Thursday, April 05, 2007

Zenith Confidential

Well, I have my nerve, don't I? Spreading Zenith's secrets all over the internet?

No, no, no. I am not telling more tales today. What I do want to discuss is Confidentiality. This is a talismanic phrase at Zenith, and it is part of what is at stake in unexpected publicity (internal to Zenith) about this blog, publicity that has led to recent reflections, retrenching and readjustment. Central questions have been: Do students in class have the right to think that the classroom is a confidential space, thus allowing them to speak at will without the fear that they might be misperceived? And -- my topic today -- Are the workings of a university better kept confidential, to the point where critiques of the tenure system immediately create the impression of spilling the beans, regardless of whether specific beans about specific meetings have actually been spilt?

The primal scene looks like this: there are certain kinds of meetings that you are in as an academic - usually, but not always, involving personnel cases -- where the practice is to warn everyone at the beginning that nothing said in the room will be repeated to anyone who is not already at the meeting. Usually rank serves as a boundary for confidentiality, but not always. Hiring meetings, which include the untenured, are usually presumed to be confidential as well. The logic for this is that it could cause emotional harm to the candidate to hear negative things about hirself, and that people ought to be able to express themselves freely in a personnel meeting without being concerned that their relationship with the candidate and other untenured people will be compromised. The relationships of the people in the room, of course, are fair game, but that is another matter. What is also left ambiguous is this: when there is a tenure case during a semester when a tenured person is on leave, is that person entitled to information about the case anyway because of rank, and because they are part of the ongoing work of the department?

Interestingly, concerns about confidentiality are also reflected in the political sphere. If you go to a modern Presidential archive, you will see that all kinds of memos to the Commander in Chief have been prudently removed, so that future Presidential advisors will feel free to give honest, open advice. To wit:

"From: Nanny Dick
To: POTUS

Those federal prosecutors not doing our bidding have got to go. Pronto. Don't tell that I said this or I will never give you advice again."

You get the picture?

This degree of confidentiality is impossible to achieve in the academy, in part because there is no threat of being hauled in front of a grand jury and in part because *most* academics are constitutionally unable to keep their mouths shut, particularly when they are angry about something or feel that an injustice has been done. Some people would say, "Oh Radical, it's just your sleazy friends." But that isn't true. There is one central location at Zenith that is a hotbed of faculty gossip, to the point that if you want a secret "leaked," most people know the go-to guys and gals who will get it out. And there are people who deliberately leak information who are also among the most censorious when others leak information. Again, the comparison to the political sphere is relevant.

Nanny Dick to Scooter: "Boy, if everyone knew Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, Joseph Wilson wouldn't look like such a big deal. I HOPE THE PRESS DOESN'T FIND OUT."

Later, Scooter to Judith Miller, New York Times: "Valerie Plame is a CIA agent."

Judith: "Really? Valerie Plame is a CIA agent?"

Scooter (shocked): "Gee, I didn't know that. That's classified information, and you probably shouldn't use it in a story. Keep the WMD's in Baghdad under your hat too."

Judith: "Really? There are WMD's in Baghdad?"

Now I will tell you right off the bat that one of the concerns expressed to me about this here blog was that I had let slip things about tenure cases that I not oughta hadda done. This is not the case, in fact, for reasons explained in the previous post, although I did write about my responses to certain outcomes in certain cases, that is true. And I apologize to anyone who thought sie was reading about hirself. I won't pursue this for fear of rubbing salt in it, but actually -- if everyone had the information about their own tenure cases that I would argue they are entitled to, this would not have been an issue, since it would have been clear who and what was actually being written about (me.) But this did get me to thinking about who confidentiality actually serves, in tenure and promotion cases in particular.

Guess who? You can't? It serves the institution and the people who are already tenured, not the tenure candidate at all. "I am shocked -- shocked! that there is gambling in this establishment," you cry in surprise and pain. Let me explain.

