University of Colorado tenure report
plays it safe
Committee suggests minor tune-up for system
April 25, 2006
Mend it, don't end it. That's the Cliffs Notes summary of a year-long
review of tenure at the University of Colorado.
We hoped that a thorough evaluation of the policies, spurred by the
public outrage at the ravings of Ward Churchill, would have concluded
that some structural shifts were in order.
After all, tenured faculty have a near-guarantee of lifetime
employment, about as much job security as a federal judge or a French
factory worker.
To its credit, the university gave reviewers, led by retired Air Force
Gen. Howell Estes, unprecedented access to confidential employment
files. After a month of public comment, the panel's 39 recommendations
will go to university trustees, who are expected to adopt some or all
of them by the fall.
Unfortunately, the panel's final, 116-page report disappoints. The
committee did not question whether tenure, which has changed little
since the 19th century, continues to make sense in its present form.
Because more than 99 percent of all U.S. colleges and universities
offer tenure to faculty, the committee made it clear that CU would not
put itself at a potential disadvantage by bucking the system.
Instead, the report urges more rigor in applying the policies that
govern tenure reviews, and asks for new procedures that make it easier
to get rid of incompetent professors.
Pretty tame stuff.
A more entrepreneurial approach toward hiring and retention - for
instance, putting tenured professors on renewable three- or five-year
contracts - could have made CU a true innovator among major research
institutions, and enhanced accountability.
Instead, the review urged CU to march in lockstep with other schools,
embracing both the strengths and the dysfunctions of the tenure system.
It is tough to get tenure at CU. Between 100 and 300 candidates apply
for each tenure-track job. And the fortunate person who survives that
gantlet and is hired by the university still has a 30 percent
likelihood of washing out during the seven-year tenure process.
The committee also concluded that the university pretty faithfully
followed the rules. Of the 95 tenure files it reviewed from the
previous two academic years, only three raised minor questions of
propriety.
The report did chide the university for not rigorously supervising
professors once they get tenure. Indeed, poor performance is often
ignored until the five-year, post-tenure review.
The post-tenure process also fails to weed out professors who research
fields that "have gone out of favor," as the report puts it. Instead,
most universities - not just CU - fail to evaluate whether faculty
members are working on research that has some long-term value.
That's one reason we remain unconvinced that tenure, in its current
form, best serves the nation - and why we had hoped for bolder
proposals from the comprehensive review.
Copyright 2006, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.