University of Michigan regents to vote on proposed extension of tenure probationary period
The University of Michigan Board of Regents will vote later today on a proposal to extend the faculty tenure probationary period from 8 to 10 years after a semester of discussion.
University officials say extending the probationary period will not force any school or college to change how long it takes its faculty members to reach tenured status, but allows the schools and colleges greater flexibility with tenure.
“This proposal would not result in any changes to tenure itself, the functioning of tenure at the University of Michigan or the university’s strong and enduring commitment to tenure,” wrote provost Phil Hanlon in a letter to university staff. “It will simply give the governing faculty of each school and college greater flexibility in setting the tenure probationary period for their unit.”
Phil Hanlon
Ben Allen, an assistant professor in the U-M Medical School, said he’s not completely opposed to the change in the probationary period but believes there are questions about the change the university should answer before moving forward.
Allen said he had hoped the university would show a larger salary commitment to assistant professors, whose salaries are often only guaranteed for a certain time and often depend on grants. He said a larger startup package should be available to faculty members as they are beginning their research.
Allen said he would like to see a plan that would provide for promotion of assistant professors to associate professor or full professor prior to reaching the probationary period.
“The only thing being addressed at the moment is a one-word change,” Allen said, adding that he wants to know how the university will compare faculty members who are being considered for tenure after different lengths of employment.
“My opinion is that the one-word change should be the last thing that happens. Everything else, addressing faculty being promoted and increased financial commitment to faculty that have longer-term research projects, all of those things should be committed to and have plans in place first before the change to the bylaw,” Allen said.
The proposed change seems to be supported by the majority of faculty who responded to a university request for public comment, Hanlon said.
Hanlon said he had spoken with many leaders among tenured and non-tenured faculty and said he believed the change to the bylaw, if approved, would be viewed positively.
“There was significant participation in public comment … and overwhelmingly, those who responded supported the bylaw change,” he said, adding that he had taken advice from opponents of the change as well.
Kyle Feldscher covers K-12 education for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at kylefeldscher@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
Wolf's Bane
Thu, Apr 21, 2011 : 4:19 p.m.
And as a former Adjunct Lecturer at UM I just want to add that LEO (Lecturers' Employee Organization) is a joke and should be disbanded.
Wolf's Bane
Thu, Apr 21, 2011 : 4:17 p.m.
U of M would be better served with just eliminating tenure all together. It would create a more competitive environment for faculty members and ultimately drive quality education whose primary beneficiaries should be the students, not the professors! Eliminate tenure and build a better and leaner university.
MRunner
Thu, Apr 21, 2011 : 3:51 p.m.
Saying that the University Senate vote accurately reflects the opinions of the entire faculty is a bit of a stretch. Ideally this would be the case, but considering the way in which the vote was taken, it cannot be considered as such. Voting required attendance at a mid-afternoon meeting. All ballots are filled out by hand, with no provision for electronic voting, absentee voting, etc. It simply is not feasible for a large enough proportion of the 1000+ faculty body to attend and vote. So, the vote reflects the opinions of the faculty who were able to attend- and was heavily attended by the liberal arts faculty (generally against the proposal), and less attended by Med School faculty (generally for the proposal).
MRunner
Fri, Apr 22, 2011 : 1 a.m.
In response to Bacon BIt's reply- I do not have a breakdown of what schools attended. However, that could be performed fairly easily, since the roster of attendees was released. Did you attend the meeting? I did, and I believe my original statement on the attendance breakdown holds true. The argument that the clinical track faculty would be for this concept emphasizes my point- it simply would be impossible for a vast majority of these clinicians to cancel clinic for an afternoon meeting, since it would shut down the hospital. I also challenge your point regarding tenure track faculty in the Med School opposing this- I have spoken with many tenure track faculty in the Med School who overwhelmingly support this. The idea that clinical faculty would suddenly shift to tenure track if given 2 additional years presupposes that these clinical faculty would all of a sudden have a greater interest in those other requirements required for tenure, such as a significant research program. If, however, a large amount does change over to tenure track, is that not good? It brings more research funds to the University and amplifies the scholarly activity occurring.
Bacon Bits
Thu, Apr 21, 2011 : 5:01 p.m.
Do you have a citation for who attended the meeting and a breakdown of which schools and colleges were over- or under-represented? I do know that the med school lobbied heavily to get their faculty to attend the meeting, however, I don't think there is any information available on how many med school faculty actually did attend. Aside from the Dean, no one at the meeting were vocal in their support. As to the idea that the medical school faculty are for the proposal, that's up for debate and it depends on which faculty you ask (clinical or tenure-track). The tenure track faculty in the medical school do not support this change while the clinical faculty do support the change (presumably because more clinical faculty could be tenure-track if the rules were relaxed to allow time for patient care).
Bacon Bits
Thu, Apr 21, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.
A Concerned Citizen: on March 21, the University Senate voted against the proposal. The University Senate is open to every faculty member and does constitute a vote from the entire faculty. Don't just take my word for it: <a href="http://www.ur.umich.edu/update/archives/110322/tenure" rel='nofollow'>http://www.ur.umich.edu/update/archives/110322/tenure</a>
Lady Audrey
Thu, Apr 21, 2011 : 5 p.m.
Only 120 of the faculty of the university showed up? I don't think we can say there is much involvement of the faculty in the Senate with such a poor showing. I don't know how many faculty they have at U-M but must be in the thousands? Of course, we also don't know from this article how many faculty voted in the Schools and colleges that had votes. Must be a different 120 if Provost believes this has strong support.
A Concerned Citized
Thu, Apr 21, 2011 : 1:06 p.m.
The comment by trespass is incorrect. All faculty did not oppose this, it was opposed by the 30 some faculty of SACUA. The University faculty as a whole have not voted on this proposal (although it has been voted on in several Colleges and Schools). There are several Schools (the Medical School) being one of them that overwhelmingly supports the flexible tenure clock. Currently each college/school sets his standard time for tenure (but does not exceed the current 8 years). This proposal would allow Colleges & Schools, if they so choose to, to extend their tenure period to 10 years. It gives Colleges and Schools options, especially given the current climate of reduced NIH funding, the extreme competitiveness of obtaining research funding, the prevelance of team science and the years some research studies need to bear out for academic publishing. This proposal gives Colleges and Schools options, how can that be bad?
trespass
Thu, Apr 21, 2011 : 6:14 p.m.
Shared governance is conducted through the faculaty senate and the various advisory committees that advise the administration. Those committees overwhelmingly opposed the change. The Provost was asked if an electronic vote by the faculty would change his mind about supporting the change and he said it would not, so there was no point to conducting an electronic pole. In the Medical School the tenure clock generally does not start until the early or mid thirties, thus a ten year clock takes one into the early to mid forties. Many women have delayed child bearing until they obtain tenure. That is not possible if they will be in their forties.
trespass
Thu, Apr 21, 2011 : 11:02 a.m.
This is another example of top down management and that the UM administration gives only lip service to the principles of "shared governance" with the faculty. This proposal was overwhelmingly opposed by the faculty and all of its advisory committees. This was also proposed at the start of Provost Theresa Sullivan's tenure but she put a stop to it. This shows that she had more courage to stand up to President Coleman than Provost Hanlon will ever have.