Frequently Asked Questions about the Report of the Committee to Consider a More Flexible Tenure Probationary Period

Introduction

The deliberations of the committee produced agreement on several important points:

First, tenure is a foundation of our academic freedom and intellectual life together and should not be weakened;

Second, a finite probationary period that offers a genuine opportunity to earn tenure should be maintained, because that strengthens our intellectual community and serves as a competitive advantage in faculty recruiting;

Third, the goal of the probationary period and tenure itself is to produce and protect a faculty with the highest standards of scholarship, teaching and service;

Fourth, we distinguish between the standards for achieving tenure and the amount of time necessary to achieve those standards. Current policies seem to hold back those whose outstanding work meets the standards early, penalize those whose outstanding work needs more time, and prevent those with part-time appointments of less than 80 percent from being reviewed for tenure at all;

Fifth, we recognize that our schools and colleges are not identical and require enough flexibility to devise policies that work in their own fields and disciplines.

The Association of American University Professors (AAUP) recommended a six-year probationary period in 1941. In 1944 the University adopted a maximum probationary period of eight years. Around these rules, various implicit and explicit understandings have developed: when a review for tenure is early or late, how a year counts toward time in the probationary period, or might be excluded from it, etc.

The committee was surprised to learn, however, that the policy has been in effect since 1944 without comprehensive review. Changes in family and academic life since 1944 require us to revisit and review these rules, a point the AAUP made in its 2001 "Statement of Principles on Family Responsibilities and Academic Work."

FAQs and Responses

1. Where can I get a copy of the report? www.provost.umich.edu/reports/flexible_tenure/contents.html.

2. Who was on this committee?
The committee membership is listed in section III of the report: www.provost.umich.edu/reports/flexible_tenure/committee_membership.html. Membership included 13 faculty representing 7 U-M-Ann Arbor colleges, U-M-Flint and U-M-Dearborn.

3. What are the recommendations of the report?
The main recommendations are summarized on page 2 of the report:

"The Committee recommends that the University adopt policies that create more flexibility in the tenure probationary period. Our central recommendation is that each school and college identify a presumptive time of tenure review and then create fair and consistent policies that may accelerate or postpone the tenure review for faculty members depending on their situations. To permit such policies to develop in the schools and colleges, two crucial changes need to be made in University policy: 1) Revising Regents' Bylaw 5.09 to extend the maximum probationary period from the current eight years to 10 years, so that schools and colleges have the freedom to provide longer tenure probationary periods when that is justified by their policies; 2) Oversight of school and college policies by the Provost or Chancellor to ensure that school and college policies define fair and clear criteria for decisions about accelerating or postponing the timing of the tenure review. We also recommend a new policy to make it possible for faculty members to work part-time and remain on the tenure track, accruing years of service on a prorated basis. These recommendations are intended to adapt the institution of tenure to the realities of contemporary scholarship and faculty life."

4. Will any school or college be required to make these changes?
No. Schools and colleges have different policies now, and will be able to continue to do so.

5. Why did the committee recommend these changes?
The committee found that our current policies for the tenure probationary period need to be reviewed in the face of important changes in the world, including: 1) Changes in academic fields, interdisciplinarity, difficulty of obtaining adequate funding and limited access to scholarly publication; 2) Differences in individual experiences and circumstances, including family responsibilities that lead to differing timetables of accomplishment; 3) Intense competition to recruit and retain excellent faculty. Neither a shorter nor a longer tenure probationary period offers a sensible solution to this complex set of challenges. Instead, more flexibility is desirable.

6. What are the University's current rules about the tenure probationary period? Do all of the schools and colleges have the same rules?
The University's current policies are described at: www.provost.umich.edu/faculty/tenure_review/policies.html.

"Thus, the University views the eight years as a deadline within which the University must either grant tenure to, or terminate, a tenure track faculty member. Except in extraordinary cases, a school or college must make the decision about tenure for a faculty member no later than the end of the faculty member's seventh year on the University-wide tenure clock."

Within the framework of the University's policy, different schools and colleges have established different times for tenure review (ranging from year five to year seven of the probationary period). This variation across U-M has been in effect for many years.

7. What position does the report take on tenure?
The report strongly affirms the importance of tenure: "Our deliberations began with a shared commitment to a tenure process that produces excellence and is of finite duration." (page 3)