P&T Guidelines -- faculty are to be positive and courteous -- ?

[clean]

As ruralguy and onthefringe noted, there should be mechanisms in place to deal with that outside the tenure process. Bad behaviour should be addressed long before tenure review.

I wholeheartedly agree!  Unfortunately, at least at my college over the last decade, the admincritters in charge have no spines.  They dont want to take the actions that are necessary in a timely manner!  They seem to fear that the non-renewed person will sue or file a grievance.  The environment as changed so that deans are now reluctant to do the nastier, necessary parts of their job and hope that they can hide behind the faculty doing the job for them at tenure.  It is unfortunate. 

As I said first, until you know the history/background, you may not understand the issues. 

[onthefringe]

As ruralguy and onthefringe noted, there should be mechanisms in place to deal with that outside the tenure process. Bad behaviour should be addressed long before tenure review.

I wholeheartedly agree!  Unfortunately, at least at my college over the last decade, the admincritters in charge have no spines.  They dont want to take the actions that are necessary in a timely manner!  They seem to fear that the non-renewed person will sue or file a grievance.  The environment as changed so that deans are now reluctant to do the nastier, necessary parts of their job and hope that they can hide behind the faculty doing the job for them at tenure.  It is unfortunate. 

As I said first, until you know the history/background, you may not understand the issues.

Frankly, my place is similar in that very few tenured folks have been dismissed in the past decade, and it has tended to take an inordinately long time (think 1.5-2 years). But we are dealing with it by rewriting the policies that deal with dismissing tenured and tenure track faculty, not by rewriting the standards for promotion and tenure.

[Ruralguy]

There's a lot of  grievance procedure space between "nothing" and "dismissal."

[Cheerful]

All faculty are expected to be positive, contributing citizens of the department and the university. All should interact with colleagues, students, staff, and the public in a professional and courteous manner.

Groupthink is a real thing.

In faculty meetings, if someone disagrees with things the chair suggests/declares or often disagrees with the majority, are they being "positive" and "courteous?"  That person may be helping the department avoid disaster.

[Ruralguy]

I think most people know you can disagree courteously. They just choose not to do so. In any case, maybe just saying "professional" is better, but then again that can cause a kerfuffle over someone who doesn't come to work wearing a tie.

[AJ_Katz]

As ruralguy and onthefringe noted, there should be mechanisms in place to deal with that outside the tenure process. Bad behaviour should be addressed long before tenure review.

I wholeheartedly agree!  Unfortunately, at least at my college over the last decade, the admincritters in charge have no spines.  They dont want to take the actions that are necessary in a timely manner!  They seem to fear that the non-renewed person will sue or file a grievance.  The environment as changed so that deans are now reluctant to do the nastier, necessary parts of their job and hope that they can hide behind the faculty doing the job for them at tenure.  It is unfortunate. 

As I said first, until you know the history/background, you may not understand the issues.

The background, as far as I am aware, is that we've had recent issues with unprofessional faculty treatment of graduate students.  Grievances were filed and actions taken, in one instance.  In another instance, no grievances were filed but students spoke to the head about the situation and were transferred to other advisors.

All faculty are expected to be positive, contributing citizens of the department and the university. All should interact with colleagues, students, staff, and the public in a professional and courteous manner.

Groupthink is a real thing.

In faculty meetings, if someone disagrees with things the chair suggests/declares or often disagrees with the majority, are they being "positive" and "courteous?"  That person may be helping the department avoid disaster.

Exactly.  It is my fear that this document will stifle open discussion.  There are already indications that our head has micromanager tendencies and has a hard time letting ideas other than their own go forward in the department.  I've also had comments made to me that are typical of someone with a gender bias (giving me unsolicited advice in email about how to not sound curt).  Taken together with the fact that this P&T document language was flagged by me several months ago as something that should go into a code of conduct, but it's still in the P&T draft, suggest that the head has some hardcore reason for wanting this language in there that does not make sense to me.

[fizzycist]

I don't really follow the logic in this thread. If you're an asshole, why should your employer offer you a prominent position with extensive protections against future dismissal (i.e. tenure)?

I mean I guess you can fight over the wording and try to get the word "positive" replaced with "professional" or whatever, but if you are consistently a jerk to your colleagues and students it seems absolutely appropriate for the institution to have multiple ways of getting rid of you, including in the tenure process.

"You" meant to be generic, not directed at OP or anyone specifically.

[Ruralguy]

The example given by the OP is clearly something that doesn't need a separate "collegiality" category for tenure. If you are mistreating grad students, then that can easily be either a teaching, research or service issue. Also, if someone has been disciplined prior to tenure for, say, a Title IX violation, I think that's fair game, to the extent that people are allowed to know any of the details.

