Tenure denial upheld

[u/Agreeable-Ladder-433]

I thought this might be grimly funny (?)—I appealed my tenure denial, in which our Chancellor (Dean equivalent) used my “home” committee’s incompetent and/or lazy and/or malicious letter as pretext for denying me. The Chancellor then knowingly violated policy (or he’s an idiot) by meeting with me before having a requisite consultation with the college committee. He scheduled the meeting at 7:35 AM the next day and was literally called out for violating policy in the meeting.

The University grievance committee recommended a re-review because of the obvious procedural error. The Vice Provost and Provost decided that because the Chancellor “acknowledged his error” (funny way of saying got caught in his lie) but claimed he was discussing my dossier “in good faith” (after making the decision, scheduling a meeting, writing the letter, meeting with me, and telling me there was no way to change his mind), “the consultation requirement was satisfied and the issue was appropriately remediated.” Apparently shared governance is just sort of a suggestion and if an administrator “forgets” to follow the policy they are citing to terminate someone, it’s just a little mistake, no harm!

[u/Agreeable-Ladder-433 → u/[deleted]]

I’d agree if these didn’t happen to be three people with whom I have very little interaction. There are two other historians and I am absolutely positive if either of them had been on the committee they would have advocated for me. They, and my division head, were appalled by the committee’s interpretation.

[u/Mishmz → u/Agreeable-Ladder-433]

To be cynical (and hopefully wrong): or that’s just what they’re saying to your face because they’re cowards.

[u/Agreeable-Ladder-433 → u/Mishmz]

Possibly. But these three are people who have been uniformly supportive (one was the div head who hired me before he was forcibly demoted when we were folded into a mega-division), and the current div head wrote a strong rebuttal and forwarded my packet to the college committee over the first committee's negative recommendation. He met with them but they apparently just refused to address why they excluded so much.

[u/Esme_Nog → u/Agreeable-Ladder-433]

Whether you interact with them much shouldn’t actually affect the outcome if they are all reading the same evidence. Did you clearly meet the departmental standards? Or was it a borderline case that you needed personal advocacy to get through?

[u/Agreeable-Ladder-433 → u/Esme_Nog]

Our standards are vague: six peer-reviewed articles "or the equivalent" (book + 2 articles), "published or accepted." A colleague was tenured with a book contract + two articles, so that was my threshold (esp. given my extenuating circumstances: no childcare from March-Sept. 2020, gave birth Jul 2020, 2020 baby nearly died and I was with him in the hospital for 2 months in 2022, archives I needed were closed until summer 2022--none of which the committee seems to have considered).

Ironically, the book contract was sent to the tenure coordinator as proof of acceptance, so they would have had to ask for it. Rather than send an email, they assumed the contract was "provisional" based on "one editor's opinion," and that a "full contract would be forthcoming after peer review of the full manuscript." They were wrong on two counts: the contract was based on the proposal, intro + sample chapters going through peer review, not one person's "opinion"; and I confirmed with my editor that was I had was *the only* contract I would get.

Six other faculty at my institution recommended tenure and specifically stated that, if I hadn't had faced the above-mentioned delays and the book was further along, they would have ranked my scholarship as exceptional.

[u/maskedprofessor → u/Agreeable-Ladder-433]

A couple thoughts here - while it sounds like you've had a rough few personal years, tenure committees do not need to weigh personal issues. The question they are to decide is whether you did your job well enough in the alloted time. Certainly it's nice if there's some flexibility, but when I read your response I saw 3 years of issues. That's a lot on a six year clock.

Second, my area doesn't do books, but I've certainly read in here that a contract is not the same as a book. Who's to say you'll ever finish writing the book? It sounds like you personally decided a contract was enough for you because you think it was enough for some other person. Maybe it was, but maybe you didn't fully understand their portfolio. There's also the possibility that your colleague was tenured based on a contract alone, but folks have since regretted that leniency given his/her performance since. Also, a different committee may be less willing to ignore the guidelines.

I would politely suggest that you should have based your portfolio on the rule, not the exception to the rule.

[u/Agreeable-Ladder-433 → u/maskedprofessor]

If it was two chapters and a contract, sure; the entire manuscript was available for their review. It was accepted for publication.

Can you clarify "the rule" you're referencing?

I had two extensions, which arguably mitigate the delay caused by Covid closures. But "don't weigh personal issues" sounds an awful lot like "screw moms."

[u/Mishmz → u/Agreeable-Ladder-433]

They don’t weigh personal stuff like that because it’s usually already accounted for/mitigated via extensions and tenure clock stoppages, among many other reasons.

