Faculty Senate send post-tenure review proposal to regents for approval

The Faculty Senate weighed risk versus “preserving some faculty shared governance” while debating a revised proposal for post-tenure review policy Monday.

Last month the body met to debate, and ultimately struck down an earlier version of this policy. Following changes to UW System tenure policy, the Board of Regents mandated a change to the post-tenure review policy across the system.

The board instilled an “interim policy” that gives final say of dismissal to administrators, and campuses were given a chance to submit alternative policies for their school for approval.

UW-Madison’s faculty has already had one draft rejected by the regents and they needed to pass a new version that is in line with the board’s requirements. The current draft still gives final say on post-tenure review to an administrator, but only if a dean thinks the review done by faculty peers was not “sufficient.”

As soon as the floor was open for debate, Thomas O’Guinn, a faculty senator from the Wisconsin School of Business, proposed an amendment to the proposal that stated the dean and provost “should concur with the faculty judgement except in rare instances and for compelling reason which should be stated in detail.”

Sociology professor Chad Goldberg firmly supported the amendment throughout discussion and said he felt the language was aspirational without being binding and clearly communicated faculty’s expectations.

However, members of the University Committee, the leadership group for the senate, expressed concern thatthe proposal would be vetoed by the regents again, forcing them to officially adopt the regent’s interim policy. They said the system had indicated the current proposal would be accepted, but feared the added amendment could jeopardize this.

Ruth Litovsky, a professor of Communication Sciences and Disorders added she worried this wording change could jeopardize future negotiations.

Some senate members, however, felt this policy did not go against the board’s stated intention to simply increase transparency and did not feel it posed a risk. O’Guinn said he felt if the board rejected the proposal with the amendment it would be “diagnostic.”

“The downgrading of faculty role to primary to advisory … and the lack of final review by the board in situation where the faculty recommendation and administrators conflict violates [standards] of shared governance as well as academic due process,” Goldberg said.

Ultimately Goldberg acknowledged that adopting the proposal was the best course of action to mitigate any harm done by the regents. He commended the committee for its work but asked other senators to stand in solidarity with him and abstain from voting on the proposal as a symbolic protest.

The proposal passed with a vote of 77-2 with 51 abstentions and will be brought to a meeting of the Board of Regents for approval Thursday.