[1] From: John Kares Smith <smith@oswego.edu> (110)
Subject: Re: Tenure Debate at Minnesota (fwd)
[2] From: John Kares Smith <smith@oswego.Oswego.EDU> (18)
Subject: Tenure Debate at Minnesota
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:50:32 -0500 (EST)
From: John Kares Smith <smith@oswego.edu>
Subject: Re: Tenure Debate at Minnesota (fwd)
Dear President Hasselmo:
Many people find your explanation about the tenure debate at your university
reassuring and comforting. However, as a member of United University
Professions . . .the professional union of the State University of New
York . . .I do not find your explanation all that comforting. For example,
the statement
"Flexibility -- by recognizing the different employment
rights, roles, and responsibilities attached to different
types of appointments; and by introducing more unit-specific
flexibilities, such as, variable periods of probationary
appointments."
In UUP terms, this suggests contracting out. That is, different
"unit-specific flexibilities" suggest that some people will be hired for
a specific term of appointment and then be dismissed.
This would amount to a de facto end of tenure, for what
would prevent you from leaving the already tenured faculty alone to die
or retire while new employees would be hired on a more "flexible" basis,
usually 3 to 5 year contracts and out. While I am not accusing you of
even taking this first step, because of the depletion of public support
and public resources, the temptation to end tenure [and thus
academic freedom] will be so great I cannot imagine many college or
university presidents able to resist such temptation.
I hope that you may prove to be the very rare president who will indeed
resist such temptations.
I would welcome any response you would care to make.
Sincerely,
John Kares Smith,
Communication Studies
State University of New York
Oswego, New York 13126
[What follows is the letter to which I am responding.
> ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>
> Date sent: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 13:57:38 CST
> Send reply to: Nils Hasselmo <hasselmo@mailbox.mail.umn.edu>
> From: Nils Hasselmo <hasselmo@mailbox.mail.umn.edu>
> > To: Multiple recipients of list UMN-FAC <UMN-FAC@vm1.spcs.umn.edu>
>
> [This letter was sent to the following on Friday, March 15.]
>
> March 15, 1996
>
> PLEASE DISTRIBUTE
>
> TO: AAU Presidents, Academic Vice Presidents, Provosts,
> Academic Deans, and Chairs of Faculties
>
> NASULGC Presidents, Academic Vice Presidents, Provosts,
> Academic Deans, and Chairs of Faculties
>
> Editor, The Washington Post
>
> FROM: Nils Hasselmo, President, University of Minnesota
> Carl Adams, Chair, Faculty Consultative Committee, U of M
>
> Subject: Tenure Review at the University of Minnesota
>
> A great deal of misinformation about the University of Minnesota's review of
> its tenure code and practices has been distributed on the internet in recent
> days. As President of the University of Minnesota, and as Chair of the
> Faculty Consultative Committee -- our faculty's top elected post -- we want
> to briefly set the record straight.
>
> On December 12, 1995, the University of Minnesota's Board of Regents adopted a
> resolution formally requesting that the faculty and administration review the
> tenure code. Shortly thereafter, a tenure review process was begun: a process
> that is both faculty-led and governed by the Faculty Senate's constitutional
> procedures.
>
> The tenure review we are undertaking is motivated by two goals which the
> faculty and administration both wish to achieve. First, the University of
> Minnesota will have iron-clad protection of academic freedom. This point must
> be underscored: tenure and academic freedom will always be a protected and
> prized value of the University of Minnesota.
>
> Second, the tenure code will be changed in ways that will improve its:
>
> 1. Clarity -- by more fully explicating its purposes;
>
> 2. Flexibility -- by recognizing the different employment rights,
> roles, and responsibilities attached to different types of appointments;
> and by introducing more unit-specific flexibilities, such as, variable
> periods of probationary appointments;
>
> 3. Faculty and Administrative Accountability -- by installing
> systematic post-tenure review processes; and
>
> 4. Efficiency -- by both formalizing and streamlining Judicial Committee
> proceedings, and revising rules relevant to removal-for-cause actions.
>
> These four criteria are key to achieving the University of Minnesota's vision
> as stated in our University 2000 strategic plan. As such, these same
> criteria are also driving our overall review of human resources policies and,
> in particular, those that apply as well to our non-faculty professional,
> civil service, and student-employee staffs.
>
> Since the original misinformation was widely circulated by internet, we ask
> you to circulate this letter as widely as possible. Thank you for your
> assistance in this matter.
>
> NH:kb
>
> Nils Hasselmo
> President
> hasselmo@mailbox.mail.umn.edu
> *****************************
>
>
>
>
>
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 16:15:07 -0500 (EST)
From: John Kares Smith <smith@oswego.Oswego.EDU>
Subject: Tenure Debate at Minnesota
Readers of CRTNET have been alerted to the tenure threat in Minnesota.
Recently, the President of the University of Minnesota put forth a
statement seemingly supportive of the tenure system; further President
Hallelmo suggested that this statement receive wide distribution. I am
more than happy to comply with his wishes.
As you can tell, the key issues is flexibility; that is, if I hire one
assistant professor on a tenure track but others on 3, 5 or 7 year
contracts, what is the force of tenure? What will happen to academic
freedom?
I do believe that tenure is under attack all over the country and
I am not hopeful for its long-term survival.
I will share any responses President Hasselmo sends me. So far, he has
not responded.
Sincerely,
John Kares Smith
Communication Studies
State University of New York
Oswego, NY 13126
---------- Forwarded message ----------