What are some reasons a TT as prof may be denied tenure in your experience?

[moebius_strip]

Is it only due to the lack of publications/research/funding and poor evaluations?

Do you have any stories to share?

Asking mainly out of curiosity :)

Thanks!

[ciao_yall]

This was in my doctoral program, not on the tenure track but there are lessons here.

I had an experience where it turned out my work was in conflict with that of the program director. He was serving on a statewide committee to try to enact a certain issue while my research was showing that issue was baloney.

Would have been easier on everyone had he just explained to me the statewide committee he was on and the conflict my work was creating... but hey, where would the fun have been in that?

Didn't end well for me in the short run, in that I left the program, but was fine in the long run, in that I finished in another one.

[stemer]

Is it only due to the lack of publications/research/funding and poor evaluations?

Do you have any stories to share?

Asking mainly out of curiosity :)

Thanks!

It can be any or all of the above. What is valued more depends on the institution. At an R1, for example, if you don't do research/publish/bring grants, even if you walk on water in the classroom, it is hard to make a case for tenure. Alternatively, at a SLAC, no matter what scholarship you are producing, if you are terrible in the classroom, it is hard to make a case for tenure. In either type of institution, lacking in both should be a sign you need to be working on your CV and applying elsewhere.

[Sun_Worshiper]

At my place (state flagship, so-so R1), between 80-90% of tenure cases are successful. The people that are denied seem not to have published well, although there could also be other problems.

I'm going up soon and hoping to be part of the ~90%.

[Vkw10]

Inconsistent performance, failure to address issues noted in annual reviews, complete lack of service, no grants as PI in some disciplines, and egregious behavior can lead to a denial. Some examples from thirty years reviewing files at R1 and R2 universities: 

Candidate A had a pattern of decent teaching year followed by decent research year, but a decent year in one area was always paired with a poor year in the other. The inconsistency led to marginal performance in both and a negative vote from department.

Candidate B had five years of annual reviews noting the same teaching issues, with suggestions on how to improve, but no evidence of any effort to improve. Marginal teaching with no effort to improve resulted in negative vote from department.

Candidate C had zero service in a five year period. The service section of narrative was one sentence, stating that C had refused all service to concentrate on research. While service won't get you tenure, a complete lack of service may be enough for a tenure denial.

Candidate D had split vote from department and university, but both votes were positive. The provost did not recommend tenure. Candidate D complained loudly and publicly that the negative recommendation was due to numerous sexual harassment grievances filed against D during the last semester.

Candidate E was in a department that explicitly required external grants. Great teaching, lots of co-authored publications, but no documentation of external grant proposals as PI or co-PI. Split votes from department and university, one majority positive and one majority negative. Provost went negative. E did not receive tenure, but was offered and accepted a multi-year renewable position during his terminal year of TT.

[research_prof]

It can honestly be any reason you can think of. It is very hard (if not impossible) to hold anyone accountable for the decisions they make at universities nowadays. So people can do a lot.. and get away with it. At public universities, it is almost impossible to even force people to do the job they got hired for (and get paid for..) in the first place. And impossible to fire too.. Unless they are tenure-track...

[Ruralguy]

At my SLAC, in my 21 years here, there were 3 people denied tenure, the last one being a few years ago already. Of those three, two were mainly lack of scholarship, and one was mainly lack of student engagement (poor evals with OK, but not enough to compensate, in other areas). I can't say exactly how many have gone up for tenure in that time, but probably an average of 4 per year, so that's 80-ish (I think maybe the real number is a little lower, though about 10 have left for various reasons, including death and early retirement)!  So, maybe we push against 5% denial?
Generally though, we've gotten a little stricter with *hires*, so the results aren't surprising. Some say we've gotten a little too lenient with tenure cases, especially regarding scholarship. My personal feeling is that we've gotten too light on service. I'm not sure we should deny on service, except for maybe its not there at all. However, for full and even more for named chairs at a SLAC, service should be exemplary, to my mind. If people don't trust you enough to make you chair, or even elect you to any committee, or you've been avoiding it, probably "full" should be delayed.

if you are looking for a formula that you can even apply within an institutional type, let alone across institutional types, keep dreaming!

The only advice that applies to all tenure cases: look to *clear* the bars, not *hitting* the bars.  Play to win, not "not to lose", etc. Oh, I forget "bet defense is a strong offense."

[polly_mer]

I've seen people denied tenure at a teaching college for failing to do enough service that was valuable to the college.  Doing national service for the field and publishing research was seen as detracting from doing the necessary job of serving on the college committees and advising any student groups.

As Vkw10 wrote, I've certainly seen people denied tenure for failing to improve in specific ways that were in the written documents for multiple years.  One guy in particular was told to follow the legal and other requirements related to fund raising and grants. He did not and opened the college to multiple lawsuits and some fines. 

There's currently an uproar at the University of Mississippi that may be primarily a problem with someone who refused to follow the grant application process and therefore received a terminal year without even going up for tenure

"The university's decision to decline Dr. Garrett Felber's request to accept a grant for his Mississippi Freedom Winter Project was made after several considerations and in consultation with the relevant campus offices. Dr. Felber did not follow the appropriate process for seeking external funding, a process for which he has been briefed individually by representatives of several administrative offices across campus. Dr. Felber submitted his proposal to a private charitable foundation without the knowledge of his department chair or other officials," Zook wrote in the prepared statement.

Reference: https://www.mississippifreepress.org/7518/um-fires-history-professor-who-criticizes-powerful-racist-donors-and-carceral-state/

Failing to follow the rules, especially as they apply to money and legalities, is one way that professors who refuse to act like employees shoot themselves in the foot.

[Hegemony]

Our last two tenure failures were people who had published a marginal amount and who had a long string of student complaints and teaching difficulties. For whatever reason, those two things went together. We haven't had anyone who's published a lot but is a crummy teacher, or who's a great teacher but has hardly published. People here seem to be energetic across the board, or weak across the board.

[Ruralguy]

I think we mostly see universally strong people, but as I say, we've made some good hires. Others aren't as sanguine, especially concerning some hires made about 5 years ago. For some reason, the hires of that year were a bit weak.  Some strong scholars left after just a bit less or a bit more than their time to tenure.

[Kron3007]

From what I have seen, I think it is mostly related to interpersonal issues rather than real deficiencies.  Where I am now, tenure is pretty much foretold, but where I did my PhD, several people did not get tenure.  When I compare those people to each other and others who did get tenure, it does not seem to relate to any of the items that have been discussed (ie some people were denied tenure for research performance even though they seemed more productive than others who made it). 

So, perhaps this is not universal, but from my limited experience it seems that tenure is  most often denied when people don't like you but other reasons are given to justify the choice.    Outside of gross incompetence, the only way I could see someone being denied where I am is if they were aweful to work with and had a lot of enemies.

[larryc]

Mostly, people do get tenure. At my career in teaching institutions with light publication requirements I have seen just a few tenure denials:

• The older guy no one liked that both never published anything and had poor teaching evals. Also a problematic way of talking about sex in his sociology classes.
• The person who claimed a course teaching packet as his "peer-reviewed publication." The department actually supported this, the candidate got shot down at the college level. It did not help when it was discovered that the "co-author" on the teaching packet had in fact created the whole thing and put their junior colleague's name on it as a favor.
• Someone who published absolutely nothing.

On the other hand, I have seem more cases where tenure was granted to folks who clearly had not met the standards. When it comes right down to it, most folks are unwilling to deny tenure to a colleague.

[mamselle]

One place where I did my grad work, to be denied tenure, you just had to be female.

Thankfully, the president who mandated that policy (very publicly) then is long gone.

But it took away someone I really wanted to work with, who understood what I was trying to do.

Sic transit gloria...

M.

[pgher]

Ultimately tenure denial means you do not meet the requirements of the position, as understood by the tenured faculty and administrators. In bad times and places, the requirements include "be a white man or be quiet." In healthy places like I've worked in, the requirements are completely obvious. People fail not because they don't know the expectations, but because they can't or won't do what is necessary to meet them. They need funding but don't submit grant proposals. They need to graduate students but don't hire, or hire poorly. They need to publish but don't submit manuscripts.

[dr_codex]

As others have written, highly variable. But the general categories that I've seen:

* Never earned the terminal degree. (That may seem obvious, but it can catch out the R1 looking for a star, too. Seen this at all levels, and the most clear-cut.)
* Let a professional credential lapse. (Again, might seem obvious, but if not having something means that you cannot teach one or more courses, you may be toast. Seen this in professional programs.)
* Became a walking lawsuit. Not only applying to T/t faculty, but in general if you cost more to defend than to dismiss, your position is in jeopardy. Seen this at all levels, sometimes as tenure denial but sometimes later.
* Not being a superstar. This one's confined to the Ivies and their ilk.
* Getting caught out by changing expectations. (This is the hardest one. Yes, people should get feedback along the way to prevent some of the cases described above. But when the goalposts move suddenly, it can catch many folks out.)

OP, I doubt any of us will get more specific in a public forum.