As I noted above, it is an established protocol that nothing said in the meeting should be repeated outside the meeting (this is true at all levels, from the department to the T & P) and that "breaking confidentiality" is considered to be one of the more serious breaches of the rules one can commit at any institution of higher learning. In fact, it is not a rule at all at Zenith, although people say it is; it is nothing but a gentleman's agreement, and there is nothing in the faculty handbook that mandates confidentiality -- I know because I *just checked.* Of course, since our university governance documents are on the internet and can be altered without telling anyone, I'm sure such a rule will magically appear minutes after this post goes up, but whatever.

At my institution at least, tenure regulations guarantee anonymity to referees, which means they are the only players entitled to confidentiality. But this anonymity is immediately breached by the review process. Everyone in the department knows their names (they picked them, after all); everyone on the T & P knows them; at least half a dozen administrators can identify them; and they are revealed to everyone attending the Big Meeting, where personnel decisions are reviewed and ratified. So right away, depending on the size of the department, we are talking about between 30 and 50 people (roughly 12% to 20% of the whole faculty, and 25% to 40% of the tenured faculty) who know who they are. Even the candidate knows a couple of them, because sie has the chance to name up to three.

OK, now that we have established that confidentiality is not a rule at all, it is a practice, and that referees are not anonymous, what next? Well, let's start with whether it means that if guaranteed that their identities will not be revealed to the tenure candidate, will referees really give you an unvarnished opinion of the publications in question?

The answer is yes and no, depending on the person. And having seen many tenure letters (OK -- I'm not saying in whose case, or when -- hell, maybe I found 'em in the trash at Potemkin U. when only a wee Radical) I can say firmly and truly that there are very few of our colleagues anywhere in the English-speaking world (not to mention several other languages) who are willing to write candidly critical letters. Perhaps this is for fear of law suits, and perhaps it stems from a genuine concern for the candidate, and not wanting to play a definitive role in the life of someone they don't know. Perhaps it is that slightly sleazy feeling writing a bad tenure letter must give a soul, much like the one that you get when you realize that you just spilled the beans to someone who Doesn't Want To Know That Thing, e.g. that someone's second wife is his former student, or that so-and-so is a lesbian.

Decent people cloud negative critiques in obfuscation, so that departments can have the ammo if they need it as part of a more pervasive critique of the candidate, or choose to ignore the critique if they want to make an argument to retain hir. And many referees who write positive letters out themselves in the next year or so at a conference ("Congratulations! You *know* I wrote for you!"), or are outed accidentally-on-purpose by someone who sat on the case, so that a letter for a grant can be obtained from a Famous Person. To wit:

Senior colleague: "Well, I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Fabulous could produce a good letter for you pretty fast." (wink, wink.)

Newly promoted colleague: (thought bubble appears) "Aha."

OK. So we have established that referees are not really the beneficiaries of confidentiality either. So what is confidential? How the tenure decision is actually made.

That's right, fans of the Radical. Go back to this post and ask yourself: why are untenured people always asking us how many of this and that they need to have in a tenure dossier? Because it is the only information that is available to them, outside of two or three pages of rules in the faculty and/or department handbook. Because of confidentiality, why people do or do not get tenure is not public knowledge. And what outsiders to the process suspect is true -- decision-making in tenure cases is incredibly erratic, between departments, within departments and from year to year. I will not pursue this, for obvious reasons, but people who have sat on tenure cases will -- if they are being honest -- recognize this as A Fact. So by not allowing the untenured to see tenure cases -- heck, we could let them see the successful ones -- we reinforce their paranoia by mystifying the process. We also protect ourselves, and the institution, from litigation, by obfuscating how and why decisions are made. Thus making no "standard" for tenure apparent to anyone, much less ourselves.

Try this: ask anyone at your institution what their standard for tenure is, and see if they give a thoughtful answer. See if you can give a thoughtful answer that is not limited to empty words and phrases like "excellence" and "high standards" (how excellent? How high?) If you can, leave a comment.

In short, the problems attendant to confidentiality:

1. People can cast a vote in either direction for any reason they choose, including ignorance, fear, lack of preparation, disinterest, friendship, animus, a prejudice against the field-- and there is no accountability. And they can walk right in the next week and do it again. Why? Because they are tenured, no one can tell them not to, and anyone in the room who might believe that justice was not done is not allowed to say so in any venue that is not already part of the system.

