Notes from the Committee of the Whole

RPT Committee Recommendations

April 16, 2002

[These are my personal notes, taken at the behest of President Noland and Dr. Berkeley, chair of the RPT committee, they do not represent an official record of the proceedings.]

Discussion focused on Recommendations #1, 2, 3 and 6.  Among concerns voiced and replies made:

1. Concerning recommendation #1 on "unambiguous guidelines":

• Is the committee pushing for rules that are too uniform, or too specific, and hence too restrictive on departments? The Committee is not suggesting a laundry list or quantified requirements, but departments should have clear guidelines on substantive expectations and process, e.g. if you want peer-reviewed articles or for professors to create new courses, say so; there was great variety in process, e.g. in some departments senior members voted on RPT, in others it was decided by the chair alone, but the process should be clearly spelled out and the committee supports uniformity in process.

• Would changes in the RPT guidelines or timetable be retroactive, as regards faculty currently at assistant or associate level? Generally changes apply immediately to new faculty, with a "sunset" period of 5-6 years, during which faculty which came in under old guidelines/timetable would not be held to new ones, but after which all faculty would fall under the new guidelines/timetable.

• The term "unambiguous guidelines" seems to some to imply quantification; might not the term "clear guidelines" be preferable? The terminology "unambiguous" conveyed a real need; but some members of the RPT Committee agreed that "clear" might be preferable. It was pointed out that lawyers in the UNC system agree that guidelines should be "clear" but also "general" and are opposed to quantification. Case law respects the right of faculty to exercize judgement in this area.

• What evidence is there that changes need to be made, or that the current process is less than fair? Does anyone know how many people have been denied tenure or promotion by the current system? The Committee was struck by the diversity of departmental guidelines and procedures. From the perspective of the candidate, some of these seemed eminently clear and fair; others not. We do not know that there is a problem, and of course would not know about decisions made at the departmental level; but it has been many years since RPT has been looked at; it seemed time to review campus procedures and standards. 

2. Concerning recommendation #2 on "communication to new faculty at time of offer":

• The sample letter gives the impression of a legally binding contract; is this desirable? To some extent, that is the idea; so if you hire someone to set up a program, we recommend you specify this in the agreement, e.g. "Instead of X (3 course load), Professor Jones will Y (2 course load + set up a program in Z)." Of course, there are many things which are not person-specific in such a contract but alluded to, e.g. "fulfill general expectations regarding teaching, research and service." The letter should identify the expected level of performance and the timetable for RPT activity. (The "sample letter" quantified, but this need not, and perhaps should not be done.)

3. Concerning recommendation #3 on "Professional Collegiality":

• Among the questions:

  • What is the diffference between expectations of "collegiality" and those of service?

  • Would this be a new area of evaluation, added to teaching, research and service?

  • Isn't this concept itself ambiguous and unworkable?

  • Is it an "attitude" or "psychological" measurement?

  • What instrument would be used to measure "collegiality"?

  • Would this expectation be included in the offer letter?

  • Does this criterion tread on academic freedom?

  • Does this criterion not seem to depend on personal bias or malice?

  • Would the fact that your colleagues disliked you imply you were "uncollegial"?

• Replies: Collegiality includes the willingness to work toward common goals, to communicate with colleagues, be part of group activities, and not impede the work of the department or committees. This recommendation includes the point that if there is a problem, it is important for departments to express and document their concern about this issue during the annual evaluations, and not spring it on the candidate at the end.

4. Concerning recommendation #6 on "external review":

• What is the logic behind making one level optional, vs. a uniform campus procedure? The promotion to associate level is centered on the teaching criterion, and the best judges for this are departmental colleagues.

• The number of external letters seems too high; wouldn't 3 be better than 5. And who will pay for the process? There are different views about the number. Many faculty are willing to do this as part of their professional service. Most of the schools surveyed by the committee did not pay for external review.

• Doesn't this requirement imply that the candidate's colleagues in the department are not able to render a fair judgment of their qualifications? This is part of the process they should take into account; they still render judgment. Note that candidates can include external review letters now. Currently, some departments solicit external review letters, but again, there is nothing uniform across the campus.

• There was some discussion--and disagreement--whether eternal review generally serves to benefit or harm the candidate. It was suggested that sometimes external reviewers provide perspective on a specific discipline or field that is not well understood or even controversial within the department; also that sometimes reviewers from research institutions do not appreciate the appropriate level of research performance for faculty at teaching institutions.

• Several faculty and departments were in support of required external review for promotion to full, including Biology, Chemistry, Management, and Creative Writing.