Situation
The Department of Sociology is located within a medium-sized public university and has an MA program as well as a large undergraduate program. The student body is diverse. The department consists of 10 sociologists: four full professors (including the chair), three associate professors, and three assistant professors. All but two are male; one – the chair – is Hispanic, the rest of the men are white. The two females are both assistant professors; one is African-American, the other white.
According to tradition, tenure and promotion to associate professor require demonstrated competence in both teaching and research. Competence in teaching is typically measured by positive student evaluations. Competence in research is measured by publications or funded research (the latter is less common at this institution). Faculty are formally evaluated by the departmental tenure committee at the beginning of the third and sixth years, with the sixth year being the final year for deciding tenure. Informal evaluations, by the chair, take place annually.
The African-American woman has just been evaluated by the tenure committee, in her third year. She is popular among both undergraduate and graduate students, and directs more masters theses than any other faculty member. She spends long hours in her office mentoring and guiding students. During her three years thus far, she has regularly presented at regional professional meetings, and once at the ASA. She has submitted several papers to journals, but none have yet been accepted. Her only publications to date are a few encyclopedia entries. She has not participated in any externally funded research.
The departmental tenure committee has recommended that she be given a positive recommendation, but with the caution that she must dramatically improve her publication/research record before the final review. The department chair, who makes an independent recommendation to the dean, has not yet made his recommendation. However, he has made his feelings quite clear. Even before the tenure committee made its recommendation, he told several colleagues (including a couple outside the department) that “she is a lost cause” and that the department should “cut its losses,” terminate her appointment, and begin the hiring process. The faculty member in question is aware of some of the statements that the chair has made to colleagues, both inside and outside the department.
Questions
- What are the main issues in this situation?
- What ethical principals, if any, have been breached?
- What courses of action might the faculty member take?
Discussion
The main issues are confidentiality and proper procedure.
As to confidentiality, it is inappropriate for the chair to discuss his evaluation of the candidate with others—openly enough for his comments to get back to the professor in question.
There is also a question of whether his proposed course of action corresponds with official departmental (university?) policies. We are told that faculty customarily are given six years to measure up the the institution’s standards for tenure. While special circumstances (e.g., sexually harrassing students or plagiarism) might justify cutting the probationary period short, there is a real question as to whether the present case warrants such action.
A question might also be raised as to whether all candidates for tenure are expected to be equally strong in teaching and in research. Or, are some faculty tenured because they are so strong in research that weaknesses in teaching can be overlooked—and vice versa?
Has the department published a description of the level of research productivity that qualifies a faculty member for tenure. It is difficult to make such specifications is detail without encouraging ritualism, but some departments offer general guidance (e.g., one published article per year).
On the other hand, let’s suppose that all faculty honestly agreed that the professor in question was not going to get tenure at the end of six years, they might feel they were doing her a disservice by stringing her along in a hopeless quest. This view, even where genuinely considerate can be challenged as inappropriately paternal.
As to courses of action, the faculty member may have many options. Some departments assign senior faculty as mentors to junior faculty, and, in that case, her mentor should be her first recourse. She might discuss the matter directly with the chair, though that might be extremely uncomfortable. It might be appropriate for the faculty member to register a complaint with the dean. If the university has an ombudsperson, that would be an excellent option. Similarly, if the faculty are unionized, the union should be contacted. Going outside the institution, the faculty member could lodge a complaint with the Committee on Professional Ethics of the ASA, provided the chair’s actions can be linked to the ASA Code of Ethics. Finally, she can hire a lawyer and sue the chair and/or the university.
