Faculty Member #1: A professor who preferred anonymity suggested that the contract renewal period might be extended as described below. Brenner's response: Extending the contract renewal for associate professors to 4 years and full professors to 5 years may be something we can successfully negotiate, but based on what I've read from several people, the academic freedom issue appears to be more important than job security. Obviously, there is some coupling between academic freedom and job security. I'll ask, and see what happens. ---------------------------------------------- Faculty Member #2: It sounds like your tenure as faculty senate president is gearing up to be a really interesting and productive one. I wish you much success ! On the topic of tenure, I fully support your effort on polling the faculty about the issue. Looking at your statement > ...that we're putting more constraints on ourselves out of fear > than the university is putting on us. tells me that there is something seriously wrong with the current tenureless system. Acting out of fear is just not right. In my opinion, faculty HAVE TO be able to speak up on all matters concerning the university without any fear for repercussions during contract renewal time if we ever want to make this place a TRULY GREAT academic institution! It's for the same reason that freedom goes together with great democracies. Again, my best wishes for your presidency ! --------------------------------------- Brenner's response: I want to be an advocate for the faculty, but I want what is best for the university as a whole, most of all. --------------------------------------- Before coming to Florida Tech, I had never encountered a university without a tenure system. Let me turn the tenure debate around. Rather than ask why adopt it, ask why not? I don't know the exact number, but I am willing to bet that if you took the top 284 research universities (I believe we rank 285) that >95% (?>99%) of them would have tenure. Why then would we believe that a tenure system was not the right way to go? I can only see two reasons not to have tenure: 1) the ability to lay off a raft of faculty should economic hardship hit the university, and 2) to fire unproductive faculty. I would hope that as an institution we have matured beyond the first of these contingencies. The second of these possibilities tacitly assumes the peril of tenured laziness, or contrastingly the willingness to fire the least productive member of a department. Speaking for the biologists, we do not have any unproductive members, but I think that has nothing to do with a lack of tenure. Good leadership, an esprit de corps, and a driving desire to put our program on the academic map are much more important. I concur entirely with Jean-Paul's assessment and the problems of recruiting in a tenure-free setting. We need to establish better equality in all aspects within our faculty, and a basic step toward that is in merit-earned job security. If we are truly to become one of the top ten research technological universities in the world, we need to act like it. That means changing from being a somewhat insecure introspective institution (i.e. our present lack of real external examination of Ph.D. dissertations) to one that has the culture of a top flight academic institution, which will require adopting a tenure system. I am a believer, I think that we can make that transition, and that a lack of tenure is just one of our legacies that will have to change. Good luck with the Senate and thanks in advance for all your efforts. ------------------------------------- Brenner's response: Your points are difficult to argue against. I did talk with two faculty from two different departments simultaneously at Open House today, one of whom was opposed to tenure. The second was ambivalent. ------------------------- Another faculty member suggested that I start a blog. This will get taken care of after the semester is over. I've got a lot of stuff going on right now, as you all do. In the meantime, I'll save all the e-mails I get, but this will probably be my last Facforum post of the semester, unless something major happens. Certainly the amount of positive feedback on the new openness to discuss issues on Facforum has been encouraging, and at least in part addresses the academic freedom issue that several of you have been concerned about. It may not be everything that you wanted, but at least the last few days has been a positive step toward improving faculty morale and unity. Best wishes, Jim Brenner Faculty Senate President > The following comes from a fellow faculty member: > > I have a question or concern, however, about your dismissal of the tenure > issue as something you are "not willing to fight for". As President of > the Faculty Senate, my understanding is that you must strive to represent > all the faculty. I suspect that, if faculty could respond to a poll with > the guarantee of anonymity, you would find the majority of faculty would > like to see FIT adopt a tenure program. As Senate President, it would > seem appropriate to, at least, initiate an anonymous poll to gauge the > faculty's true feelings on this. Then the senate could decide whether to > proceed based upon the outcome of that poll. > > Myself, I recognize tenure has its problems. This email is more for me to > learn what is and is not the function of the President of the Faculty > Senate (e.g., do you have the option of simply not pursuing an issue you > disagree with?). I do, however, want to point out a couple of important > functions served by a tenure system. Of course, it serves the paramount > function of guaranteeing academic freedom - protecting broad-thinking > faculty from the church-state is why tenure was created in the first > place. FIT is a school where unilateral decisions are sometimes made at > the administrative level. In this environment where individual opinions > and agendas can create university policy, even more so than in a public > school where everything must be done by committee, faculty need protection > from personal and philosophical clashes. > > Ultimately, the most critical aspect of this is one that I think our > administration would be very concerned about: our colleagues at other > institutions generally assume we have a tenure system. A tenure system is > associated with just about every prestigious university - it is quite rare > not to have it. Our colleagues at other institutions are not, I think, > very impressed when they learn FIT lacks tenure. I have had them express > open surprise