Bryer Haywood, Staff Writer
Interim Provost Arturo Saavedra proposed a new post-tenure review policy in a recent Faculty Senate meeting — continuing a trend of VCU policies making professors’ employment more vulnerable.
Saavedra said the proposed policy includes both a cyclical review every six years and a “trigger” approach — activated whenever a department head or chair believes a faculty member has fallen short of their expectations.
Saavedra stressed that the proposed policy is not intended to limit academic freedom. He also noted only a small number of faculty should be negatively affected by the policy.
To receive tenure, faculty typically go through a cycle of evaluations, culminating in a sixth-year evaluation. Tenure generally comes with more permanent employment, more benefits and greater discretion to pursue research.
Post-tenure review is designed to reward faculty who are exceeding the university’s expectations, according to the digest of the proposed policy shown to faculty senators.
Faculty have recently expressed frustration with VCU’s handling of new tenure policies, according to a previous report by The CT. The university recently raised the bar for how advanced faculty’s degrees need to be for them to receive promotions.
Faculty Senate president Maria Rivera said faculty are “suspicious” of the post-tenure review initiative, and several VCUarts faculty said the university has acted outside of its tenure review process in its treatment of faculty — including through the firing of painting and printmaking professor Monsieur “Sandy” Zohore.
Kathleen Rudasill, senior vice provost for faculty affairs, reviewed a slide presentation that detailed the guidelines for the proposed new policy.
Rudasill explained that faculty who receive ratings of “exceeds expectations” or “meets expectations” would be rewarded financially. She also explained that a rating of “below expectations” would trigger an annual review and that a rating of “unsatisfactory” would lead to termination.
Following the presentation, many faculty raised questions about the policy and how it would affect them. One professor pointed out that the language around termination suggests the policy is not intended to reward faculty, but to punish them.
They also questioned the Provost’s desire to push out the policy so quickly. It was introduced on March 3 and, at the earliest, could be approved during the next full board of visitors meeting on April 23 to 24.
An existing post-tenure review trigger policy is already in place, and faculty members are comfortable with the current guidelines, according to Faculty Senate President-elect Kim Bridges.
Mathematics professor Glenn Hurlbert said there are already policies in place designed to reward faculty for positive performance, and that human resources can step in to reprimand faculty who are not acting appropriately.
Craig Larson, another professor in the Mathematics department, echoed the concerns expressed during the meeting and explained that faculty senators were not shown the actual policy, but rather a short, bulleted summary of the proposed policy.
“It’s not clear where this is coming from,” Larson said.
Religious studies associate professor and union member Mark Wood said many faculty members are concerned about the increased workload the policy would bring through new bureaucratic processes, which would stretch faculty thin.
At the meeting, faculty senators cited two studies that examined the effectiveness of post-tenure review policies at Florida State University following laws passed in the Florida state legislature that mandated post-tenure review.
Both studies found that in Florida, post-tenure reviews proved to have adverse effects on faculty productivity and job retention. The first study found no evidence that post-tenure review increased productivity. The results also showed many faculty members at Florida universities left the state following the implementation of the post-tenure review policies.
The second study found that in the first year the policy was implemented, 10 faculty members were dismissed from the University of Florida. The study also found that 31 faculty members resigned instead of completing the post-tenure review process.
The provost’s office must now allow for a 10-day public comment period and will wait one week for revisions based on faculty feedback before the next board meeting on April 23 to 24.