The University Faculty Senate held its monthly meeting on Tuesday night, with the controversial issue of the tenure clock at the top of its agenda. Although the Senate decided to table its decision on the proposed changes concerning tenure clock rules for faculty until its meeting next month, the proposed changes are vital to all faculty who may be applying for tenure in the next couple of years.
Equality for all faculty is the name of the game in the proposal, as mapped out by Faculty Senate President Wayne Davis in a memo to university faculty. The new policy aims to increase fairness in the tenure probationary period, which currently stands at seven years. This means that a faculty member must ordinarily be awarded tenure within seven years, or his or her employment is terminated.
The Faculty Senate is most divided on the question of a terminable non-tenure eligible eighth year for associate faculty, whereby a faculty member would be given an additional year of employment off the tenure track if they have unsuccessfully applied for tenure. This extension will serve to give faculty more time and job stability as they begin the search for another academic position, instead of being abruptly cut off from campus.
First of all, because tenure decisions are normally announced during the summer, professors who have lost their jobs often have little time to find new work. An extra year of non-tenured employment would give faculty extra leeway in preparing to depart Georgetown for another academic institution, while not avoiding added stress associated with changing jobs. Many professors have certainly put in their time, and so another year of employment certainly seems sensible, considering that they have already spent seven years at Georgetown.
Likewise, the proposed extra year of non-tenured employment would benefit the university and its interests in keeping the most qualified faculty. Just as professors deserve an extra year to find work, the university’s academic departments also deserve an extra year to find the best replacements. Department administrators need to make informed decisions about hiring new faculty, and they need time to make those decisions. By rushing to hire a new faculty member during the summer, they face the possibility of passing up more qualified candidates with a smaller window of hiring time.
A suggested revision to this proposal, which would allow the terminal eighth year only on the recommendation of professors’ academic department, only undermines the across-the-board equality that the Faculty Senate seeks to promote in fair tenure track policies. There needs to be a universal policy in place that grants a final eighth year to faculty regardless of department.
Finally, the new proposal aims to revise the probationary period for faculty with three or more years of service coming from other institutions, changing that period to four instead of seven years. This change is only reasonable, especially for faculty coming from other institutions who have taught there for over 10 years. Allowing them seven years to obtain tenure puts recently graduated professors at a disadvantage, because both new and experienced professors would be eligible for probationary periods of equal duration.
Overall, we applaud the efforts to promote fairness and equality for faculty applying for tenure. Professors have certainly put in enough time to be given a fairer tenure policy, a policy that will promote more evenhandedness between the university and its faculty.
