Very interesting article in this morning's Chronicle about the University of Colorado's decision to institute a general review--under strong political pressure--of its tenure process. The subtext question: was the decision to hire and tenure Ward Churcill an anomaly, or a signal of a broader problem in the system? The university has hired a retired Air Force general, Howell Estes, to run the process. It's clear that Estes was hired in part because he has credibility with the legislature. Estes also hired a consulting team from PriceWaterhouseCoopers to assist him.

A couple of revealing elements from the article. First, the AAUP, while not opposing Estes' selection, did oppose the selection of the outside consultants. AAUP general secreatry Roger Bowen remarked that the AAUP has more knowledge and experience in the field of tenure. Quite so. But over the last couple of years, the AAUP's conduct has revealed it to be excessively partisan on the issues related to the Colorado inquiry. It's unfortunate that the AAUP seems to have lost some credibility on whether it can speak objectively to the question of whether the higher education personnel system might be improved.

Second, Colorado apparently has a system of post-tenure review in place. Critics contend that the fact that Ward Churchill regularly survived post-tenure review proves that system isn't working either.

I'm generally supportive of post-tenure review: I see no reason for a system that allows those who receive tenure to then shirk one of the two main qualifications--producing scholarship--for which they were granted tenure in the first place. That said, it seems to me that those institutions with effective tenure processes in place are those least likely to need post-tenure reviews. And schools that use tenure to determine factors other than academic quality are also those likely to see to it that post-tenure review doesn't work well.

Anyhow, I'll be intrigued to see what kind of report Estes produces.