Proposed action would alter promotion process

In its first reading on Feb. 3, the Faculty Senate overwhelmingly approved Class A legislation that would significantly change the process employed to make promotion and tenure decisions on this campus. Briefly, it would make the tenure process more responsive and transparent for all participants.

In this article, we will explain the proposed changes and explain why we believe this would be a beneficial change for the faculty. We are hopeful that this article will stimulate campus discussion of this issue. The complete text of the legislation is available on the Faculty Senate home page, http://www.washington.edu/faculty/facsenate/.

The promotion and tenure process is described in Section 24-54 of the Faculty Code. The proposed legislation seeks to change two parts of the current process. First, in an entirely new section, the candidate would have the responsibility “for assembling the promotion record.” Significantly, this paragraph also authorizes candidates to include a “self-assessment” of their qualifications for tenure and/or promotion. In this statement, candidates are encouraged to candidly discuss and evaluate the record they have assembled. This gives each candidate the opportunity to make sure that important information is included in the file, and to suggest to the reviewing body the strength of the candidate’s record. Further, the assembly of the record would continue to be governed by the “guidelines of the candidate’s college and unit.” For example, the department would have to follow its own guidelines for soliciting external letters of review, and the proposed legislation requires that external letters be kept confidential.

Second, the legislation would require all departments to provide a summary of the faculty’s deliberation to the candidate. This summary would omit all names and may omit vote counts. Candidates would then, if they wish, have the opportunity to prepare a written response to this report. In departments that use a subcommittee, candidates would also get to prepare a response to the subcommittee’s summary report and recommendation to the senior voting faculty. The candidate response, if any, becomes part of the record submitted to the unit’s dean. Local units may, at their own option, provide more opportunities for collegial interaction during the tenure and promotion process. If passed, these provisions represent a minimum to which every department and unit must adhere.

This legislation has been the result of a long and careful process. The drafters of this legislation have worked carefully to be responsive to the great variety of local cultures that exist on all three campuses. For junior colleagues and others seeking promotion, it is hoped that the transparency these changes afford will ultimately lead to more fairness, dignity and accuracy. In the long run, everyone will benefit from a demystification of promotion and tenure procedures.

These recommended changes are not radical or even novel. They have been tried, successfully, at other campuses such as Ohio State and UCLA. Indeed, compared to some campuses these changes are quite modest and represent a careful balancing of both departmental and candidate interests.

Agenda
Faculty Senate Meeting
Thursday, March 2
2:30 p.m., 301 Gowen