To the Editor:
I am not surprised to read that the University of Florida’s post-review process was “chaotic” and that “more than a quarter of faculty members who were identified for review either didn’t measure up, resigned, or retired” (“Why U. of Florida Professors Decry ‘Chaotic’ Post-Tenure Review That Failed Nearly a Fifth of Those Evaluated,” The Chronicle, August 19). Let me say from the start that I am not opposed to post-tenure reviews with well-thought-out criteria determined by both administrators and faculty and custom tailored to each department. But what I am opposed to is that only faculty are reviewed, making this a one-way process.
Why should only faculty be reviewed and not chairs, deans, provosts, vice presidents, and even presidents? Why is there always a focus on faculty productivity and not administrator productivity? No one is more committed to the welfare and success of the institution than faculty, who many remain at their jobs for decades, while at the same time a revolving door exists for administrators. Given the hefty salaries of administrators, it is even more imperative that their productivity is reviewed and quantitatively determined.
Moreover, while faculty spend their time engaged on their own teaching, scholarly activities, and service, the same cannot be said about administrators who hire a cadre of highly paid consultants to advise them on university matters. So, if college administrators insist on post-tenure review for faculty, then faculty should insist on job reviews for administrators. And if administrators do not agree, then faculty should think twice about accepting a one-way post-tenure review process.
Michael Hadjiargyrou
Distinguished Professor
Biological & Chemical Sciences
Director DO/PhD Program
College of Osteopathic Medicine
New York Institute of Technology
Long Island