But frankly if someone teaches well, publishes and serves on committees then I am not sure it is appropriate to not promote, etc. based on "being a jerk." I *do* think you can deny such a person leadership roles (an important Chair position) or goodies such as awards or endowed Chairs unless there are just no other candidates. To boil that down, for some jerk, if the question is "Should he have a job" then the answer is "yes" if he is doing his job well. if the question is "Should we say we love him" then the answer is "no" unless the person really isn't a jerk.

[AJ_Katz]

I don't really follow the logic in this thread. If you're an asshole, why should your employer offer you a prominent position with extensive protections against future dismissal (i.e. tenure)?

They wouldn't.  The problem is about deciding who is considered an asshole.  If someone staunchly disagrees with the department head, does that make them an asshole?

The problem I see is --- how would a person document that they are being "positive", "collegial", or "courteous" in their annual review or P&T dossier?  There is no way for a person to demonstrate that they are perceived by others in that way.  People of different races, genders, or cultures are more likely to be ascribed in a negative light, so this type of language, IMO, provides basis for legal discrimination. 

[clean]

I don't really follow the logic in this thread. If you're an asshole, why should your employer offer you a prominent position with extensive protections against future dismissal (i.e. tenure)?

I agree in theory.  However, when one sees "asshole" another sees "hero". 

As I indicated above, IF the administration was doing its job to weed these thorns out while they can (by not renewing their contracts before tenure), then these issues would not come up at tenure.  However, lately it seems that there is a marked reluctance to issue a terminal contract and instead push the issue back on the faculty's plate.

Unfortunately, as the OP is noting, some faculty are objecting to attempts to make "asshole" a disqualifying factor or even a topic that can be discussed in tenure proceedings!

IF admin was doing its job, this discussion would not be necessary. 


The OP notes that the chair is trying to push these issues into the T&P process.  I would suggest that IF there is a meeting on the topic that the question be asked!  "Why is this necessary? IF the candidate is a jerk/asshole/thorn/incompetent whatever, WHY are they UP for Tenure?  Why were they not given a terminal contract long long ago?  Why is the faculty being put in the position of doing what the administration doesnt have the balls/guts/nerve/whatever to do what they are supposed to do earlier on?


On preview, i do agree that it is hard/impossible to prove 'positivity'.  I would suggest that the question be directly asked the dept. chair.  What would one need to add to their dossier to show the applicant is "positive and courteous"

[fizzycist]

I hear ppl saying [there is no truly objective way of determining if someone is an asshole]. I agree, but there is no truly objective way of determining whether someone is doing great research. Probably the best we can do is have a lot of people with diverse perspectives look at the tenure case and do their best, erring on the side of being generous, and still acknowledge mistakes can be made.

But I don't think it is more important to avoid mistakes on research productivity versus whether someone is unpleasant and makes the institution's environment worse for everyone.

[Ruralguy]

Basically, you shouldn't have a separate category for which all most people will have is something saying "I have done my job without significant complaint from others, and much praise..." . That all can come up in the relevant sections.

Also, your dept/college can put itself in legal jeopardy if they are not following "best practices" (i.e., AAUP or professional society guidelines, etc.).

[arcturus]

I will also add that being considered *not* positive and courteous is often gendered, in and of itself.  For example, the exact same stern tone and phrasing can be interpreted differently if the speaker is a man or a woman. So, even if there is a record (from student evaluations, for example), it is not clear that it has any meaning.

I will also say that any sort of collegiality criteria can also be biased. Let's say that the "collegial" faculty all gather together friday afternoons to have a friendly open discussion of what is happening in the department and what they should be doing to improve the department. Do faculty that have other responsibilities (childcare, parent-care, etc) and cannot spend work time chit-chatting, or have conflicting (non-work) appointments scheduled at that time, appear to be non-collegial by not attending these informal gatherings?  To whom must one be collegial? Just to the department chair? To the bullying faculty member who thinks it all should be done his/her way? Can you be rude to some but not to others and still meet the criterion? In general, these types of criteria tend to marginalize already marginalized faculty.

[AJ_Katz]

Also, your dept/college can put itself in legal jeopardy if they are not following "best practices" (i.e., AAUP or professional society guidelines, etc.).

Can you elaborate on how this would work? 

[Golazo]

One of the big problems with collegiality is how extraordinarily subjective it is. While there is some subjectivity in evaluation of teaching and service (less in scholarship, though what "counts" could be considered subjective) collegiality can defined however it is convenient to do so. If someone is a terrible team player, I would think this would be visible in service or teaching. If some people in the department just don't "like" the person for whatever reason, this can easily become "A is not collegial." + for getting rid of it. The AAUP guidance against it is a good starting point--this isn't considered good practice and could lead to trouble in recruitment and retention, bad outside press, etc.