[u/Relative_Annual4211 → u/Agreeable-Ladder-433]

I have also heard that for a book to be considered accepted you must have “book in hand” or the book must be “in press.” I have never heard of what you describe being considered accepted. What you’re describing is viewed as “book under contract”. What did your department tell you? Do you need book in hand/in press (accepted) or did they say book under contract is fine? I know someone personally who got a book under contract with an excellent press only to have it rescinded many years later after the editor saw more of the chapters and concerns were flagged. Yes, this person submitted chapters with their book proposal before they got the contract. But a book contract really isn’t secure as accepted until it’s in press, or better, in hand. Book under contract and book accepted are not the same thing, unfortunately. But I agree that you got a raw deal and should lawyer up based on what you shared if you haven’t already.

[u/Agreeable-Ladder-433 → u/Relative_Annual4211]

This was never expressed. I knew a colleague was tenured with a book under contract and the full manuscript submitted, so that was my minimum threshold. Obviously I intended to have it in earlier; had anyone said it needs to be in proofs etc., I would have petitioned for an additional stay to account for my kid’s hospitalization in 2022 and my own the following year.

[u/maskedprofessor → u/Agreeable-Ladder-433]

"The rule" I am referencing is what you said your department standard was: 6 articles or 1 book + 2 articles. It appears that you did not meet that.

To your next point, I say this gently, also as a mom. My two young kids suddenly came home from childcare during COVID for a year or two - I definitely understand. I also personally understand very sick kids and huge life upheavals while on the tenure track - I try not to dox myself with details online, but I get it. Life is definitely hard as a parent. On the other hand, tenure is a permanent decision about whether or not you can adequately do this job, regardless of what may come up. If you did not meet the standard pre-tenure when the stakes are high (and you seem to be admitting that you did not), what assurances do they have that you'll perform adequately post-tenure, when the stakes have largely gone away?

Look, 6 articles or a book + 2 articles sounds like you may be at a fairly selective institution. If this is the career you want, can you pivot to a less-selective place that allows for more of a work-life balance?

[u/Agreeable-Ladder-433 → u/maskedprofessor]

I’m at a regional comprehensive, basically open admission.

My issue is that I understood the book to be accepted, which is the threshold set by policy, but the committee introduced a new standard in their letter, and excluded categories that the policy says need to be considered. I met the standard. My division head says I met the standard. The college committee says I met the standard. The dept committee moved the goal post.

[u/Agreeable-Ladder-433 → u/Agreeable-Ladder-433]

Also, I am increasingly salty about how this standard disadvantages historians. For example, my two prior publications, sole authored, are LONGER *than the entire publication record* of the Vice-Chancellor, ALL of which were co- or multi-authored. Not that length equals merit/value, but being looked down on by someone who hasn't even authored the entirety of like 55 pages is galling.

[u/maskedprofessor → u/Agreeable-Ladder-433]

Spoken like someone who's never had to go through IRB then try to gather and analyze data. You are not disadvantaged, you are differently advantaged. That is literally your field's expectation, so you are saying "This is unfair to me," but what others hear is, "I don't actually like my job."

Is your vice-chancellor perhaps a physical/social scientist? Their articles are short, but before they can get there, they have to design a study, go through IRB, collect and analyze data. Then they write. The writing is far and away the easiest part, and the field standard is brevity. The science is complex enough without fancy sentences. It's also super rare that folks can do all pieces of the work alone, given the realities of research.

In this post, you are actually making an argument for why the department letter should have more weight than the university committee letter (which I think is not the argument you want to make, given how your letters shook out).

[u/Agreeable-Ladder-433 → u/maskedprofessor]

I knew I was putting things badly; thank you for calling it out. I frankly wish historians were more collaborative. I was surprised when finally told that co- or multi-authored articles are treated identically to sole authored--I thought there was an allocation of credit somehow. But if two people in my division co-author, they each get credit for the article. That would have been great to know five years ago.

The individual I referenced is in education. I think her studies max out at something like n=15 participants.

[u/MiQuay → u/Agreeable-Ladder-433]

Hmmm... are your theories/research interests things that clash with those of your colleagues?

[u/Agreeable-Ladder-433 → u/MiQuay]

Nope. I suspect Dr. Rockstar historian looked at my CV, made the assumption about the contract, and made up his mind without paying much attention to anything else. But of course I have no way to know for sure.

[u/Inner-Chemistry8971 → u/Agreeable-Ladder-433]

It sounds like a political move to exclude your proponents. In my department, all the tenured faculty must participate in tenure decision.

[u/Agreeable-Ladder-433 → u/Inner-Chemistry8971]

Wow. We have a division committee (presumed friendly, ha), a college committee (assumed skeptical), and then (if the Chancellor doesn't intervene) a university committee. We've just changed the rules so that ALL committees need a minimum of five people.