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

[Descartes]

Polly,

Sounds like your college has the best social justice program of all.  Imagine that, actually teaching concrete skills and doing real, tangible things to help marginalized people get ahead instead of doing more vague things, like yelling about defunding the police or writing Facebook posts about punching Trump supporters whom one identifies as nazis.

[Ruralguy]

Super Dinky is defunct. However,  I am guessing it had little to do with social justice missions or lack of them, though it might have depended somewhat on the faculty attitudes there, some of which seem rather entitled (not like that's unique to SD).

In any case, I am more concerned about how you would navigate these issues (such as exactly the opinion Polly validly expresses) in tenure case or just in advising new faculty. That is, how would you advise faculty in abiding by the social justice mission (or any other mission) or expressing opinions without running afoul of the mission. My school has a "different" sort of mission as well, so I'd be interested in how other folks deal with this. 

[polly_mer]

Polly,

Sounds like your college has the best social justice program of all.  Imagine that, actually teaching concrete skills and doing real, tangible things to help marginalized people get ahead instead of doing more vague things, like yelling about defunding the police or writing Facebook posts about punching Trump supporters whom one identifies as nazis.

The problem is the funding realities that sunk Super Dinky. 

Alumni who have lower-middle class jobs send $25-$50 per year.  7000 living alumni at $50 each is $350k and seldom do even half the alumni give.  Thus, the endowment is small even when invested wisely and annual giving brings in practically nothing to support the budget.  Therefore, annual tuition and fees are more than most student families will make in a year and even a substantial discount rate leaves a gap that loans will have to cover.  We have to admit a certain percentage of full-pay students who likely will be snooty and not fully on-board with the mission in order to perform the mission.

The wonderful regional community has almost no employers as big as a thousand employees.  That's the reality of being in a small rural place.  Each employer may be able to do one or two internships per year, but that means a lot of overhead in matching 300 aspiring interns to a good enough place that has some alignment with the student goals.

All the faculty members will be working harder for less pay than they could make elsewhere.  That meant being long on humanities faculty willing to make the trade off, but short on the faculty for majors appealing to students.  The idea from the doomed humanities thread that students are unnecessarily discouraged from studying the humanities is a non-starter in that environment. 

The students don't know they are betting on special skills and a professional network to get a better life, but they do know that the only humans they personally know who have humanity degrees and a college-degree-required job are teachers/professors.  All the famous person examples in the world who also have jobs that no one the students knows actually have in real life are not persuasive.

The persuasive part is building relationships between individual students and middle class members of the community so students believe they can be that part of the community upon graduation.  The hard part there is to ensure students have realistic expectations of a college degree in a rural area ($35k + benefits, a more interesting job, and a career path that leads to $60k mid-career) instead of national averages that include STEM degrees.

All of this social justice mission work takes a ton of individual time and likely includes a good bit of effort supporting the development and PR offices to get enough chewing gum, duct tape, and bailing wire for the next go.

The person who refuses to do sufficient service to the mission (just sitting on committees is insufficient) is absolutely getting advanced written notice and may not survive the third-year review.  We can't judge on attitudes, but we can observe actions like not being on campus regularly, never being seen with students outside of class when open office doors with student visitors is the norm, and having zero students on the exit survey sharing a good faculty member memory when the average is about half the majors.

[quercus]

This may be going to far afield, Quercus, but how do you generally navigate the tricky subject of social justice at your school? There must be some conservative faculty who interpret that phrase very differently than woke progressives. I don't think it would be proper just to shove them (the conservatives) aside. Nor would it proper to shove the woken aside if your school tends to see social justice through a more conservative lens (i.e., not through government intervention if at all possible, etc., more involvement of religious institutions).

I'm sorry to have started this hare, because I think I made it sound too political by using the words "social justice." Rest assured that the mission is interpreted broadly enough to encompass a wide range of views about what constitutes the "just society" or the "common good," and there is likewise an understanding of the limits of how some faculty work can align with the mission (e.g., we're not expecting the physics or geology department to make this their research focus).

[Ruralguy]

Got it. It was my intention to see what your school feels about this rather than open up yet another culture war blah-blah session.

[mamselle]

But is the issue creeping in due to some aspect of difference in the background/appearance of the person who was denied tenure?

I don't recall that coming up earlier here.

M.

[larryc]

I think that service and collegiality are two different things. At my school, the former is one of the categories for tenure and promotion, but discussion of the latter is specifically forbidden by our joint labor-management agreement. As it should be--"collegiality" is so often a cover for bullying and abusive behavior.

Service, on the other hand, can be documented and measured. It sounds like your soon-to-be former colleague failed at service, and was also a prick.

And I suspect that you are correct that he was getting bad advice from friends and mentors at R1 institutions, where "No one was ever denied tenure for a lack of service!" is a truism. How one could think that at a SLAC, and continue to think it after repeated warnings, is beyond me.

I remember something someone said on the old boards, that at the end of the day tenure is a vote on whether people want to work with you. If they do, they will find a way to vote yes if at all possible. If no...

[polly_mer]

I remember something someone said on the old boards, that at the end of the day tenure is a vote on whether people want to work with you. If they do, they will find a way to vote yes if at all possible. If no...

I think the "yes" vote is harder than it used to be, especially for places that need student recruitment, external funding, and external prestige to remain afloat.

Even if one's colleagues vote yes based on wanting to work with the candidate, the higher levels may vote no simply because the institution is trying to cut certain programs/departments to redirect resources elsewhere.  The department is far from the only stakeholder in the tenure decision.

[clean]

I think the "yes" vote is harder than it used to be, especially for places that need student recruitment, external funding, and external prestige to remain afloat.

Even if one's colleagues vote yes based on wanting to work with the candidate, the higher levels may vote no simply because the institution is trying to cut certain programs/departments to redirect resources elsewhere.  The department is far from the only stakeholder in the tenure decision.

The "Yes" vote from the department and college are separate and different from the other stakeholders.
When I am evaluating a tenure candidate, I dont care one whit about their salary or the needs/desires/problems/ or any other program or department's desire for resources. 

The vote from the College and or department from the faculty are based on Teaching, research and Service.

The other levels can decide based on their issues.  IF the Dean or Provost decide that we need to cut the budget and can not afford this member, or if market rates in a discipline have colapsed and they decide to go to the market to get a lower priced professor rather than tenure/promote the one they have, then it is up to THEM to voice their vote, which is different from the faculty.

The bottom line is that the Faculty Vote is not dependent on the diverse needs  or desires of the other units in the university

At the extreme, Tenure votes are not complete until they are approved by the Board of Directors/Regents.  Technically, IF the  Regents decide on going another way, then even at that final, 'rubber stamp' stage, they could decide that there just isnt the budget to tenure one or all.   

[polly_mer]

For those playing along at home, clean is correct that the departmental yes doesn't matter nearly as much as one might hope.

The last few years have seen several public instances of faculty tenure decisions where the departments voted yes, the institution declared no, and the onlookers were outraged.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/12/04/controversial-tenure-denial-harvard is an example that sticks in my mind.

[apl68]

At the extreme, Tenure votes are not complete until they are approved by the Board of Directors/Regents.  Technically, IF the  Regents decide on going another way, then even at that final, 'rubber stamp' stage, they could decide that there just isnt the budget to tenure one or all.

You'd think that the higher levels would let departments know things like that ahead of time.

[marshwiggle]

The last few years have seen several public instances of faculty tenure decisions where the departments voted yes, the institution declared no, and the onlookers were outraged.

I imagine votes in the other direction are much more rare; i.e. institutions hired someone that department had rejected.

[mamselle]

For those playing along at home, clean is correct that the departmental yes doesn't matter nearly as much as one might hope.

The last few years have seen several public instances of faculty tenure decisions where the departments voted yes, the institution declared no, and the onlookers were outraged.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/12/04/controversial-tenure-denial-harvard is an example that sticks in my mind.

Harvard's FAS is known for knocking out good candidates their departments have recommended; one suspects, at times, just to remind the departments who's boss. This is another reason why it's important not to read too much into any one tenure denial, or, as in West's case, refusal to open a position to tenure consideration that had not originally been slotted as such.

The whole theology school wanted him tenured but the larger picture was, the hire was never made with tenure in mind, and the powers-that-might-be don't add tenured lines easily in the best of times. There was also a backstory about the reasons for his earlier denial that may have still been of concern.

M. 

[research_prof]

I have a junior colleague who is almost certain to be denied tenure next week. It is going to come as a shock to him, I think. By the numbers, on paper, he looks as good or better than candidates who have received tenure at our SLAC.

There are weaknesses throughout his case but the big fail is service/collegiality. He has never pulled his weight on a whole host of service and teaching commitments that are important to the dept and the institution's mission. He has even outright refused to do some of them. This has led to resentment from the other faculty who are left picking up the slack.

He has ignored everything from hints and nudges to formal written evaluations urging him to improve in this area. I think he has been getting bad advice from his R1 colleagues about focusing solely on research and not getting bogged down with service and student demands. He's also a bit toxic/narcissistic and not inclined to perceive his failings in areas he doesn't care about (community, institutional mission, social justice).

I'm in his department (and his subfield) but also sit on the highest upper-level committee that reviewed his case, and the consensus that he is borderline/untenurable is pervasive at all levels. (We don't do up-or-down votes; we rate candidates on a 10-pt scale in all three areas.) Since he's 99% likely to get denied and 100% clueless about why, I'm prepping now. What kinds of things would be useful to say?

My goals are:

* be compassionate and understanding
* be truthful
* be careful about confidentiality (which probably means only talking about my own personal opinion of his case and nothing else)

For those who have navigated this situation in their departments before, what can I say that would be helpful to him? I honestly think what he needs to do is sit down with all his annual P&T reviews and see the signposts that were there...but I'm not sure this is helpful. I also think he should get a jump on figuring out his next steps and getting a new job...but again, I'm not sure this is helpful to say.

For anyone who has been denied, what would it be helpful to hear?

Ugh, is there ANYTHING helpful to say in this situation? I am dreading everything about this.

Look, I believe you should have done your part and advised your colleague years ago to leave your institution and go to an R1. I feel it is unfair to him as well that you guys hired him, while he seems to have been clear from the beginning (unless I misunderstand the story) that he is interested in conducting research and not do any teaching or service.

Probably not your fault, but definitely your admins' fault. If your institution is teaching focused, then do not hire the strongest candidate from a research point of view. What do you think? The strongest candidate research-wise would not be interested in conducting research, but would be interested in teaching? Hire someone, who is not as strong from a research point of view and they might actually be happy to teach more.

[eigen]

I have a junior colleague who is almost certain to be denied tenure next week. It is going to come as a shock to him, I think. By the numbers, on paper, he looks as good or better than candidates who have received tenure at our SLAC.

There are weaknesses throughout his case but the big fail is service/collegiality. He has never pulled his weight on a whole host of service and teaching commitments that are important to the dept and the institution's mission. He has even outright refused to do some of them. This has led to resentment from the other faculty who are left picking up the slack.

He has ignored everything from hints and nudges to formal written evaluations urging him to improve in this area. I think he has been getting bad advice from his R1 colleagues about focusing solely on research and not getting bogged down with service and student demands. He's also a bit toxic/narcissistic and not inclined to perceive his failings in areas he doesn't care about (community, institutional mission, social justice).

I'm in his department (and his subfield) but also sit on the highest upper-level committee that reviewed his case, and the consensus that he is borderline/untenurable is pervasive at all levels. (We don't do up-or-down votes; we rate candidates on a 10-pt scale in all three areas.) Since he's 99% likely to get denied and 100% clueless about why, I'm prepping now. What kinds of things would be useful to say?

My goals are:

* be compassionate and understanding
* be truthful
* be careful about confidentiality (which probably means only talking about my own personal opinion of his case and nothing else)

For those who have navigated this situation in their departments before, what can I say that would be helpful to him? I honestly think what he needs to do is sit down with all his annual P&T reviews and see the signposts that were there...but I'm not sure this is helpful. I also think he should get a jump on figuring out his next steps and getting a new job...but again, I'm not sure this is helpful to say.

For anyone who has been denied, what would it be helpful to hear?

Ugh, is there ANYTHING helpful to say in this situation? I am dreading everything about this.

Look, I believe you should have done your part and advised your colleague years ago to leave your institution and go to an R1. I feel it is unfair to him as well that you guys hired him, while he seems to have been clear from the beginning (unless I misunderstand the story) that he is interested in conducting research and not do any teaching or service.

Probably not your fault, but definitely your admins' fault. If your institution is teaching focused, then do not hire the strongest candidate from a research point of view. What do you think? The strongest candidate research-wise would not be interested in conducting research, but would be interested in teaching? Hire someone, who is not as strong from a research point of view and they might actually be happy to teach more.

I would say there's a lot of "wrong" in this response. Good SLACs are looking for excellent researchers. Perspectives like this are why candidates with strong track records who would otherwise fit the mission of a SLAC well often are viewed with skepticism, and there's not much foundation for it.

It is, in fact, possible to be a strong researcher *and* fit a teaching-focused mission at a SLAC. In fact, that's the type of hire that many top-tier SLACs are looking for: someone who will win both CAREER awards and teaching awards.