COLUMN: Tenure needs both fundamental and cosmetic changes

---

by Charles Klein

---

Martin was adored by the students and was famous for his innovative teaching style in Introductory Biology (where he was reported to lose at least 10 pounds every year).

But it wasn't enough that a majority of the students loved Martin. It wasn't enough that the Promotions and Tenure Committee actually proposed that Martin be given a second chance -- a two-year contract extension so he could focus on his research.

In the end, Martin was left out in the cold when then-President George Rupp and the Board of Governors denied Martin any chance of attaining tenure.

Eight years later, under a different and more open administration, Jones School Professor Graeme Rankine experienced much the same treatment; of course, Rankine's case was marred by internal politics as well. Nonethless, hundreds of students supported Rankine by signing a petition in his support. Once again, it wasn't enough.

But just when it seemed like the student voice could never affect change in the tenure process, an explosive panel at the Student Association retreat last Saturday proclaimed otherwise.

The panel was moderated by Provost David Auston. The panelists were Dean of the School of Engineering Michael Carroll, History Professor Carol Quillen, English Professor Dennis Huston and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department Chair Ron Sass.

Over the course of an hour and a half, the panel and the 50 or so audience members engaged in a heated debate about teaching versus research in the Rice system.

After the smoke had cleared, a number of audience members commented that they had never seen anything like it at Rice -- something with so much emotion and power behind it.

Out of that emotion and power came a clear message to the administration: Rice students recognize that Rice emphasizes teaching more than most of the top research institutes in this country (Gillis and Auston give pay increases for those professors who win teaching awards), but change is still needed.

One particular point of contention at the retreat was the Physics 101/102 and 125/126 courses where several years of extremely poor teaching evaluations had been ignored. Out of this discussion came a promise from Auston that the university would fix the poor teaching in the Introductory Physics course -- a promise which was made possible only through this forum and with this administration.

But the promise is just the start. Students must continue to remind the administration of the vow and work with the administration to make sure that the promise is not broken, as well as to address other areas in the tenure process.

There still exists a very clear bias toward research in the tenure system at Rice that must be eliminated or reduced.

According to Huston, the 1987 denial of tenure to Professor Martin was preceded by an approval of tenure for a purely research-oriented professor in 1986 where Rupp said that some circumstances require special consideration -- a statement he refused to endorse the following year in Martin's case.

In fact, the Promotion and Tenure Committee that year even ranked the considerations in the tenure process in a letter to the editor in the April 3 Rice Thresher where they wrote "scholarship has always been critical, teaching very important, and service expected."

Even today, there exist university policies, available on the Web at http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~presiden/Policies/ , that rank these considerations in much the same way. In addition, the policies outline two untenured positions that focus on the two extremes of the teaching versus research debate. But even these policies show the university's bias toward research.

Policy 327-90 outlines a comprehensive research faculty system with promotions and other incentives built in. On the other side, the instructor position "carries no implication of candidacy or eligibility for promotion." No wonder our instructors and lecturers leave so suddenly. There is no incentive to stay on the research side. This dichotomy must change, and the policies must be rewritten to reflect the change.

One idea supported by a number of people within the Rice community is a broad-based change to a three-part tenure system where a small number of professors are promoted to full professor based on teaching, an equal number based on research and a larger number based on both. This concept goes along with what the panelists were saying about exploiting the strengths of the individual faculty member by getting poor teachers out of the classroom and allowing good teachers to focus on their teaching.

Another aspect of this debate is the definition of research. What is research? Is it the number of publications a faculty member produces (the current definition), or can it be research involving teaching techniques, performing or directing plays in the English Department or writing for an electronic publication? According to Quillen, using the strict definition of research that has been used for so long is one major aspect that must be changed.

Of course, the specific process of granting tenure is not the only issue at stake here. Another issue is the review of tenured professors.

This particular issue is extremely explosive, and any change must have near-unanimous support of the faculty, but as the panel this weekend showed, students can be instrumental in pushing at least an examination of these policies.

We have a special edge in this area because this issue is being reviewed now throughout the country, but these reviews are occurring primarily for financial reasons where universities no longer can handle the financial burden of tenure --something with which Rice does not have a problem. Nonetheless, the reviews are occurring.

Bennington University eliminated tenure two years ago. The University of Minnesota instigated and was forced to withdraw a 10-year tenure review process. Texas A&M University just established a committee to look into all of these issues a few weeks ago.

These changes will eventually impact Rice even though we don't have the financial problems they have. Huston even went so far as to state that tenure as we know it would be gone within a few more generations.

President Malcolm Gillis also agrees that change is afoot as the outside communities are starting to get involved in evaluating universities, something which he says used to be done solely within the university by university officials.

The retreat panel last weekend showed that change, whether it's having a 10-year review system or getting student course evaluations to be taken more seriously, can occur with the students, faculty and administration working together.

The issues outlined in this column are just a few of the issues that relate to an overhaul of the tenure process, but it's time for Rice to affect the changes that have been demanded for so many years. Student and faculty debate in the pages of the Thresher and on the SA Electronic Forum at http://riceinfo. rice.edu/projects/SA/forum.html is the first step toward formulating a clear plan of action.

Of course, nothing can be done about tenure without faculty support, but Rice can be a leader in the tenure reform wave that's about to hit by establishing a workable policy that addresses student concerns.

Or, if the university as a whole wants to continue with the status quo and shun national leadership of this nature, we can always and forever remain the "Harvard University of the South." I personally like "Rice University."

Charles Klein is vice president for external affairs of the Student Association and a Sid Richardson College senior.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the September 20, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.