> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • Student-Success Resource Center
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Faculty
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Talk of ‘De-Tenure’ Triggers Faculty Ire in Tennessee

By  Peter Schmidt
March 3, 2015

The University of Tennessee’s Board of Trustees has triggered suspicion among faculty members by calling for tenure policies to be reconsidered as part of a cost-cutting plan.

The system’s administration on Monday retracted from its summary of the plan language that had especially aroused faculty opposition—a reference to the potential “enacting of a de-tenure process.”

The “de-tenure” reference had helped fan faculty outrage over the plan on Twitter and elsewhere. In a blog post about the plan, Chad Black, an associate professor of early Latin American history at the Knoxville campus, asked: “What in the world is a ‘de-tenure process,’ and what place does tenure, a bulwark of academic freedom and security for the risks of academic training and employment, have in a conversation on cutting costs and increasing revenues?”

We're sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network.

Please allow access to our site, and then refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, please contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

The University of Tennessee’s Board of Trustees has triggered suspicion among faculty members by calling for tenure policies to be reconsidered as part of a cost-cutting plan.

The system’s administration on Monday retracted from its summary of the plan language that had especially aroused faculty opposition—a reference to the potential “enacting of a de-tenure process.”

The “de-tenure” reference had helped fan faculty outrage over the plan on Twitter and elsewhere. In a blog post about the plan, Chad Black, an associate professor of early Latin American history at the Knoxville campus, asked: “What in the world is a ‘de-tenure process,’ and what place does tenure, a bulwark of academic freedom and security for the risks of academic training and employment, have in a conversation on cutting costs and increasing revenues?”

Joseph A. DiPietro, the system’s president, last week assured his Twitter followers, “I fully believe in the concept of tenure.” A revised version of the university’s news release about the plan said the original one’s reference to de-tenuring had been “inadvertent and incorrect.”

The revised summary still calls, however, for administrators and the system’s Faculty Council—a panel distinct from the campuses’ faculty senates—to conduct a comprehensive review of the university’s tenure and post-tenure-review processes. Moreover, in presenting the cost-cutting plan to the board at its meeting last Thursday, President DiPietro argued that the tenure-process review should “look at a policy around termination based on unsatisfactory performance” because the current policy “is not very effective.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Such talk is not sitting well with faculty leaders, who argue that the current tenure-review process might already afford faculty members too few protections, or that consideration of changes in tenure policies should be divorced from any discussion of how the system can save money.

In an interview on Monday, Mary McAlpin, president of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said the university’s current post-tenure-review process already “gives too much power to administrators to remove someone’s tenure.”

Ms. McAlpin called any suggestion that current tenure policy is too lax “a shocking statement” because the policy already lets a campus chancellor terminate a tenured faculty member “for adequate cause” even if the faculty committee reviewing the faculty member’s case recommends otherwise.

Ms. McAlpin, a professor of French at the flagship campus, also argued that the system’s plan does not provide the faculty enough of a voice in any revision of tenure. Rather than giving the faculty senates any formal say in tenure-policy revisions, the plan calls for system administrators to consult the Faculty Council, a small, purely advisory body that is less well known to the faculty and automatically includes, along with the leaders of the faculty senates, any faculty member who sits on the Board of Trustees.

In an email she called the process “top-down” and said the Faculty Council’s involvement “seems to be window dressing.”

ADVERTISEMENT

At last week’s board meeting, President DiPietro described his plan to cut costs and increase revenue as needed to close a projected budget gap of $377-million over 10 years. He argued that the system needs to abandon a business model that relies on tuition increases to make up for flat or declining state appropriations.

“The only way to preclude tuition increases is to fix it ourselves,” he said, adding that his plan “is about maintaining quality and moving ahead” and that the system “will be a different organization in the next four to five years.”

In addition to the proposed review of tenure policies, the plan calls for considering saving costs through steps such as early-retirement programs and curbs on student tuition waivers and discounts. Among the measures it proposes considering to increase revenue are increased enrollments of out-of-state students and new fees for public-outreach efforts. It calls for campuses to develop plans to realign and consolidate programs.

In an email to The Chronicle, Gina Stafford, a system spokeswoman, said that “we are currently at a very preliminary stage in those efforts” and that President DiPietro “will be reaching out to faculty leaders and administrators with every UT campus and institute to determine how to proceed with this study.”

Ms. Stafford said that the earlier news release’s reference to enacting “a de-tenure process” had been inserted in error and that President DiPietro had never used that term.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Black, the Latin American history professor at the Knoxville campus, called the university’s retraction of the term “de-tenure” a “small victory” in a follow-up post on Monday evening. But he said it “strains credulity” that a university system’s news release “would include such a toxic and alarming term as ‘de-tenure’ by mistake.” He posited that the people who signed off on the release were transcribing the intent of the university’s proposal.

Peter Schmidt writes about affirmative action, academic labor, and issues related to academic freedom. Contact him at peter.schmidt@chronicle.com.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Peter Schmidt
Peter Schmidt was a senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education. He covered affirmative action, academic labor, and issues related to academic freedom. He is a co-author of The Merit Myth: How Our Colleges Favor the Rich and Divide America (The New Press, 2020).
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Accessibility Statement
    Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin