Need to know what to say to colleague when he is denied tenure next week

[Ruralguy]

Yes, I would agree that there is not a simple judgement on whether such a text by the OP is appropriate.
There are professional as well as personal moral concerns (though there can be some debate about proper moral choice here).

I would urge him to be fairly careful in addressing this subject though. Best done in person, sparingly, and at his prompt.  I still think a fairly normal level of friendliness and collegiality is what is called for. Don't leave him out of decisions, etc. (unless some dept. or college rule says he should be).

[mleok]

CAREER award (or not) is an one-time distinction. Serious R1 universities are interested in faculty that can develop a sustainable research agenda and a team that grows year by year. This requires a continuous (and growing) stream of funding from diverse sources (which is damn hard for junior faculty), so getting a CAREER award (and nothing else) will simply not make the cut.

I happen to have interviewed with departments of premier R1 institutions over the last few weeks. The department heads told me that simply bringing a CAREER award without any other funding will not give me tenure and that they would prefer I bring several other grants and not bring a CAREER. So the prestige of a CAREER is one thing, but all money is green and universities want as much indirect cost as possible to keep the business going.

Also, please compare the google scholar of faculty at top R1 institutions and SLACs... After doing so, you will get all your potential questions answered.

With all due respect, you're a first year tenure-track faculty member with no postdoctoral experience, so you're truly too fresh to be making these kind of obnoxious statements, and just come across as clueless when you do. Again, given that you're one year out of the PhD, no premier R1 is going to give you tenure on the basis of a CAREER award when every one of their assistant professors who have any hope of receiving tenure will also have one (in addition to other early career awards from other funding agencies).

Even if you were on the tenure-track from the start at the premier R1, there have been numerous instances where such institutions have denied tenure to people with the CAREER award, in large part because in many fields, a CAREER award is the usual funding mechanism for junior faculty members and is therefore no big deal. In other fields, CAREER awards are much less common, for example in applied math, about 3-4 faculty members receive one each year, because the usual funding mechanism for a junior faculty member is a three-year individual PI grant with less money (because we don't need to start a lab). Simply put, there is a wide variability across fields.

In any case, a NSF CAREER award does not simply focus on research, it also includes a teaching component, and it's one of the few early career awards with that dual focus, so it's not surprising that elite SLACs will view that favorably.

[mleok]

I have no interest in participating in dick measuring contests. All I am saying is the hiring committee or the department head (or even the dean) should have been clear to the faculty they hire from the very beginning and say: "We value teaching and service equally (or even more) than research. So, even if you bring millions of dollars, but you show no interest in teaching and service, you will not get tenure". Something like could have saved the P&T committee (and yourself!), the burden of having to explain to this guy why he is not getting tenure, and it could also have saved to this guy, 5-6 years of his life. Of course, it would have saved department resources, because now that you guys will not give tenure to this guy, you will need to run another search to hire someone else.

If one is talking about a position at a SLAC, a faculty candidate has to be absolutely clueless to not realize that they value teaching and service. I suspect that this has been amply and repeatedly communicated to the person in question, but some people are simply clueless, and think that their experience at a R1 in graduate school makes them an expert about any other institution, and have thereby chsoen to ignore all such communication. In reading your posts, you come across as a person like that.

[Ruralguy]

True on all points, though some tenure committees have trouble with clear, accurate, and precise communication.
Faculty Handbooks are even worse and say little about what you really need to do for tenure. However, mine does say you have to do service. It also says simply completing tasks is not justification for tenure. You must make a strong positive case for everything. So, as a number of us have stated, especially for SLACS but not exclusive to them, you need to pay attention to service. I wouldn't say million dollar grants don't matter. I would just say that they aren't sufficient for tenure at many such schools (and not required usually at all but the most elite).

[clean]

Our policy states "To be considered for tenure, one must have..."  It sets the Minimum/necessary, not sufficient conditions for granting tenure. 

3 publications, for instance,  may be necessary to be considered, but they may not be sufficient to be granted tenure.  What YOU think is a sufficient publication, may not be shared in the opinion of the committee.  "Financial Planning on the Moon" may be published, but not valued by the committee.  IF you come in with only the minimum number, there can be problems.  (You may need 3 for the committee to get your file, but if these are not top tier journals, then more will be required to get a favorable letter out the committee room door).

[Ruralguy]

Many marginal cases probably then  boil down to what the definition of "three" or whatever your magic number is. We don't have a number, we just say "record of scholarship"....you would be surprised at the number of people who claimed that just because they never published doesn't mean they aren't good scholars (and some of them hadn't gone to meetings either). That no longer flies for tenure at my place...but there are still some marginal cases, just with ever so slightly higher cutoffs,

[Faith786]

Whatever might have been his human flaws, failings, mistakes, misunderstandings, or bad luck, may he be OK and find a better path ahead.

Amen, I felt the same level of concern and glad to see others felt the same level of compassion and empathy.

[polly_mer]

It was nice when I thought of HR as just the one-off paperwork people and mostly irrelevant.

It was nice when I was able to dismiss HR as being overly zealous about low probability events.

It was nice to think that my involvement in any lawsuits related to the institutional processes would be merely limited to testifying about one specific ill-advised text that I wrote.

Enjoy that level of nice while you can afford to agree to disagree.

[Bbmaj7b5]

CAREER award (or not) is an one-time distinction. Serious R1 universities are interested in faculty that can develop a sustainable research agenda and a team that grows year by year. This requires a continuous (and growing) stream of funding from diverse sources (which is damn hard for junior faculty), so getting a CAREER award (and nothing else) will simply not make the cut.

I happen to have interviewed with departments of premier R1 institutions over the last few weeks. The department heads told me that simply bringing a CAREER award without any other funding will not give me tenure and that they would prefer I bring several other grants and not bring a CAREER. So the prestige of a CAREER is one thing, but all money is green and universities want as much indirect cost as possible to keep the business going.

Also, please compare the google scholar of faculty at top R1 institutions and SLACs... After doing so, you will get all your potential questions answered.

With all due respect, you're a first year tenure-track faculty member with no postdoctoral experience, so you're truly too fresh to be making these kind of obnoxious statements, and just come across as clueless when you do. Again, given that you're one year out of the PhD, no premier R1 is going to give you tenure on the basis of a CAREER award when every one of their assistant professors who have any hope of receiving tenure will also have one (in addition to other early career awards from other funding agencies).

Even if you were on the tenure-track from the start at the premier R1, there have been numerous instances where such institutions have denied tenure to people with the CAREER award, in large part because in many fields, a CAREER award is the usual funding mechanism for junior faculty members and is therefore no big deal. In other fields, CAREER awards are much less common, for example in applied math, about 3-4 faculty members receive one each year, because the usual funding mechanism for a junior faculty member is a three-year individual PI grant with less money (because we don't need to start a lab). Simply put, there is a wide variability across fields.

In any case, a NSF CAREER award does not simply focus on research, it also includes a teaching component, and it's one of the few early career awards with that dual focus, so it's not surprising that elite SLACs will view that favorably.

Yes, and CAREER proposals in my area undergo two panel reviews - one for each component.

[Ruralguy]

You really need to be able to differentiate between personal and institutional concerns. If you wish to be on a P&T committee when you know friends who probably won't make it will come across your desk, then you have to come to terms with how you will handle it. Its not about compassion vs. no compassion. Its about showing that compassion privately, or at least not using school resources. Of course, since you are supposed to be fairly nice to people anyway, half the battle is really just acting kind of normally.  But a committee needn't be unhelpful or cruel. They can talk the person who was denied. They can talk about method of appeal. I just think that normally that would be done through the chair/Dean or at least with their knowledge.

I know everyone wants to be their own unherded cat, but sometimes you just have to think of the bigger picture as well as helping a friend or just being general compassionate.

Just be careful and sensible. I'm not asking that P&T people be jerks.

[clean]

You really need to be able to differentiate between personal and institutional concerns

My first term on a P&T committee was extremely stressful.  I even considered resigning.  However, after a lot of thought, the way I came to terms with it was to take the person out of the equation. Instead, I referred to the 'binder'.  Does this binder show evidence of teaching, research and service, sufficient to warrant tenure &/or promotion?

Once I took out the person behind the binder and focused only on the material IN the binder, I was able to render judgements. 

I will say that before my term ended, I chaired the committee and did all I could to make it make more sense!  There was some 'tradition' that everyone going up for promotion to Full was denied the first year.  Why?  What was the point in that?

Of course after I got off the committee and went up for Full myself, the committee had changed enough that those that had been denied in the olden days on their first attempt saw nothing wrong with resuming that tradition!  (Bastards!!)  {And I resent them for it this day!!}

[marshwiggle]

There was some 'tradition' that everyone going up for promotion to Full was denied the first year.  Why?  What was the point in that?

It's the academic version of hazing.

[polly_mer]

However, after a lot of thought, the way I came to terms with it was to take the person out of the equation. Instead, I referred to the 'binder'.  Does this binder show evidence of teaching, research and service, sufficient to warrant tenure &/or promotion?

Once I took out the person behind the binder and focused only on the material IN the binder, I was able to render judgements. 

It's like grading, isn't it?

The question at the college level is whether the case presented meets the criteria.

[Kron3007]

It was nice when I thought of HR as just the one-off paperwork people and mostly irrelevant.

It was nice when I was able to dismiss HR as being overly zealous about low probability events.

It was nice to think that my involvement in any lawsuits related to the institutional processes would be merely limited to testifying about one specific ill-advised text that I wrote.

Enjoy that level of nice while you can afford to agree to disagree.

I will. 

I don't know of any law suits where I am, so perhaps I am blessed to be in a functional university where these concerns can be dismissed.  Or, perhaps Canada (where I am and have built my world view) really is less litigious than the US and Americans really do need to be cautious about this type of thing. 

Either way, from my experience there is nearly zero risk in showing a little compassion to a colleague going through a tough time as the OP did.  However, I admit that my experience is limited and may not be good advice for all situations.

[quercus]

OP here with an update.

The candidate appealed the decision and his appeal was denied. He has already found a new job that he will start in September at an academia-adjacent research agency, and will not take his "grace" year. He is angry, hurt, and more than a little bitter, but he is landing on his feet in a job that I think will suit him much better.

Subsequent conversations have convinced me we dodged a bullet in denying him, as he freely admits he was already formulating plans for trying to evade teaching and service to an even greater degree as an assoc prof. Still some cluelessness there about our mission, especially as he is willing to say these things out loud and does not seem to perceive how they are received.

Re: the text that some of you thought was ill-advised, I don't regret sending it, although the reaction here gave me a couple of good solid weeks of anxiety attacks. He has expressed gratitude for people reaching out to him in the aftermath of the decision, when he was very shocked and the total silence from his colleagues was hard to take. I believe I could have justified it in court as not being at odds with my other, on-the-record writings about the case...but I also see risks that I didn't see at the time (thanks, Polly and Ruralguy) and I would probably not initiate a conversation by text in a future situation.

So, what have I learned about communicating with the disappointed candidate, both from my experience posting here and my experience talking with him after the denial?

First, that one should avoid being drawn into conversations with the candidate about the "why" of the denial, and must neither confirm nor deny any suppositions about what went on in the confidential process. Especially avoid conversations with the candidate that could be recorded or leave a paper trail, and never add details or provide information that the candidate doesn't already have, or reveal your own opinion (as that might throw your colleagues under the bus).

Second, be friendly, humane, compassionate, and act normally at all times with the candidate; be careful not to shun the person by avoiding conversations and interactions.

Third, the first two pieces of advice are basically incompatible with each other. It is VERY DIFFICULT to interact with someone who is experiencing pain, frustration, bitterness; someone who is asking himself without cease, "how did this happen? why am I in this situation?" ...and respond compassionately without seeming to support, oppose, confirm, or deny aspects of the decision. It is quite a tightrope to walk.

Anyway, thank you, forum folks, and good luck/bon courage to anyone who is in this situation in the future. May you always be able to talk to your colleagues without having to consult your HR manual, three lawyers, and a psychologist before uttering a sentence.