and dismay. It takes us and the school down a couple of > notches in their eyes. I suspect they feel that, if FIT lacks tenure, it > probably lacks the academic freedom a great university depends upon. > > Those are my two cents. Congratulations on your new position and good > luck with the many challenges that, I am sure, will be coming your way! > > Jean-Paul Pinelli on Facforum wrote the following: > > I would like to comment on the statememnt from our > Faculty Senate President about the tenure > system. We hear over and over this statement > about tenure encouraging laziness among tenured > faculty. Coming from people outside the > academic world, who have no idea of what it > means to have tenure, could be understandable. > It is less so from a fellow faculty. > > Especially, since his second paragraph > contradicts obviously the first one. If nothing > else, it is the lack of "publish or perish" > system that could encourage laziness. It is no > coincidence that the best universities, the ones > we are so eager to join, have a tenured system. > > In any case, whether we are against or for > tenure is irrelevant, and I agree that it does > not have much effect for those of us already > here (I am not going to go into the topic of > academic freedom). The fact is that it > is hurting Florida Tech in its recruiting > efforts to get the best and brightest. > Invariably, when interviewees come on campus, > they are disapointed to learn that there is no > tenure. Top people who are already tenured or > in the process of being tenured would be foolish > to come to a place without tenure, and > for salaries and resources which are many time > below average. And many do not come. It is > simply a free market issue. A nice climate and > nice environment cannot always make up for that > deficiency. > > Having say that, I am sure that Jim will be an > excellent Senate President, and I wish him the > very best. > > A subset of what a third faculty member wrote follows: > > Third, on the matter of tenure and/or unionization that was posed, it > seems to me that faculty senators represent the interests of the entire > faculty body and not one's personal views. Thus, if this is an issue that > the full compliment of faculty are interested in, the elected senate > officers would have a duty to address. Yes? > > My response to all the previous comments: > > The arguments made by all three faculty are quite reasonable. > Discussion about tenure in the Senate over the last 6 years > has occurred probably three or four times, and it has > plenty of supporters and detractors. There are some moral > issues that I would be willing to be alone on regardless of > what anyone else thought, but issues pertaining to the > Faculty Senate don't fall into such a category. > > If there is a sufficient ground swell of support for a tenure system, then > I would be obligated as Senate President to push it forward > regardless of my personal beliefs. As of now, I don't think > that such support is universal enough to get it through the Senate. > I'm willing to have my mind changed on this. Perhaps a web poll > on the subject might be appropriate. My guess is that about 20% > of the faculty would be strongly against a tenure system, about > 50% would think it would be both a blessing and a curse, and > the remaining 30% would be in favor of a tenure system. I could > set up a web poll on this but certainly would not have sufficient > results to make any comments to the President and Provost at our > monthly meeting on Monday. Getting a "sense of the faculty" > probably is a good idea here. I'm going to give myself a deadline > of the third Monday in May to have the results from such a poll. > Given my schedule, unless I can get someone to volunteer to > help out on this, this poll would be in the week after school is out. > Hold me to this. Sometimes I can be a procrastinator, but when I > get moving on something, it usually gets done quickly. > > Certainly the lack of a tenure > system around here has some effect on academic freedom, but I > think that we're putting more constraints on ourselves out of fear > than the university is putting on us. I cannot dispute that the > lack of a tenure system hurts > FIT's reputation amongst faculty at other institutions. FIT > is in some ways fundamentally different than most, if not all, > other institutions of higher learning. In some ways, those > differences help us, and in some ways, they hurt us. > > Based on my experience as Administrative Policies Chair trying > to get the promotions guidelines through, > the Faculty Senate is a tough place to get things done unless > agreement is virtually unanimous. Provost McCay has correctly > chided me on the turtle-like speed that things progress through > the Senate. My hope is that we can move aggressively at least on issues > for which >90% support can be garnered. I'm hoping that frequent > use of Facforum can provide a mechanism for speeding things up, > as well as lifting "the dark veil on academic freedom" that some > people think we have around here. > > Prof. Pinelli's comments about laziness following tenure are fair > statements. I based my comments from yesterday > on what I saw as a student while at > two top-20 chemical engineering departments on the part > of ~10% of the tenured faculty. > I don't see such laziness here at FIT. > I don't think our faculty have time to be lazy. > Regarding the encouragement of laziness because of a lack > of publish-or-perish culture around here, I certainly don't > want to encourage laziness, but I also have seen how > a publish-or-perish culture is very hard on the faculty > members and their families. This is a tricky balance, > and I'm willing to admit an apparent contradiction here, > because I don't think this issue is all that clear cut. > There are both plusses and minuses to a tenure system. > Prof. Pinelli quite clearly is not lazy; he just won the Faculty > Senate award for research. > > Regarding the College of Business comments that I made yesterday, > I was quoting what the Provost said in front of the Senate several > months ago. There are some additional repercussions or details > in the College of Business that I was unaware of until yesterday. > These complications are something that I will address with > the President and Provost in private. I appreciate being made > aware of them, and ask that the faculty not pester the President > or Provost on this issue. I'll do my best to act as an advocate in this > matter. > > One of the roles of the Faculty Senate Exec