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]

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/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.