2008 Woodie Awards
Faculty split on tenure and appeals
Carl Farlow
Issue date: 4/20/07 Section: News
- Page 1 of 2 next >
In the wake of the closing of the tenure appeals cases of Eleanor Branch and Shelini Harris, the Guilford faculty held a forum in the Moon Room on April 11 to discuss issues of faculty evaluations, tenure review and the tenure appeals process.
Much of the discussion concerned a presentation given the previous week by Kat Warren, a member of North Carolina State University's English department. Warren was asked by the faculty to come to Guilford and present her observations of Guilford's tenure process. Her appraisal of the evaluation and tenure review processes was critical, particularly since so much emphasis is placed on confidentiality.
"I want to raise the issue of confidentiality and transparency and the tension between them," said Jane Redmont, associate professor of religious studies. "Confidentiality is present to protect people. I have seen confidentiality used to mask, at worst, injustice, and, at best, subjectivity."
Concerns about confidentiality were split between the need to protect what people say and the right for faculty to know what is being said of them.
"It's been part of our ethos that confidentiality has been needed for integrity," said Bob Williams, professor of economics. Tim Lindeman, professor of music, also said that confidentiality had to be protected on a certain level.
"The same goes for transparency," Redmont said. "It is a good thing; the more things that are transparent the better. We are erring on the side of confidentiality, making things anonymous that ought to be said to people's face."
Many of the faculty present called for the entire tenure process to be more transparent and open, especially to those involved.
"I would rather have someone tell me face-to-face rather than write it in secret and have it be on my file," said Nancy Daukas, associate professor of philosophy. "I was struck by Kat's comment that if someone has something important enough to say that it could ruin someone's career and livelihood, they ought to be willing to stand up and explain it."
Much of the discussion concerned a presentation given the previous week by Kat Warren, a member of North Carolina State University's English department. Warren was asked by the faculty to come to Guilford and present her observations of Guilford's tenure process. Her appraisal of the evaluation and tenure review processes was critical, particularly since so much emphasis is placed on confidentiality.
"I want to raise the issue of confidentiality and transparency and the tension between them," said Jane Redmont, associate professor of religious studies. "Confidentiality is present to protect people. I have seen confidentiality used to mask, at worst, injustice, and, at best, subjectivity."
Concerns about confidentiality were split between the need to protect what people say and the right for faculty to know what is being said of them.
"It's been part of our ethos that confidentiality has been needed for integrity," said Bob Williams, professor of economics. Tim Lindeman, professor of music, also said that confidentiality had to be protected on a certain level.
"The same goes for transparency," Redmont said. "It is a good thing; the more things that are transparent the better. We are erring on the side of confidentiality, making things anonymous that ought to be said to people's face."
Many of the faculty present called for the entire tenure process to be more transparent and open, especially to those involved.
"I would rather have someone tell me face-to-face rather than write it in secret and have it be on my file," said Nancy Daukas, associate professor of philosophy. "I was struck by Kat's comment that if someone has something important enough to say that it could ruin someone's career and livelihood, they ought to be willing to stand up and explain it."
Be the first to comment on this story