[207] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Northeastern to review tenure?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard J. Barbalace)
Thu Apr 26 15:35:02 2001
Message-Id: <200104261934.PAA15301@starbase.mit.edu>
To: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:34:29 -0400
From: "Richard J. Barbalace" <rjbarbal@MIT.EDU>
A lot of what mit-talk focusses on is what to do or not do to
students; sometimes I think it's also good to consider what to do
or not do to faculty.
+ Richard
Northeastern may alter tenure status
By David Abel, Globe Staff, 4/26/2001
Northeastern University may soon become one of the nation's first
major private universities to have the power to fire tenured
professors who do not perform up to standards.
In a controversial proposal submitted this week to the university's
faculty senate, a committee of professors and senior administrators
recommended an overhaul of Northeastern's tenure system that would
require departments to review their professors' teaching, research,
and service to the university, with the provision that they can be
fired if they fail the evaluation.
''People are talking about this being the death of tenure,'' said
Charles Ellis, a biology professor who leads the faculty senate. ''It
may well be. But this is still an early stage in the process.''
If approved, the proposal would be a jolt not only to Northeastern but
also to the vast majority of the region's colleges, where the
sacrosanct system of tenure, designed to protect academic freedom, has
long made it almost impossible to sack tenured professors unless they
fail to do their work, act immorally, or commit a crime.
The Northeastern proposal is part of a decade-old movement in academia
to hold professors more accountable. Some critics also see it as a
symptom of a more corporate approach to running a university: they
charge that as the bottom line becomes ever more important, school
officials have been increasingly eager to clear dead wood from campus.
In some states, such as Texas and Minnesota, legislators have tried
but failed to eliminate tenure at public universities. And in the wake
of those efforts, a system of post-tenure review has emerged at
Northeastern and other campuses.
''This is like Plan B,'' said Iris Molotsky, a spokeswoman for the
American Association of University Professors, which opposes any
change in tenure. ''If they can't get rid of tenure outright, they are
trying to ensure professors still perform up to par after getting
tenure.''
Academic tenure, an idea with roots in the Middle Ages, has served in
modern times as a guarantee of intellectual freedom, ensuring that
distinguished professors cannot be fired simply for holding unpopular
ideas. But to its critics, the traditional tenure system amounts to a
lifetime sinecure that leads to unproductive professors who stay long
past their prime.
Today, many public universities, including those in Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and Maine, as well as some small private colleges, now
require tenured professors to submit to periodic performance
reviews. Unlike the proposal at Northeastern, the systems do not all
carry the possibility of dismissal. At the University of
Massachusetts, which initiated its post-tenure review system after
much protest in 1999, department heads review the performance of
tenured professors every seven years; poor evaluations can affect
professors' salaries and block them from promotions.
At Northeastern, professors already receive annual evaluations that
influence their pay and promotions. Many complain the new proposal not
only represents a threat to their academic freedom, but would also be
redundant.
''The university doesn't seem to realize how awful this will be for
them,'' said Ed Wertheim, an associate professor of business
administration who has been tenured at Northeastern for 21
years. ''They'll just be shooting themselves in the foot if they
follow through on this.''
According to the language of the proposal, the process to remove a
tenured professor would begin after his or her performance was deemed
''unsatisfactory'' in teaching, research, or service in two annual
reviews in a row.
Many of the professors who have read the fine print complain that such
a standard would make it far too easy for administrators to fire
faculty of whom they disapprove. They say any faculty member could be
judged deficient in one of the three areas in a given year.
''There are a lot of faculty who would fail this test - and these
people are not dead wood,'' said Sharon Bruns, a professor of business
administration who has been tenured at Northeastern for 15
years. ''One year you may not have any service because you have a lot
of teaching, and another year you may not be doing a lot of teaching
because you're focusing on research.''
Advocates of the potential reform, which may not be voted on for
several months and would have to be approved by Northeastern's
president and board of trustees, say the new rules are aimed at
keeping professors effective, not at getting rid of them.
After two poor evaluations, a faculty advisory board would work with a
professor to improve his or her performance. The professor would have
two years to shape up. Only then could the university order dismissal,
which the professor could then appeal.
''Nobody should score below a certain level on any review,'' said
Stuart Peterfreund, an English professor and secretary of the faculty
senate's agenda committee. ''I support the principle for post-tenure
review because I'm concerned that tenure is a privilege, and if it is
abused by one, it is subject to question for all. The only way to keep
tenure strong is for it to mean something.''
At the faculty senate meeting on Monday, where university officials
refused to allow outside reporters to observe, the debate was muted
and mostly bureaucratic.
David Abel can be reached at dabel@globe.com.
This story ran on page A01 of the Boston Globe on 4/26/2001.
Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