2. The idea that tenure is a conspiracy easily takes hold among untenured faculty because -- well, an entirely secret procedure that no one explains and the practices of which are defended fanatically but are also impossible to articulate except to a group of elite insiders looks like, um, a conspiracy.

3. Even when you think the outcome is just, if it is an unhappy one, there is no explaining it to other untenured people, either for their edification in making their own professional decisions or just helping them feel better. Conversely, you can't take a great tenure case and show untenured people why it is great and how they might prepare a similar case.

4. Newly tenured people vote on tenure cases without knowing anything about process, custom or previous standards because they have no experience except the trauma of having been the object of scrutiny and secrecy in a tenure case. And if any reader comes from a university where newly tenured people are instructed in these practices, please comment about them below.

5. Confidentiality makes it impossible to counteract gossip. Gossip becomes the dominant form of information because, in reality, tenure meetings leak like a sieve. People do leave the meeting and talk, and they do it out of anger, out of self-protection, out of self-congratulation, and out of (sometimes) misplaced loyalty to and affection for the tenure candidate. I have often had conversations with people, at Zenith and elsewhere, who seem to know a great deal more about their own tenure cases than a brief update from the chair would have conveyed. And sometimes -- this is the worst -- they have wrong information, because when votes are taken, they are taken by secret ballot, so if there is a mixed vote, anyone who claims to know who voted which way is talking out of their hat. But they leave the meeting and repeat their beliefs about how people voted based on their reading of the conversation that preceded the vote. I, for example, have had the experience of hearing through the grapevine that I cast a vote that I had not cast in a particular (confidential) matter. And to correct that information would be -- well, breaking confidentiality.

What confidentiality does, then, is make sure that all untenured people are as off balance as they can possibly be for seven years, and that the tenure process itself is sufficiently mysterious that tenured people can make up their minds on a case-by-case basis without telling younger people why they do what they do. And if we were to reform -- rather than eliminate tenure, as some of my past posts have suggested -- this is where we would need to start: restoring the confidence of the untenured people in the system by making the system itself knowable.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Interesting post about the T&P process! I agree that the biggest problem is the super-secret aspect that you describe at Zenith (nd probably many other universities.

I was lucky that the department I worked in took a different approach. Untenured faculty were (and are) allowed to serve on the T&P committee. Admittedly we do have non TT faculty at all ranks (an historical artifact that creates its own problems). I did have a chance to serve on that committee the year before I "went-up" for tenure. Talk about de-mystifying the process!

Also, the senior department faculty share their own successful promotion dossiers with junior faculty--trying te demystify that part as well. Most junior faculty have several different examples to look at by the end of their first year. The down side is that I made the mistake of giving my package from when I went up for "full" (there were many trees sacrificed for that) and just about scared the newbie to death!

Something else that we have just started as part of third year reviews is having the reviewee participate with the committee as his individual review is conducted-and we walk through the strengths and weaknesses of the packet, as well as performance (it is amazing how much gets left out of the first stab at a tenure packet!!)

I don't know if this is what you are after, and since I am in a STEM field, maybe things are different. The objective was to demystify the process so that performance could be evaluated.

anthony grafton said...

Once upon a time, the system functioned a bit better, at least in my experience. Confidentiality was more confidential. Back when I first became a tenured professor, nobody leaked what happened in the meetings where we decided on promotion and tenure. People who didn't make it were certainly baffled, not to mention crushed. But the senior people cultivated, and passed on, an ethos of seriousness: everyone did all the reading, for example, and in our old system of teaching a few people in the room would have taught discussion sections for the candidate, which gave a solid foundation to the evaluation of teaching. The system within our department was imperfect in many ways but still commanded considerable respect, even from each cohort of toads beneath the harrow.

Nowadays tenure meetings leak like sieves, and candidates sometimes know (or think they know) not only the vote count but how each tenured person voted. Assessment of teaching rests on university evaluation forms, hastily filled out in one class or at the final, not on observation (much less on semester-long collaboration). And the results are even worse than they used to be. We're still serious about doing the reading. But the process has become indefensibly sloppy, and the results, when a decision is negative, are much more hideous than they used to be.

