(Un)appealing Option

A few weeks ago, I discussed writing letters as part of the tenure evaluation of assistant professors at other universities. Another tenure-related topic is what happens when tenure is denied.

My understanding of how tenure-denial appeals work is limited, but growing by the day, unfortunately. Perhaps the process varies (a lot?) from institution to institution, but here are some things I have learned so far:

The basis for a realistic appeal can be (1) discrimination, or (2) violation of procedure. An appeal based on an "I was misjudged" is less likely to be successful, although I know of some cases in which an appeal of this sort was successful, typically based on the issue of the relative weights given to teaching and research excellence.


Even if there has been blatant discrimination or a violation of procedure, the various stops along the tenure trail designed to catch such things may not catch them, or may even be the source of the problem. Hence the appeal process.

Things can get complicated at large institutions in which there are many intermediate steps along the road to tenure during the evaluation and voting process. At each stage, there is the possibility of a decision that is different from preceding ones, although this gets less likely as the process moves up the administrative food chain.


Nevertheless, voting and decision-making bodies/people at a university can include

• a departmental promotion & tenure committee,

• tenured faculty in the department (perhaps in more than one department for interdisciplinary faculty with multiple tenure homes),

• the department head,

• a committee at the college level (e.g., College of Arts & Sciences, School of Engineering),

• the Dean (± an Associate/Assistant Dean),

• various Provostial Beings ± Vice-Presidents for Whatever,

• the President/Chancellor, and, in some cases,

• a Board of Trustees.

Many of these steps are necessary to provide checks-and-balances. For example, departments might be "too close" to a candidate, using criteria that are not objective or fair. This can work for or against a candidate; e.g., a well-liked mediocre candidate might get a yes vote. It's not supposed to work that way, of course, but since the evaluation metrics are typically not spelled out (more on that tomorrow), variability is inevitable.

If all of these people/committees vote overwhelmingly no, that's not good (and makes an appeal very unlikely to succeed), but what if some say yes and some say no, or what if there are mixed votes in certain committees?

According to legend, once you get past the department and college/school committee with a positive vote, you're fine, but there are rumors of candidates who had positive votes up to the Dean or Provost or President and then.. zap. There are also sad stories of people with majority positive votes at various stages but not a supermajority of positive votes, leading to cascades of negative votes at later stages of the process.

The appeal process appears to be highly structured (= bureaucratic), with lots of steps and lawyers and invocation of an institution's "tenure code" or criteria by both sides.

If the process leading up to the tenure evaluation works as it should, the results of the tenure evaluation itself should not be a big surprise. There can be a discrepancy between what a department/institution thinks of a candidate vs. what is expressed in the external letters, but even this should be evident in advance if the pre-tenure evaluation process works as it should.

Whether evaluation of probationary faculty is at one intermediate time (e.g., 3rd year) or every year, there should (ideally) be a paper trail that documents how an assistant professor is doing in terms of the various job components, with specific suggestions for improvement if there is a problem, and additional assistance/mentoring given where needed.

Having a well-functioning, fair, and informative system is essential to the tenure-track faculty member and to the rest of the institution. When that system breaks down, owing to incompetence, indifference, or malevolence, and the tenure decision is negative, the grounds for an appeal are laid.

Read More

Haves and Have Nottts

A reader wonders how tenure-track and tenured faculty can interact in a harmonious way with non-tenure track faculty and others who may be in a precarious or otherwise difficult employment situation.

I suppose the obvious answer is to be as respectful and sympathetic as possible. My experience as a non-tenure track professor was brief and not entirely pleasant, in part because some of my tenured colleagues treated me as a lesser being whose opinions and overall existence were inconsequential to them. Some were at least polite and willing to converse with me; others could not be bothered; yet others were patronizing and rude.

In any collection of people -- academic or not -- there are going to be jerks and non-jerks. Now that I am of the tenured species, I try not to be one of the jerks who assumes that anyone without tenure, or at least a chance at tenure, is somehow inferior rather than just being at a different career stage, having a different career preference, or dealing with employment or life constraints (or bad luck) beyond their control.

Some of my not-on-the-tenure-track (NOTTT) colleagues have skills that my tenured and tenure-track T/TT colleagues and I very much admire. Also, we like them as people. It is not a problem interacting with them in a positive and constructive way. We are on different career tracks, but there is mutual respect between the T/TT faculty and our NOTTT colleagues.

But what if the jerks are the NOTTTs? How much should we empathize with beleaguered adjuncts and others, however underpaid and under-respected, if they are aggressively bitter and resentful, even towards those with no role in their difficult situations? That's more of a challenge, but there's a difference between expressing anger about an unfair situation and creating a hostile work environment.

It is the responsibility of the department chair or other administrators to create a good working environment for all employees of an academic unit. Obviously favoring one group of people over another in such a way as to make the not-valued group unhappy and hostile (as in the case described by the reader who e-mailed me) shows poor leadership.

If you are convinced that the situation could be improved and that the root of the problems is not just the lousy salaries, lack of benefits, and overall stressful working conditions of the NOTTTs (i.e., issues over which the department head may have little control), perhaps there is a mechanism for expressing concern about the hostile work environment. An assistant professor might be reluctant to criticize the department head's leadership skills, but if the problem is pervasive, perhaps a group of senior faculty can try to work out a constructive solution to the problem, if they are aware (or made aware) of it. Maybe there are some basic things that can be done within the department to improve the work environment.

An example: In one department with which I was associated, the T/TT faculty so hated faculty meetings that they didn't even consider inviting their NOTTT colleagues. Who would want to go to a faculty meeting if they didn't have to? The NOTTTs were lucky. But the NOTTT faculty felt excluded, marginalized, and disrespected because they were not explicitly invited to these meetings. Once the department head became aware of this morale issue, he invited the NOTTTs to the meetings and specifically sought their input on particular issues. Some came to the meetings, some didn't. Some came when there was a topic of interest, and the problem was largely solved.

Otherwise, if the situation is not solvable by any means at your disposal as an individual faculty member, all you can do is be respectful, kind, and understanding to your colleagues, tenured or not; try not to let resentful people bother you; seek advice from wise senior colleagues in your department; realize you are lucky to be on the tenure track; and focus on your own career, which is probably stressful enough as it is.

Read More