Texas Massacre
In October 2003, the college brought in from Syracuse a new provost, Howard C. Johnson, who was charged with improving the research culture at the campus. He was arriving at the institution that had either hired remarkably talented junior faculty or somewhat low tenure standards, since in the previous two years, only 1 of the 58 professors who had applied for tenure had been rejected. This percentage was in line with that of Texas A&M, which in 2003 granted tenure to every junior professor who applied, suggesting that a culture of mediocrity spreads beyond UNT in the Lone Star State.
The administration's concern? The subpar research performance of the denied candidates. Every case profiled by the Chronicle features the professors' advocates commenting on items such as their"innovative" teaching methods and"strong" record of service, but it appears that, in each case, the research record of the denied candidate was the weakest aspect of the candidate's file. The former dean of the UNT business school, for instance, conceded that one of the denied candidates had mediocre outside evaluation letters, but argued that they were good enough to warrant tenure--hardly a ringing endorsement of quality.
When asked to defend his actions, according to the Chronicle, the provost
looked at several criteria. They included what he calls"evidence of sustained inquiry" and the development of a specific area of expertise. He also looked at whether a candidate's research represented a new activity and whether it was"thought-provoking,""interactive," and"transportable," he says. But in doing so, he says, he used the same standards that were in place when he arrived last fall.
The provost's critics, on the other hand, contend that his actions violated an informal campus culture, in which"departments and colleges make the tenure decisions and the provost rubber-stamps them."
The UNT case exposes some of the difficulties in raising standards--particularly with regard to research--at mid-tier schools. For an administration committed to such an agenda, the tenure-review process represents the only opportunity for implementation, since administrators cannot, realistically, control the hiring process at the departmental level. In this sense, Johnson's conception of his position seems appropriate--and his actions have had the intended effect: the dean of education is encouraging professors"to get more grants and publish in better journals," while the College of Arts and Sciences has changed its tenure standards to make the requirements of external-review letters more rigorous.
What, then, of the professors in the middle--those hired under the old, less rigorous, standards, and then denied under the new? Again, it seems to me (based on the information public available) that Johnson's actions were justified. I'm reminded by guidance I received from the longtime former chair of the Brooklyn History Department (and a prestigious scholar) Paula Fichtner, who argued that first-class departments make first-class hires, while second-class departments search out third-class candidates, because their occupants want to surround themselves with colleagues who will not push them to perform harder. And so tenuring candidates with mediocre research credentials makes it more likely that these now-tenured professors will continue the institution's apparent culture of downplaying research in personnel decisions. For Johnson to have waited until those hired under the old regime were tenured, he would have needed to delay his reforms by 3-4 years, while also strengthening the very culture he was brought in to overturn.
There is, however, one aspect of UNT's handling of the case that troubles me. The university has a--bizarre--regulation in which candidates denied promotion receive a written justification of the decision but those denied tenure do not, and so the administration is not providing specific justifications for the denial. I am a great believer in Alan Charles Kors' advice that in the academy,"sunlight is the best disinfectant," and when universities have nothing to hide, they should be entirely open about their decisionmaking process.