So can we do away with this compromised process (state universities already have done away with the pretense that letters are confidential)? And what replacement could we craft that wouldn't seem like a meeting in The Office?

Neophyte said...

There are two things that make me believe that this blog is Really Quite Important.
1. Without, as far as I can tell, actually compromising anyone, you do succeed in doing a good deal of demystifying. Granted, I haven't had the chance to be "mystified" in the first place, but this kind of systematic laying-bare of the way nice little academic myths like "confidentiality" function goes a long way to helping me to understand the system. Which is a good thing to learn as a wee neophyte.
2. Despite all the problems you continually attack in your posts, you do actually, somewhat miraculously, succeed in keeping it fun. And optimistic. There are far too many cynical, depressing academic blogs out there, and the simple fact that there's someone around who sees these problems for what they are, is able to get at them cogently and precisely, and (apparently) loves her job ANYWAY is quite reassuring. So thanks.

The Constructivist said...

As someone whose dissertation committee was made up of mostly assistant profs and only one person with tenure--so when they all were denied tenure as I was first going out on the market, I was affected quite personally by their fates (which they all bounced back from quite well, thank you)--I agree with you man aspects of the tenure system are ripe for abuse and/or rife with incompetence. Still, I'm glad to hear you're leaning toward reform over elimination (because absent the revolution, all the latter would mean is the free-market libertarians win again).

Speaking of which, a good departmental mentoring system can also help demystify the tenure process while still keeping the actual votes in the tenure meeting confidential (perhaps we need a secret ballot for that in reality?). Such mentors can share their renewal/tenure files and ask other faculty to share theirs; pass along their perspectives on responses to the mentee's renewal files; observe classes and write observation letters; and generally represent the interests of the candidate during the renewal/tenure meetings. We have a fairly well-functioning one in my department, but then we only hire people we intend to tenure and we do everything we can to make them want to stay in a small town in Western NY for as long as humanly possible....

While on my leave, I thankfully missed the chance to volunteer for a new university-wide tenure, etc. ad hoc committee that's going to be coming out with some recommendations at the end of the semester, but I do hope it'll be a chance to spread our approach more widely through the university.

I guess it depends on whether a department is a cluster-bomb-filled mine field, as my grad dept. was when I was there, or has forged some sense of collective purpose and identity.

Anonymous said...

I agree that at the very least candidates should be given some feedback on their case. Here at Zenith, you get those letters along the way, why isn't there a letter after the tenure case has gone through?

Anonymous said...

I could be wrong, but I don't think that the reason it is problematic to write about specific students and incidents in a *public* blog is that it is a violation of the *private* space of the classroom.

I think the issue is actually much simpler: it is hurtful to hear yourself being mocked by a respected authority figure. Of course students know that professors talk about them, and students definitely talk about professors. But we usually don't criticize each other within earshot. The issue is not breaking "classroom confidentiality" (which I don't think exists), but rather it is publishing a private, professor-oriented conversation on the internet. I understand that you thought you had a select audience (which wasn't supposed to include students), so this comment is not intended as criticism. I'm just a by-stander suggesting that "confidentiality" is not the issue at hand.

On a side note, I have really enjoyed your blog in both its incarnations. Thank you for writing.

A Wesleyan Student

Tenured Radical said...

Dear Wesleyan student,

I am glad you like the blog. But no one is being mocked my dear. Actually, no one ever was, but that is beside the point. This post was about tenure......

good luck finishing your semester,

TR

Anonymous said...

Yes, I know the post was about tenure (and it was interesting). But I have been thinking about the question of "classroom confidentiality" for a while, and when you mentioned it at the beginning of this post, my thoughts coalesced (a bit). Anyway, I'm sorry the comment was out of place!

Thanks again for blogging.

Wes student

longge said...

Then this cute replica handbag is your wannabe! The ample capacity of 11.8″ x 13″ x 3.1″ strengthen my mind of taking it around during the casual summer days. It’s a shame to feel holding-back at the sight of hefty price of the authentic Louis Vuitton Saumur bag, to make up, the website has more consideration for you.