNET. All topics relating to the general area of human |
| communication are welcome. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ END OF CRTNET
*
``` This web service brought to you by
Somewhere.Com, LLC.