Appendix I: Charge to the Committee

Committee on a More Flexible Tenure Probationary Period
Office of the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs
September 22, 2004

Background

In March 2004, the Subcommittee on Faculty Evaluation and Development, a subcommittee of the Gender in Science and Engineering initiative, issued a report recommending that the University should adopt a more flexible tenure probationary period for untenured faculty on the tenure track, while maintaining a uniform standard of performance.

Specifically, the subcommittee recommended that:

• The criteria for accomplishments in the area of scholarship, teaching and service should be set based on the assumption of a tenure review in the same appointment year in which such reviews are conducted now (which varies somewhat by school/college but is not later than the seventh year of countable service).

• In the third year of an initial appointment, all untenured faculty members would be reviewed for a second contract (which would typically but not necessarily be a second three-year contract).

• If the faculty member’s contract is renewed, in the year prior to his or her tenure review (typically but not necessarily in the fifth year) he or she would have a second internal review, during which the department would propose:
  • A tenure review in the following year (the same appointment year in which reviews are conducted now) OR
    
    
  • A one-time postponement up to the ninth year based on the professional and personal demands the faculty member is balancing.

• The tenure review could be conducted at any time up to the ninth year, using the criteria and standards described here.

Charge to the Committee

The Provost and Executive Vice President of Academic Affairs charges the members of the committee to...

• Identify the key questions the Provost should take into account before deciding whether to implement a more flexible tenure clock. These questions may include:
  
  
• The stated intention of the GSE subcommittee’s proposal is not to extend the tenure clock for all faculty members but only for faculty members who have a defensible rationale for needing more time before the tenure review. What general guidelines or criteria will the schools and colleges use when they decide whether to approve a delay in the tenure review?

• The subcommittee has recommended a University wide system of two faculty reviews prior to the tenure review. What might be the anticipated challenges or barriers to implementing this system?

• Among the University’s peer institutions (public and private), what is the current range of practices with regard to a more flexible tenure clock? If the Provost’s Office adopts a more flexible tenure clock, what impact might this change have on our standing in the academy with respect to faculty recruitment and retention and on peer review? In general, what impact might this decision have on our community of peer institutions with regard to their tenure policies?

• Decide what additional information, if any, the Committee needs to fully understand the issues related to a more flexible tenure clock.

• Collect the additional information (weighing the need for the information against the costs of securing it).

• Consult with academic administrators and individual faculty members (inside and outside the institution), as appropriate.

• By the end of the winter term 2005, formulate and submit a set of recommendations to the Provost, including a proposal for making any necessary revisions to Regents’ Bylaw 5.09 Procedures in Cases of Dismissal, Demotion, or Terminal Appointment and Standard Practice Guide 201.13 Rules concerning acquiring the protection of Regents’ Bylaw 5.09 by accumulating years of service.

Rationale for the Recommendations (from the GSE Subcommittee report)

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) was formed in 1915 and shortly thereafter a probationary period of ten years was instituted for untenured faculty members. Over the next two decades there was a significant amount of discussion about this length of probationary time before a faculty member is reviewed for tenure. Professional organizations such as the American Council on Education (ACE) still wanted a long probationary period (9 – 10 years). However, other national associations wanted a shorter period of probationary time (5 – 6 years). Seven years was chosen as the normal time period for one to achieve tenure among the various interested parties through negotiations and compromise. This history points to the arbitrariness of the current tenure probationary period, despite its persistence.

Currently several factors may lead individual untenured faculty to have more than the canonical six years in rank: they may have already served in an assistant professor position at another institution for up to six years; they may have taken postdoctoral training or research positions after receiving their doctorate; they may have delayed the tenure review as a result of childrearing or catastrophic personal or family circumstances that resulted in a delay. Thus, the tenure probationary period is rigid in its application to individuals, but it does not in fact provide for a standard length of time for individual faculty to complete the work that is reviewed.

Moreover, there have been dramatic changes in the academic context since AAUP adopted the seven-year tenure clock. For instance, in the natural and some social sciences, many research problems now require the development of an interdisciplinary research program or establishment of a complex laboratory. In the humanities and some social science fields, complexities associated with changes in publishing practices and norms, particularly surrounding monographs, have greatly extended the timeframe needed for publication of books and, in some fields, even refereed journal articles.

The many schools and colleges at the University of Michigan do an outstanding job of recruiting high-caliber faculty members who will become leaders in their respective fields. Allowing them time to establish a strong research portfolio in a timeframe that is flexible rather than rigid benefits the university in numerous ways. The initial institutional investment in untenured faculty appointed here is substantial. It is our view that there is a greater risk of making the wrong decision not to tenure a faculty member based on a rigid timeframe than there is risk of retaining untenured faculty a little longer in order to make a more certain judgment.

In addition, there are sometimes pernicious effects on faculty research programs due to the short and rigid tenure clock. Providing a more flexible tenure clock would permit untenured faculty members to make choices and decisions about their research programs that are not dictated by their “tenure clock.” For example, an untenured faculty member may be able to take time to obtain resources and build a more sophisticated experimental program or conduct longitudinal studies that would not normally be possible within the current time frame.

This recommendation for providing a more flexible tenure clock does not imply that standards for achieving tenure will be raised or lowered. Rather, standards should remain the same based on the norm of six years.

The subcommittee has used the word “flexible” in this recommendation for a distinct purpose. We are not recommending that all untenured faculty members must wait until their ninth year at the University to be reviewed for tenure. Rather, the expectation would be for most faculty members to be reviewed during their sixth year. However, any faculty member would have the right to request more time if he or she felt a longer timeframe would provide a more appropriate context for evaluation.

Finally, this committee notes that the recommended tenure review process rests on two early reviews: the third-year review and a second review in the fifth year that permits departments and candidates to plan for the tenure review. The fifth year review will provide more feedback to the faculty member and maintain accountability to the tenure probationary system.