Committee is > to serve as a review panel for faculty seeking redress against what > they perceive as unfair termination. Such faculty do have to ask > the Faculty Senate Exec Committee to act in this way. Such > a review panel was convened at least once four or five years ago > during my first year on the Exec Committee. > > Profs. Carol Shehadeh and John Windsor have served as university > ombudspersons for the better part of 15 years, and both approached > me in the last couple of days about stepping down from these roles. > Thank you, Carol and John, for your service in this thankless task. > The role of ombudsperson in the Faculty Handbook is appointed > by the Provost. However, any volunteers in this capacity would > be appreciated. I have heard some discussion over the last two > months regarding the formation of a committee on women's issues > on campus. Prof. Shehadeh emphasized the importance of having > at least one female in the role of ombudsperson. > > I wanted to stimulate some discussion, and got more than I bargained for, > Jim Brenner > Faculty Senate President -------------------------------------- 2) What an excellent message, Jim. This process and form of Senate leadership is superb! Thank you. 3) Nice e-mail 4) Why would the faculty promotion guidelines come before the Academic Faculty in August? The only need for such would be a change to the constitution and bylaws of the Academic Faculty, that is, section 1.4 of the handbook. The Academic Faculty do not vote on other matters in the handbook (unfortunately). My response: I think that the person who wrote this is correct on this topic. Let's just go forward with the Senate-proposed changes. If the statement made by Faculty member 4 is incorrect, then please correct me. ---------------------------------- A tenure system is not something I am willing to fight for, however. Part of the reason that I and several others I know came here is because of the lack of a tenure system. Tenure systems, while improving academic freedom, tend to keep people who suddenly become lazy after being granted tenure around for too long. There is no publish or perish system here, at least not in my college. I do the very best I can do, and if that isn't good enough, then I can find a job somewhere else. I have no desire to do so, as Melbourne is in the best part of Florida, which may have the best climate of all states in the most free country in the entire world. Why would I leave? --------------------------------- Brenner: Unionization might improve faculty salaries substantially, but I am certainly not the best person to "carry that flag". I think that the initial goals of unions 100 years ago were noble, but now unions are probably unnecessary. If people wanted that substantial a pay increase, they probably wouldn't be at Florida Tech to begin with. The free market takes care of most things. I will nonetheless try to see that we get a decent piece of what I hope will be an ever-increasing pie. -------------------------------------- Jim, There are those of us here who actually did have tenure at another University, before coming to Fl. Tech. The number is probably small but it should be quite relevant to somehow get input from those with personal experience. This also goes for those who were refused tenure at another institution. Arguing based on 'theory' is one thing and arguing based on personal experience is another. --------------------------------------- Congratulations! You have succeeded in generating more discussion among the faculty than we have seen in many years. All of it is good; just don't take it personally when you can't get all of us to be reasonable. As for your efforts, do what you think is right, given the time you have available and forget the rest. This whole discussion of tenure is biased and needs some reality check. First what we have works well for us and we would not be able to change it without more turmoil than it is worth (just my opinion). From the practical side no one has expressed the reality of tenure at the 'rest of the institutions' that have it. For the faculty that have tenure, they tout it's perceived benefits of free speech, but you can site many current example to notorious and absurd faculty that have created national and international scandals but can not be removed. I know of many institutions that have just come to terms with the reality that tenured faculty aren't motivated so just deal with them as best as you can. Just like labor unions they had there place but don't necessarily fit todays problems. On the down side is the problem of obtaining tenure at all these institutions. Typically it is a six year make it or your out. The criteria change based on the percentage of currently tenured faculty. If you are unluckily enough to come up before the old dead beats have retired you face a huge obstacle as the criteria are raised substantially. If you don't make it you have to leave and try some where else. In an ideal world we would have the freedom and independence that is perceived in the tenure system combined with the reality of continual evaluation and motivation of the non-tenured system. If we have problems, perceived or real, let's look at them, and try to work within the system we have rather than wasting time with things that aren't going to happen. ---------------------------------------------- All of you have made very reasonable arguments. As I found out today, tenure wouldn't happen here because a) the trustees don't want it; b) there are a lot of faculty who don't want it either; and c) we would ALL have to go up for it, regardless of our present status (No one would get grandfathered in.). I'm going to focus on what can actually get accomplished. Thanks for the encouragement, Jim Brenner Let me add my two-cents worth. It is not a question of tenure or no tenure, as much as it is a question of the basis to be used for tenure decisions. Must tenure be granted after five years and a terminal contract be issued if tenure is denied? Should the tenure decision be based upon teaching or research or service or a combination of all three (considering the difficulty in establishing promotion "guidelines", establishing tenure guidelines may take forever!)? My "fear" is not being dismissed for voicing unpopular opinions (Even under a tenure system, faculty can be terminated for "just cause."). My fear is that Florida Tech will evolve into another "publish-or-perish" research mill that does not give individual faculty a choice of career priorities. I am also all too aware of how much influence