RESPECT

RESPECT

The sine qua non of Shared Governance 

 

 

            Two years ago, while acting as Chair of the Department of Integrated Studies, I received an email from Human Resources addressed to all “People Managers.” “I’m not a people manager,” I responded, “I’m a department chair at a university. My colleagues are not employees but are members of the university faculty. To redefine those roles in corporate terms is to fundamentally misconstrue the nature of a university.” 

 

There have been achievements in shared governance at UVU over the last few years, including the joint work between Faculty Senate committees and administrators on important new and revised policies. The administration’s record on recent tenure and promotion decisions, however, has been characterized by a distinct lack of respect for faculty judgment. 

UVU Policy #635 on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities states that faculty members have primary and designated responsibilities concerning faculty status and tenure (4.9.2 and 4.9.3). The policy references recommendations by the American Association of University Professors that include these thoughts: “Faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty responsibility. . . . The primary responsibility of the faculty for such matters is based upon the fact that its judgment is central to general educational policy.” As opposed to expertise specifically related to administrative tasks, in matters of tenure and promotion “there is the more general competence of experienced faculty personnel committees.” 

Because the distance between a disciplinary department and the administration is relatively vast, because administrators lack competence in the pedagogy and scholarship of a given discipline, because administrators have little familiarity with the requirements of a given curriculum, because, in short, administrators lack the experience and competence inherent in members of a departmental RTP Committee, the AAUP recommends that “The governing board and president should, on questions of faculty status, as in other matters where the faculty has primary responsibility, concur with the faculty judgment except in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail.” 

In two cases at UVU decided during spring semester, 2022, the Provost’s stated reasons for his denials were far from compelling and, rather than being stated in detail, were dismissively perfunctory. The two cases are basically mirror images, sharing nearly identical language and reasoning. Because one of the candidates fears administrative retaliation, details from that case are not included here. It is important to note, however, that we are not dealing with a single case, but with two strikingly similar denials of promotion lacking detailed and compelling reasons and revealing administrative disrespect for faculty judgment.

On March 1, 2022, the Provost sent the following letter to an applicant for promotion to full professor who had strong recommendations from the RTP Committee, Department Chair, and Dean (letter cited in full):

 

“After careful review, I am recommending that [Professor]…., of the Department of …., not be promoted to the rank of Professor at this time. [The] portfolio includes several low SRI scores and concerning student comments that have not been adequately addressed by the candidate, the RTP committee, the department chair, or the dean. [The candidate] should also work to provide better documentation of scholarly activities that would warrant promotion to the rank of Professor. Accordingly, I am not able to make a determination of exemplary performance in teaching or scholarship at this time.”

 

The professor appealed the Provost’s denial of promotion. 

 

The faculty committee assigned to the appeal found that because the Provost’s judgment relied on SRI numbers and negative comments without the full context of the professor’s teaching portfolio, and because he made only general reference to limited or poorly documented scholarship, the denial was in violation of UVU policies and procedures. 

 

Subsequently, a faculty review committee, after careful examination of the candidate’s portfolio, argued that professor should be promoted to full professor, reinforcing positive recommendations by the departmental RTP committee, the department chair, and the Dean. 

 

Both committees criticized what they felt was a faulty process resulting in unsubstantiated judgements:

 

“The letter of denial of rank advancement suggests a heavy reliance on SRI scores in the decision-making process.”

“The semesters where low scores are noted coincide with new courses that required the development of new labs, new experiments, and working with new teaching assistants. Later when these courses were taught again the SRI scores were much higher, showing that the candidate took the steps needed to remedy the previous issues. This change in score also demonstrates that he takes student feedback seriously and works to make improvements as students recommend. His students overwhelmingly respond that the courses taught by Dr. …. helped them learn, challenged them to think in new ways, and helped them develop essential skill.”

