 |
|
Attendance: over 130 persons
1. Initial comments by President Gillis
2. Revisions to Policy 201: Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure
3. New Draft of Policy 201-97 Paragraphs 8.a and 8.b on Dismissal and Sanctions
President Gillis called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. in Room 1055 Duncan Hall (McMurtry Auditorium). The meeting was exclusively devoted to discussion of proposed changes in the faculty appointments and tenure policy. The President made opening remarks and divided the discussion into two parts, one focusing on all of the promotion and tenure policy except dismissal and sanctions, and one focusing on dismissal and sanctions. Informal polls on both policies were taken; both seemed acceptable in principle to a majority of those present. Suggestions will be worked into revised drafts where feasible. A major honor was announced.
The President emphasized the following points in introducing the discussion:
- The revisions will facilitate recruiting of younger faculty.
- The junior research leave will reduce needless stress on younger faculty.
- Special needs of those who have taken medical leave or who have given birth will be acknowledged through extensions to the tenure clock.
- A clear and even-handed policy will replace a flawed policy by establishing the rights and duties of faculty.
These revisions have involved considerably greater consultation with faculty than in the past.
Walter Isle, Speaker of Faculty Council, introduced the revisions and pointed out the major changes. The probationary period for assistant professors will increase from seven to eight years and will consist of two four-year contract periods. Tenure review may occur at any time after the first contract renewal, but no later than the seventh year. A one-semester research leave of absence, funded by the President's Office, will be automatically provided to all assistant professors after their first contract renewal, usually to be taken in the fourth or fifth year. The option of promotion to the rank of associate professor without tenure will no longer exist, except in special cases where an individual is hired into an advanced rank.
Among the issues raised in the discussion were the following points: the definition of "instructor" must be modified to make it consistent with its use in Humanities; more detail should be moved from the guidelines to the policy about the promotion process of assistant professors; possibilities should exist for reviewing candidates in the terminal year in extraordinary circumstances. In a discussion not related to the proposal and the changes under consideration, it was pointed out that the circumstances for termination of programs or departments should be clarified. Tom Haskell offered to draft new language explaining bona fide exigencies, the AAUP's definition of the conditions under which programs may reasonably be terminated. The President affirmed that the review of tenured faculty mentioned in 6.a. is in no way linked to the dismissal policy. A proposal to create a quantitative display of received evaluations in the promotion and tenure guidelines will be reviewed.
Chandler Davidson, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Dismissal Policy explained the three-step process for investigating accusations that could lead to dismissal of a tenured faculty member. The Committee attended a conference of university lawyers to learn other schools' approaches. Members consulted with Professor Matthew Finkin of the University of Illinois, long associated with the AAUP, who is an authority on tenure and dismissal policy; Jordan Kurland in the national office of the AAUP; and various faculty members, including Walter Isle, speaker of the Faculty Council; Tom Haskell, former speaker; and Moshe Vardi, current president of the Rice chapter of the AAUP.
Most of the discussion centered on the role of lawyers in the three-stage process. The consensus appeared to be that although lawyers may not be present at meetings in the first two stages, any faculty member who is accused may seek an advisor, who may be an attorney, at any time and be guided by that person. Any accused person who does not wish to participate in the informal resolution steps can refuse to participate, moving the process to stage three. In that stage, lawyers for both sides may be present, but the person in charge of the session has full authority to govern the role the lawyers play in the hearing and may indeed prohibit them from speaking directly in the sessions. It was proposed that the last sentence in 8.a.1., which lists possible examples of behavior that might be grounds, be deleted. The feasibility of directly electing a pool of persons for hearing panels was discussed, but most speakers found the idea impractical.
Informal polls for a sense of the faculty on both parts of the policy were taken. In response to a question from the floor, the President stated that the sense of the faculty votes were not binding on the President. The basic changes in the appointments, promotion, and tenure policy were accepted almost unanimously. A clear majority accepted the concept of elaborating paragraph "m" in the old policy along the lines proposed in the new policy but looked favorably on the committee's incorporating many of the suggestions brought up in the meeting into the policy and into the accompanying guidelines and procedures documents.
The President announced that Robert Curl (Chemistry) has been elected to the National Academy of Science. Rousing applause followed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Linda P. Driskill, Secretary of the Faculty