—Commentary—
Promotion
and
tenure
The
student
role
By BOB RENO
For both faculty and students,
promotion and tenure policy is an im
portant issue, but it seems for different
reasons. For faculty members their jobs
are at stake, while it’s the quality of their
educations that’s of primary concern to
students. The appropriate role for
students in this decision-making process,
as perceived by faculty and ad
ministrators, is minimal.
Actions speak louder
Although most faculty members would
deny this, and maintain that they realize
fully the importance of student ‘input’,
actions do often speak louder than words,
and the recent refusals of both the Faculty
Senate and the College of Liberal Arts to
include students even on committees to
review promotion and tenure procedures
(let alone be included in the actual
decision-making bodies) illustrates
clearly the nature of the appropriate
perceived student role: “the students’
place is in the classroom”.
Student ‘input’ is welcomed, when and
where it becomes useful to faculty, but
‘input’ is incapable of demanding response
and accountability, it implies neo-colonial
relationships between students and
faculty, and is all in all a far cry from what
we mean when we say we want an active
and meaningful role in decision-making
processes that determine the course and
quality of our educations.
It’s nothing more than patent hypocrisy
for faculty members to profess “open
ness” to the possibility of student par
ticipation in promotion and tenure
decision-making, while simultaneously
excluding students from participation
even in debate and review of that same
process.
Paae A
Objections to student participation are
founded on assumptions such as that
students are simply incapable of exer
cising sound judgement and an objective
frame of mind, but we wonder on what
basis faculty members can claim such
objectivity while they’re deciding on the
future careers of their friends, enemies
and colleagues?
Claim advanced
The claim is advanced that students
aren’t competent to judge the scholarly
works of a professor, but a student in
mathematics is no doubt by far and away
closer to competency in the case of a math
professor’s scholastic achievements than
one of the professor’s colleagues from,
say, sociology or journalism.
The “time spectrum” argument that
students are only transient ‘visitors’ on the
campus whereas faculty members live
here all their lives (once tenured), giving
them a greater stake in affairs, is equally
unpalatable. As students we have to live
with our educations for the rest of our
lives, and what transpires here will play a
great role in determining the courses of
our lives, careers and conscious
development.
Are faculty members here for the
purpose of teaching students, or are we, as
students, merely here to give faculty and
administration something to collect
salaries over? The questions arising over
this issue strike at the roots of our
assumptions and philosophies of higher
education: In whose interests is the
university run? With whom should the
burden of justification lie?
On Jan. 8, the Emerald cited an official
AAUP (American Association of
University Professors) statement on the
promotion and tenure system as follows:
“At its best it protects students as well as it
protects faculty . . . The real issue is the
manner in which tenure is granted, not
whether or not to grant it at all . . . In
consequence, students and taxpayers have
every right to demand that tenure be
granted only to superior faculty mem
bers.”
Doubt viability of system
We seriously doubt the viability of a
system which purports to “protect”
students while at the same time it denies
us participation in the process allegedly
serving in the interests of our protection.
Any recognition of the fact that students
“have every right to demand that tenure
be granted only to superior faculty
members” becomes hollow and
meaningless rhetoric as long as students
are being systematically deprived of the
means (i.e. participation) necessary to
exercise that right.
When students’ rights are recognized in
principle, but are in actual practice ac
cepted as valid only on faculty members’
terms, they’re reduced within that narrow
context to mere “privileges”. But we’re
concerned with rights, not privileges.
What we want is influence and par
ticipation, not just ‘input’, which by its
very definition implies exclusion from the
decision-making system.
Institutional commitments have in fact
been made that would offer hope for an
expanded student role in university
governance, such as in the 1970 Novick
Report on the Future of the University:
“The time has come to include students in
the decision-making process of the faculty
that has to do with matters that affect both
students and faculty members.”
Also, in the 1969 Report of the
Legislative Task Force on Higher
Education: “Much of the student unrest
and frustration on the campus today
emanates from the failure of the in
stitutional administration to respond to the
students’ legitimate concerns... Students,
faculty and administrators should work
toward the common goal of campus
community betterment, and students
should be included in both discussion and
decision-making. ”
However, there’s been a general failure
to act on these commitments. The role of
students in actual decision-making and
governance, despite the many student
positions on advisory, symbolic or token
committees, has remained essentially and
qualitatively the same. In the area of
university governance, the time has long
since passed for a decisive step out of the
past.
