> I am told that a
number of universities make reference letters (suitably redacted for
identification) and votes and perhaps committee memos available to the
candidate before the dossier is sent to the central administration. Berkeley
and Irvine were mentioned, and I once heard Buffalo. Any private institutions?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what I have received so far. No privates, so far, except
for my own university. If there is more, I will send it later. What
strikes me is that strong universities, here public, seem to be able to make
decisions with great transparency—whether that is because they initially appoint
only terrific candidates or … is not clear to me.
By the way, I am
told that lots gets informally leaked at various institutions, but I do not
know if this is really the case. What seems crucial is that any dissent or
support needs to be expressed at the faculty meeting when a case is discussed.
Otherwise, quite surprising votes may occur. Keep in mind that deans or chairs
cannot discern reasons for negative votes if they have not been expressed at
the meeting. Surely, private letters by the faculty to the dean or the provost
are permitted and in some institutions are required. So it is not so simple.
MK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At Ohio State,
the candidate has the right to review materials at any point in the process
after the unit level P&T committee has completed its initial review. Names
are not redacted, so the candidate can view the full letters written by the
external reviewers. External reviewers are told when invited to write that
their letters are subject to the Ohio Open Records Act. The candidate has
response periods at each step of the process, after unit vote, after unit
head’s letter, after College P&T committee/Dean’s review, after
University P&T review.
As the Ohio Open Records Act applies across the state then the same would apply
at other Ohio universities.
U of S Florida
Our university does
this, and indeed the reference letters are not anonymous. I had
once heard that this stems from the nature of Florida’s Sunshine laws, but
honestly I have no idea if that is the reason. Some feel that this
compromises the reliability of the external letters, as writers may be either
more reluctant to participate at all, or if they do write, more reluctant to
share unfavorable views of the tenure candidate.
U of California
All University of
California campuses make the full department letter, campus-wide committee
recommendations and redacted outside letters available to the candidate. This
isn't just for tenure, but for any promotion or merit review.
Buffalo
In the course of the promotion process, the candidate
will automatically receive copies of the letters of assessment by the Chair,
Dean, Provost and by any other administrative officers who may have written at
each level of the review, including the report of the Chair of the President’s
Review Board. These letters should be copied to the candidate at the
time they are written, and they must have all references to the identity of the
author of confidential material expunged from them.
The
candidate may have access to the non-confidential parts of the dossier (i.e.,
Part I), including letters written by external and internal evaluators who have
given prior approval in writing.
Also, I recall a
‘last look’, which I cannot find in the written guidelines (but it is mentioned
on slide 5 in the attachment). Candidates for promotion are invited for
a ‘last look’ at the dossier before it reaches the president. The dossier
includes letters summarizing action at the department, school, PRB, and provost
level. The ‘last look’ is for a specified period of time (perhaps 10 days)
and must happen in the provost’s office. Candidates may view the entire
dossier, with names redacted where external evaluators have requested it. After
this ‘last look’ period, the dossier advances to the president and then
the chancellor. A candidate may voluntarily waive his or her right to
the ‘last look’, and then the dossier may move faster to the next level.
Utah
In both the public
research I's where I have taught, the committee letter (and vote count),
the chair letter and the dean letter are available to the candidate prior
to their being sent up. The candidate has the right to respond to those letters
in writing as they are submitted through the chain. The candidate may waive
his/her right to see the referee letters and most times they do, but if they
don't, they see them (not redacted). The referees are informed of the
waiver/not.
York U, Tronto
That is what we do
here. The candidate sees the entire file with only the identification of
the letter writers redacted. The candidate has something like 15 days to
respond, if they want. After that, the file goes to the Dean for comment,
then to the Senate T&P, and then to the President. The Dean can make
a different recommendation than the committee, but cannot turn back the
file. The Senate committee can, as can the President. Appeals are
also possible and sometimes successful.
Morgan State
Not here at Morgan. Even
the names of who is in the committee would not announced till the committee was
formed. Completely in camera.
University of Washington
I don't believe that UW
makes letters available, however when I was serving on the Faculty Senate in
2013 we passed changes to the Faculty Code that require an additional
disclosure to the tenure candidate, after the faculty council and the dean have
made their recommendations, and before the dossier makes its way to the provost
and the president. At UW Tacoma (where I am), the "faculty council"
is the campus P&T committee and the "dean" is the Vice Chancellor
for Academic Affairs and/or the Chancellor (not sure which, perhaps I should
find out as I am entering the chute tomorrow, gulp).
In the past, candidates were
only informed of the vote of their faculty unit (according to the code), and
left to surmise the outcome of subsequent steps, although I understand that
there was some variation across different units and colleges and often informal
reports were shared. Part of the rationale for the change, as I understood it,
was to standardize practice throughout the university, reduce additional and
unwarranted anxiety, or in the opposite case, provide the candidate with an
opportunity to respond in writing to an unfavorable recommendation.
Portland State University
At Portland State
University, the faculty member can see the whole package, including letters
(not redacted) and memos, after the Dean's decision, before it goes to the
Provost. The referees are informed that their letters will be seen by the
faculty member when they are invited to be a referee.
Toronto
At the University of
Toronto it is all confidential. Letters from externals, discussion, votes. The
Chair of the tenure committee must summarize fairly the main points and thrust
of the external review letters, research reading committee and teaching
committee reports, in a letter to the candidate and to the tenure committee.
That letter is the only part of the dossier that the candidate sees. The candidate
has an opportunity to rebut that letter of summary. The candidate is not
informed of the identity of any of the referees, but has the right to object to
particular members of the tenure review committee.
I do not believe that
honest letters of evidence would be possible if the writers thought that the
candidate would see them. Even now we are much more likely to see faint praise
than real critique.
USC (private)
Candidates see nothing,
and faculty see the committee report, but not the dean’s letter nor any vote
totals. Dean can decide not to advance the candidate, and if the faculty vote
concurs, it won’t be advanced.
Re Confidentiality:
The importance of confidentiality during promotion and tenure
proceedings is so important I nearly went to jail for refusing to testify in
court when asked by counsel about the vote of a tenure committee on which I
served. The judge said I had to answer because there is no confidentiality in
the proceedings, but the attorney for the plaintiff, rephrased the question in
such a way that could answer it and not reveal my vote or the vote of the
committee.
MK: This point is well
taken at my university. But clearly some very strong universities seem to find
it ok or at least they are able to make decisions without such confidentiality.
(My secret is that I forget the contents of a dossier and any votes (so many
dossiers, so little time..., as they say), so I could not be a source of
information--although once I got a free lunch since someone and their mentor
thought they could squeeze it out of me.)
Hence, what I am looking
for is evidence that tenure and promotion decisionmaking, in terms of
judging the quality of candidates, is helped or hurt by confidentiality.
I am told that I assume too much good will in the world. I
have seen enough nonsense that incompetence would explain most stuff. Moreover,
those who would like to do ill, seem to leave their fingerprints and pawprints
on everything. They write patently unfair reports, and they make claims not
supported by the evidence.
I had a friend who would
be very good at leaving no fingerprints, and also had a long memory and more
than enough patience. There are few such in my experience. Most dangerous folks
are klutzes, their shenanigans revealed by legal inquiry. Of course, they do
harm. Lots. But they are in effect bullies, who try to moon you. This is not
the best position for a defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment