A Question of Policy: Hiring after a Tenure Decision
Chapter President David Knowlton has worked through this issue in behalf of the Department of Integrated Studies, whose choice of Scott Carrier for a one-year lectureship was denied by Vice President Ian Wilson and then again by new Vice President Jeffrey Olson on the grounds that after a member of the faculty is denied tenure he or she cannot be hired into a lectureship.
Note that this is a completely different department, with very different needs from the department (Communications) that denied tenure.
The question is broader than a specific hire by a specific department. For a Vice President to simply veto a hire is a serious matter. What, then, should the relationship be between departments and the administration in the case of hiring? What are the principles of shared governance involved?
The issue is complex since departments and disciplines are not the same. Many, if not most departments, at UVU are multidisciplinary. As a result, a faculty memberʼs discipline may stretch across two or more departments. This is recognized in UVUʼs policy 637 on tenure. In 4.1.4 it notes that though “a faculty memberʼs tenure award is tied to one specific academic department [, w]hen a faculty member transfers to another department during the probationary period or after tenure, the approved procedures of the new department determine the transfer candidateʼs tenure status.”
Note that this is a completely different department, with very different needs from the department (Communications) that denied tenure.
The question is broader than a specific hire by a specific department. For a Vice President to simply veto a hire is a serious matter. What, then, should the relationship be between departments and the administration in the case of hiring? What are the principles of shared governance involved?
AAUP Evaluation
of AVP Action
June
11, 2014
On
AVP Non-Support of a Departmentʼs Chosen Candidate for Hire
The
Question
A
question of the relative balance between faculty rights and Academic Vice
Presidency competencies in the question of a department proposing for hire as a
lecturer someone who was denied tenure in a different department has come
before Utah Valley Universityʼs AAUP chapter. In this specific case UVUʼs AVP
expressed non- Support for the candidate.
Basic
Principle
To
begin a consideration of this issue we must note the university depends on a
basic principle: professors are the best persons within the university to
determine the nature and content of their disciplines any time such appears as
an issue in any university process. While this principle should be balanced
with structural and administrative concerns, this principle must remain supreme
unless there is an extremely important reason to limit it. Even then the limits
must recognize, support, reassert, and value this principle.
Not
only is this principle foundational to the university, it is necessary for
academic freedom.
The
Principle in UVU Policy
Utah
Valley Universityʼs policies recognize the importance of this key principle. It
is instructive to see how the policies observe this when it comes to the hiring
of faculty.
UVU
Policy 302 establishes in 4.1.3 that the University President “shall make
appointments and approve positions and rates of pay at the institution” and
that new positions are “reported to the Board of Trustees as information
items”.
A
hasty read of this policy might give the illusion that appointments to the
University are part of the power of the President alone. Such a read would
suggest that the University does not support the principle that professors are
in the best position to determine the content of their disciplines when it
comes to hiring.
However,
the policy continues to limit and define the Presidentʼs responsibility to make
appointments in ways that assert the power of the basic principle of Academic
Freedom in hiring.
For
example, Policy 302 establishes that Human Resources is “the central recruiting
office for the University and shall review and monitor all materials and
procedures used during the recruiting, advertising, and hiring process to
ensure compliance with the applications, recruiting records, and specific
procedures related to employment maintained by that office.”
This
is a limit on the power of the president to hire freely. It requires that
hiring be in compliance with University policies and procedures.
Another
limit on the Presidentʼs power is found in UVU Policy 632. Its preamble (1.1)
holds: “The selection and promotion of a faculty member is of paramount
importance to Utah Valley University (UVU).” It continues to say that the
University “seeks to appoint excellent faculty members.”
Later
in the text the policy defines how “excellent” faculty members are to be
defined and found. Department rank policies play this role (5.10.1.1). “Each
department RTP committee shall establish and periodically update department
rank policy that include [sic] the following: 1) Criteria for evaluating
faculty members for awarding initial appointment in rank and for subsequent
promotion in rank. Criteria shall include requirements, appropriate to the
department, for achievement in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and
service.”
Competencies
of President versus Faculty
This
is significant. UVUʼs policy does not envision the President or members of his
administration as having the competency to define what constitutes “excellent
faculty members”. Instead that competency lies in department policy and in the
actions of search committees composed of faculty from the desired discipline.
This
is further emphasized in Policy 635: “faculty members have designated
responsibilities concerning the following decisions regarding faculty: academic
appointments” (4.6.2). It continues, ”Scholars in a particular field or
activity have the chief competence for judging the academic work of their
peers”.
While
it does recognize that these responsibilities are performed pursuant to relevant
University Policies, which we have discussed above, it continues
“recommendations in these matters shall be by faculty participation through
established procedures and authorized by appropriate academic officers and the
President, with final action by the Board of Trustees”.
Above,
we have noted a wording that contradicts this in that Policy 302 gives the
President the power to “make appointments” and that such become “Information
Matters” for the Board of Trustees, despite the language here that gives them
final action.
In
any case that contradiction is not relevant for the moment, although UVU should
harmonize the policies. Instead the question is what is the role of the
President and his staff (including the Academic Vice Presidentʼs office) in the
process of hiring.
The
President “makes appointments” but does so pursuant to policy, which
established that HR sets the process and department search committees, which
include scholars of the requisite discipline, make the decision, unless we take
“authorization” to mean more than simply set in motion the process under their
authority.
In
any case the power of the Presidential suite is strongly limited by UVU policy
so that the basic principle enunciated above remains essential, i.e. that
faculty members are the ones most competent for deciding issues concerning
their discipline.
This
issue is further supported by section 4.6.1 of Policy 635: “Faculty members
have primary responsibilities for curriculum, subject matter and methods of
university, [sic] research, creative works and performance, and faculty
status.” The word status here includes not only rank, once appointed as
faculty, but the initial appointment; both are part of the scope of this
policy.
Limits
to Primary Responsibility of Faculty
The
policy does discuss what are legitimate limits to that “primary responsibility”
when it lists reasons based on which the President or Board or Board of
Trustees may decide to “not support” a faculty recommendation of appointment.
These are: “budgets, personnel limitations, time constraints, and the policies
of other groups, bodies, and agencies having jurisdiction over the University”.
Although
the policy states that these “may include” the above “but are not limited to”,
nonetheless it is clear the intent of the policy is for academic questions to
rest with faculty.
As
a result, the evaluation by the AVP and the President of proposed hires should
be based on two issues, and only those two issues. 1) Did the process of
arriving at that decision follow relevant UVU policies such that members of the
appropriate discipline were the ones who held the primary role for determining
relative excellence of potential candidates according to their discipline, and
2) does the hire fit budgetary, personnel limitations, time constraints, and
legal obligations of the University.
To
make a decision based on other reasons runs a strong risk of violating the
academic freedom of faculty members of a discipline to exercise the primary
responsibility granted them in UVU policy, which also has strong guarantees of
academic freedom.
Reasons
for Non-Support Must be Explicit
Policy
635 requires that reasons for non-support from the President (and his staff) or
the Board of Trustees be communicated to those who make the decision of
recommending someone for appointment. That this communication be clear and
detailed is important, since it is a necessary control on the actions of the
administration in order to guarantee that issues of academic quality remain the
purview of faculty and limit the possibility of their usurpation by other
instances of power in the University.
The
lack of specifics and clarity in such a letter, therefore, should also be
considered a violation of UVU policy and a violation of academic freedom.
The
Issue of Different Departments and Different Decisions
Since
the specific case under question concerns a faculty member recommended for hire
by a different department at UVU than the one that had earlier denied him
tenure at UVU let us consider this issue specifically. Our concern is how this
should be interpreted within both UVU policies and the AAUPʼs concern for
academic freedom.
One
might raise a concern of discipline: if the members of a discipline are those
best situated to determine a faculty personʼs value would that not be confused
by one department denying tenure and another department then hiring the person.
The issue is complex since departments and disciplines are not the same. Many, if not most departments, at UVU are multidisciplinary. As a result, a faculty memberʼs discipline may stretch across two or more departments. This is recognized in UVUʼs policy 637 on tenure. In 4.1.4 it notes that though “a faculty memberʼs tenure award is tied to one specific academic department [, w]hen a faculty member transfers to another department during the probationary period or after tenure, the approved procedures of the new department determine the transfer candidateʼs tenure status.”
This
policy is critical. It recognizes that different departments may have different
criteria and, that what disqualifies one for tenure in one department may not
do so in another.
This
difference between departments is envisioned in academic freedom. Faculty in
their departments must be the primary decision makers of the quality of members
of their discipline even if those decisions contradict those of faculty in
another department. ! In other words, the issue of different departments making
contradictory decisions on the value of a faculty member is not relevant to our
consideration here, other than to recognize a need to support diversity as part
of academic freedom.
Does
Denial of Tenure Necessarily Mean No Possibility of Employment
There
is, though, another issue that is germane. Does denial of tenure, with its
requisite denial of employment necessarily require that there be no possibility
of employment in another department?
Several
points are interesting here. First, a denial of tenure does not require
immediate termination. It allows for continued employment, “a one-year,
terminal appointment for the next academic year”.
Appointments
are normally to a department. Faculty members have the right under UVU
practices and policy to seek to gain an appointment in another department. As a
result, the question of “terminal”, such that no further appointment be
considered, depends on whether the issue of terminal refers to department
appointments or to the appointment of a position with the university. If the
latter one could make a strong argument against another department hiring the
faculty member. However, given that the nature of tenure decisions and
appointments lies within departments, primarily, it could also be argued
“terminal” refers to that departmental appointment, and not to the university.
For
determining this one must look to the history of practice at UVU to grasp
whether the issue of “terminal” refers exclusively to the University or to the
department. Initial indications suggest UVU does not have a consistent history
of insisting that the appointment is to the University. Thus terminal does not
mean no further university appointment. Rather, terminal is related to the
department, in which case further employment in another department at the
University is possible.
Academic
freedom concerns here lie with an expectation of established and properly
applied policies as the 1940 AAUP Statement on Academic Freedom argues. This
includes the recognition that different departments may make different
determinations on a given academic record.
Conclusion
The
principle that professors are the ones most able to determine quality in their discipline
requires that the AVP respect their decision in hiring, except for very
specific issues that remain the competency of the presidential suite. Not only
is this a matter of UVU policy, it is a matter of Academic Freedom.
UVUʼs
policy does envision grounds on which the President or his representatives (the
AVP in this case) may decide to not support a candidate for hire recommended by
a department, although those are limited in such a way that they keep central
the role of faculty evaluations of their discipline. To guarantee this, UVU
requires non-support be accompanied by a “communication” that expresses the
reasons for such. This communication is the primary way in which academic
freedom can be evaluated in balance with the competency of the administration.
As a result, it must be detailed and clear.
Since
UVUʼs AAUP finds no specific policy ground for denying employment to a
departmentʼs chosen candidate based on his or her having been denied tenure in
another department, and indeed shows academic grounds for why such must be
conceivable, the letter denying support from the administration is all the more
important. ! In the specific case under consideration, the email written by
UVUʼs academic Vice President is neither detailed enough nor clear enough to
enable evaluating whether the AVP has clearly followed UVUʼs policy of honoring
faculty competence, our basic principle. As a result, it suggests a potential
violation of academic freedom and requires the AAUP to seek action from the UVU
Faculty Senate, unless adequate grounds that are specific and detailed as
required under policy are laid out by UVUʼs AVP.
Comments
Post a Comment