“While the Deputy Provost discussed [the requirement of five years’ material in the portfolio] as a ‘standard’ and in policy at a higher level, the committee has ruled that any policies and standards affecting faculty must be the product of shared governance (subject to approval by the faculty senate). . . . Further, the committee has determined that recent policy changes should not be applied retroactively.”

“The committee has found an inappropriate comparison was made between Dr. . . . and the newly hired faculty members of [the College of . . .] for comparison with respect to ‘exemplary work.’ . . . These professors arrived at UVU with more scholarly work and years towards tenure and promotion under a different scholarly paradigm than is found at UVU.” 

“Based on the RTP criteria presented by the Department of …. and Policy 632, the committee unanimously agreed that Dr. …. meets expectations for exemplary scholarship. Dr. …. is a productive active scholar, and his scholarly activity regularly includes students.”

Citing Policy 635 regarding decisions that must “be consistent with relevant college or departmental criteria,” the committee issued a spirited admonition “that the administration should not override the college or departmental RTP committee in determining what was ‘exemplary’ for the faculty member, unless, of course, members of the administration are qualified [disciplinary] faculty or members of the faculty member’s college.”

            Finally, in her letter denying promotion at the end of the process, a denial that could not then be appealed, President Tuminez paid no attention to the recommendations of the department RTP Committee, of the department Chair, of the Dean, of the faculty Appeal Committee, or of the faculty Reevaluation Committee. Detailed largely in numerical terms with little reference to quality, the reasons given by the President in her letter to the candidate are anything but compelling and conspicuously ignore the reasoning documented in five levels of review.

·      “Almost 60% of courses show students rate you below your department average in respect.”

·      “Fifty-five percent of courses show students rate you below your department average on feedback.”

·      “More than half of courses also show students rate you below the department average on clear expectations, prepared, and clear on how to succeed.”

·      “Students report you are not using Canvas effectively.”

·      “Your portfolio’s course and curriculum evidence are unclear and do not allow me to effectively evaluate what you are trying to achieve in the classroom.”

·      “Your pedagogical reflections provide no evidence to demonstrate that you have attempted to address student concerns.”

·      “You included student work and research as your scholarship.”

·      “In the last five years, according to your CV, you have had only one first author presentation, one fourth author presentation and published conference proceedings, one fifth author presentation. . . .”

·      “This does not compare favorably to your colleagues.”

·      “You do not clarify the types of scholarship. . . . This makes it difficult to assess your contributions to your field.”

Unable to evaluate the quality of the candidate’s scholarship, President Tuminez relies on numbers. She complains about multiple authorship and work that includes students, standard practices in the sciences and a boon to students interested in research. Unacquainted with specific disciplinary pedagogies, she twice admits she cannot “effectively evaluate what you are trying to achieve in the classroom.” To evaluate teaching, then, she relies largely on SRI numbers and non-contextualized student comments. She requires that SRI scores be above average. She adds complaints about Canvas use, a practice not required by policy. In short, her arguments made from administrative distance are anything but compelling. 

 

Most troubling is the high-handed disregard for the arguments made by faculty and deans at five levels of review. It makes no difference that the faculty Review Committees argued strongly against the indiscriminate use of SRI scores and comments, against comparisons with faculty coming from research universities. It is immaterial that the Review Committee praised engaged student/faculty research and delineated the ranges and quality of scholarly activity that had appealed to departmental colleagues earlier in the process. It doesn’t matter that after their broad and informed evaluation of the teaching section of the portfolios, the committees found ample evidence of exemplary teaching.

 

            Shared governance requires mutual respect. The case reviewed here in the context of the similar case reveals a Provost and a President whose actions suggest a fundamental disrespect of the university faculty.

 

***

 

For additional context, see my related testimony before an appeal committee for a case last year in which the Provost and President disregarded recommendations for tenure by the department’s RTP Committee, the department Chair, and the Dean. See also the follow-up post after the denial was overturned that also references administrative disrespect. Links HERE and HERE.