University administration and faculty
have got to hold themselves accountable,
or be held accountable by students, to the
principles and goals underlying these
institutional commitments. If we try to
stop the hands of a clock in motion, the
mainspring falls limp, and it ceases to
perform the designated function.
The faculty role
By Cliff Zukin
For both faculty and students promotion
and tenure policy is an important issue,
but it seems for different reasons. For
faculty members, their jobs are at stake,
while it’s the quality of their educations
that is of primary concern to students.
The appropriate role for faculty in the
decision-making process must be, of
course, minimal. This is not to say,
however, that our distinguished educators’
cries for “faculty input’’ fall on deaf ears
We, as students, are not opposed to
“faculty input” per se. However, it must
be recognized that faculty are not tran
sients. They are usually here for more
than four years and generally do not
change their views to accomodate either
changes in the system, or the changing
views of students coming into the
University system. The question becomes
should we let these people pass judgment
on people who are here to produce
products we want to consume?
Ain’t no way
A second consideration must be the
faculty’s competence to pass judgment on
their peers, with whom they obviously
have close personal and emotional ties.
Stated simply, are faculty capable of
making the objective decisions necessary
to insure quality products for us to con
sume. The answer is obvious. Ain’t no
way.
So the problem becomes what is the
proper role for faculty? To cite an AAUS
report (Amerikan Association of
University Students): “The system of
promotion and tenure has worked well to
protect faculty as well as students when
faculty realized they were not
professionally competent or ethically
' capable to make the type of decision
required. Only when faculty realize that
A note from the authors
We believe that the above commentaries
are long overdue. If we look at the
University as a place where we, as
students, are the consumers, it seems to be
ridiculously and simply apparent that we
should have a voice — a strong voice in
determining what we get taught, and by
whom.
“Student input" is a nice term, but it is
worthless. What is needed to make the
University better for both students and
faculty — for the whole University com
munity — is “student influence".
We hope that our commentaries will
start a debate, which is precisely what
should go on publicly if this University is to
really be a University. We know that there
are both students and faculty who agree
with us. and we know that there are both
students and faculty who disagree with us.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Bob Reno
ASUO Senator
Cliff Zukin
ASUO Senate President
their place is in the classroom and in their
lecture notes can the system operate ef
ficiently to the degree that it was in
tended.”
There is, it must be admitted, another
side to the coin. Some have called for the
opening of the promotion and tenure
process to the faculty. To quote from the
Novick report (ASUO Senator David
Novick), “The time has come to include
faculty in the decision making process of
the students that has to do with matters
that affect both faculty and student
members.” Also, from the 1968 Report of
the Task Force on High Education, “Much
of the faculty unrest and frustration in the
faculty clubs today emanates from the
failure of the ASUO administration to
respond to the faculty’s legitimate con
cerns...”
Facuity Club Opened
Looking at the situation realistically,
there may be some evidence to the con
tention that faculty are mature enough to
be allowed into the decision-making
process. For example, just recently the
faculty opened up the faculty club to
students. True, the club was losing money
and would have to close if it did not take
such a measure. And true our student
union (financed by student fees) has been
ever open to faculty. However let us not
question their motives. The point to be
made is that they are coming around,
however slowly.
Perhaps it is time to give in to the
demands for faculty input. I believe that
the ASUO Senate is approaching that
philosophy. Just last meeting by a vote of
26 in favor, none opposed, and 1 abstention
the Senate endorsed the establishment of a
committee to clarify University promotion
and tenure procedures. To prove that we
value “faculty input” we recommended
tha‘ the composition of the committee be 3
faculty and only 2 students. (Although
there may be a problem as the Faculty
Senate voted to establish the same com
mittee—but without students).
So, maybe the ASUO is finally starting to
act on its commitments. After all, it must
be recognized that the role of faculty in
actual decision-making and governance,
despite the many faculty positions on
advisory, symbolic or token committees,
has remained essentially and qualitatively
the same.
In the areas of University governance
the time has long since passed for a
decisive step out of the past. We’ve got to
hold ourselves accountable to the prin
ciples and goals underlying these in
stitutional (ASUO) commitments. If you
try to stop the hands of a clock in motion,
the mainspring falls limp, and it ceases to
perform the desired function.