University needs to clarify ambiguity in tenure decisions through feedback, not legislation

Professors are pillars of the UCLA community. But, beyond teaching and research, should they be required to be campus and community role models to merit tenure?

State lawmakers seem to think so, as new legislation urges the University of California to reward the service activities of faculty during the tenure review process.

While I agree with the intention of this legislation to reward service, state legislators should not be responsible for writing UC tenure policy.

The UC should be able to decide on the specifics of its own tenure policy, as it is the University who enacts it and understands whether or not it is effective in promoting the best professors.

The bill, AB 2132, outlines specific examples of service activities, the most general being “service activities that are focused on improving the health and well-being of society.”

As presented in the UC’s mission statement, public service is a key obligation of the University.

That certainly should be reflected in the tenure review process to demonstrate the University’s commitment to the professor and the professor’s commitment to the University and its principles.

Faculty member engagement with community and university issues may help increase their understanding of the students they teach and the research they conduct.

But the process of granting tenure should be the responsibility of the University, not state legislators.

In fact, the bill likely wouldn’t change anything if passed because the UC already factors service into the tenure review process.

In a written statement, the UC said it opposes AB 2132 because they already comply with the proposal, and does not think the legislature should be involved in determining criteria for tenure.

The current UC tenure policy already includes “University and public service,” relevant to the professor’s field, as one of the factors taken into account.

Including a list of the possible activities that qualify as service is the only real way that the proposed policy differs from the current policy.

The fact that the UC already considers service as an important part of the tenure review process demonstrates that interference from state legislators is unnessecary.

So if the UC already takes service work into consideration, why the redundancy of this new legislation?

The bill’s true purpose appears to be to clarify the many different types of service which the University should take into account, and to possibly strengthen the role that service plays in the tenure process.

But as it is the University’s role to evaluate each professor, it is also the University’s role to determine by what criteria they do so.

At the campus level, they have the capacity to see what certain forms of service would compliment professors in their respective disciplines.

This is not to say there are no faults with the current way the UC goes about determining tenure, but those actually affiliated with the University are likely better equipped to handle these issues than state politicians.

As current policy stands, a professor up for tenure can document service activity that directly relates to their expertise, or that benefits the university, community, state or nation.

Ultimately, it comes down to decisions by the department chair, the dean, the Academic Senate committees and the Chancellor or Vice Chancellor to weigh the importance of service work in each individual case.

Some professors seeking tenure may be more involved in service projects, while others may be more engaged in research that could also prove beneficial to the community.

Evaluators must decide whether the applicant, looking at their accomplishments as a whole, has made significant contributions to merit tenure.

If professors feel their service work is not being appraised fairly, perhaps the UC’s definition of service needs to be expanded, altered or clarified, to give professors the credit they deserve for the projects they engage in.

However, any potential changes in tenure policy should be the decision of the University, not the state, said Daniel Mitchell, professor emeritus at the UCLA Anderson School of Management.

“Everything can be improved, but not by legislation,” he said.

The University should make it clear that there are channels of communication for professors to voice their concerns with the current tenure policy, and consider the different ways that participating in service can make for better, more engaged professors.

Faculty can address the issues they have with tenure policy through the Privilege and Tenure Committee of their campus’ Academic Senate, said Brooke Converse, a University spokeswoman.

Because of the wide variety of service work that faculty members can be involved in, it’s unrealistic to assume that this legislation could outline every activity that qualifies as service and clear up all the ambiguities in tenure policy.

It is nearly impossible for the legislature to define what constitutes a “sufficiently high level and sufficiently high quality” of service, which the UC policy expects tenure candidates to have demonstrated.

It should be the jurisdiction of the University to hone in on a more explicit description.

Since the University conducts tenure evaluations on a case-by-case basis, professors should bring their concerns about the way their service is interpreted to the University on a case by case basis.

By passing a bill that essentially doesn’t change UC policy, we can’t expect the UC to give untenured professors different results.

Email Grano at [email protected]. Send general comments to [email protected] or tweet us @DBOpinion.