next »

[slacer]

A couple of comments in both the Job-Seeking Experiences and The Interview Process sections have made reference to an AAUP guideline that limits the amount of time that a campus can keep a full-time but non-tenure track faculty member before they are legally or contractually required to let them go.  (One post mentions seven years as the limit, and then the person must be fired.)

Does anyone know anything more about this? 
Is this true? 
If so, what is the reason or rationale for this rule? 
Are there ways around it?
Can anyone provide a link to more information, or to the language or this AAUP guideline itself?

Thank you!

[seniorscholar]

In some states, in public universities, it is state law that anyone who teaches full-time for seven years has "de facto tenure" -- without any tenure committee decision, tenure packet, etc. Public colleges and universities in those states want to make sure that does not happen -- that (for example) people who teach introductory or remedial courses year after year without doing any service or any publication do not wind up as tenured members of the department UNLESS the department and the university have decided, deliberately, to create a separate "continuing" category of faculty with different tenure-like reviews (often using the name "lecturer" instead of the usual tenure line ranks).

Otherwise, the AAUP guideline is simply that, a guideline. (Though it forms the preamble to the union contract at my university, although our union is AFT, not AAUP.) It comes from the AAUP's 1940 statement on academic freedom and tenure, of which section (a) under "Academic Tenure" is "After the expiration of a probationary period, teachers or investigators should have permanent or continuous tenure, and their service should be terminated only for adequate cause except in the case of retirement for age, or under extraordinary circumstances because of financial exigencies." subsection 2 under this clause reads:
2. "Beginning with appointment to the rank of full-time instructor or a nigher rank, the probationary period should not exceed seven years . . ." [with a lot of other recommendations about teaching at more than one school, etc.]

I don't know if this information is anywhere on the web. I quote from the 1984 edition of the "AAUP Policy Documents and Reports" which happens to be the one I once had for reference. It's a 200-page document with a lot of additions, footnotes, interpretations, etc. and plenty of useful information about many academic matters, and I'm of course certain that there's a newer edition around somewhere, too. But the 1940 statement on academic freedom and tenure, which comes first in the volume, is the basis from which almost everything else derives. (Do note the date, which suggests significant historical contexts, including the wave of refugees from Germany who were then entering the US faculty ranks.)

[rattusdomesticus]

Some positions actually post a limitation that reads like this: terminal degree required for promotion and tenure. My own experience is that I cannot be kept on to a contract position after 7 years because my current university subscribes to the AAUP guideline. Not all universities do. We have one instructor with a Master's who is approaching year 17; all administrators say she was "grandfathered in." You can take that as you like.

My take? Don't count on anything after year 7 with a non-t/t job.

Narrative (not empirical evidence):
http://insidehighered.com/views/2005/06/22/wilson

[miss_m]

Beyond what's already posted here (and the full statement quoted by Senior Scholar is online, too: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/1940statement.htm), The specific recommendations by AAUP on contingent faculty are here: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/conting-stmt.htm.

The AAUP also has a part-time faculty statement, passed last year, that recommends a limit on the length of those appointments. It's not online, but you can get a copy.

The goal for all of this isn't to get people fired but to get universities to commit resources and job security to scholars who have committed to them by remaining for many years. It is related to the AAUP's stance on academic freedom, as contract employees aren't provided with any job security beyond the existing contract length AND continue work only at the discretion of the hiring body, usually an administrator rather than a committee of peers. The 2003 statement linked above also defines ways for ntt faculty--ft and pt--to be evaluated by their peers--to be treated more like scholars and less like labor.

However, these are only recommended policies, and each school finds their own way to work with them. The truth is that many schools don't adhere to such limits at all; others use only non-renewable ntt ft profs or pt faculty.

Rattus is right--don't count on ntt jobs, as the school hasn't really committed to you.  Sad but true (pardon the rhyme).

[comic_book_guy]

Slacer,

It depends on the institution. One of my former employers placed a hard three-year limit on VAP positions to avoid, as my chair put it, "exploiting non-regular faculty," but he made that clear from the start. Others ought to as well.

But not all colleges or universities subscribe to the AAUP guidelines; at my current institution (a small, private LAC), a majority of the faculty are on rolling one to three-year contracts, some with the possibility of being bumped up to t-t. (Yes, it's a problem, but it's better than using an army of adjuncts--the local state university now farms out nearly 60% of its courses to disposable, low-paid adjuncts with no security, and won't even discuss offering FT contracts.) One contract faculty member has been there for over twenty years.

Still, even if there are no hard limits, my feeling is that anyone in such a position ought to be looking for permanent employment elsewhere; even without a time limit, these jobs are nearly always contingent upon funding, enrollment, the whims of administrators, and other factors. So while my Ft, non-tt jobs seems relatively safe for now, I'll still be trying to abandon ship before it sinks.

[hulahu]

I have noticed a disturbing trend in our department, and I wonder if it is happening elsewhere--tenure track faculty who are not meeting the current publication standards for tenure being encouraged to switch to a non tenure line. In the situation I am familiar with, a new non tenure line was created for this purpose, and it is not clear what happened to the tenure line--quite possibly, the tenure line disappeared once the person "converted". What is less known is that more recently, a person who was up for tenure (but without a really strong case) was also encouraged to switch to a non tenure line before the official tenure vote. This person had guts, not to mention financial support, and was able to say "tenure me or the highway"...and got tenure.  This is all happening at a university where the administration has publically stated that the trend towards non tenure lines will stop.
It is hard to fight this (not that I would fight anyway, as a tt), because if you argue against the offer of conversion, people will say "how could you deny Jane, who really wants to keep a job here, a chance to stay with us?". But all the while, the tenure system is slowly eroding...

[miss_m]

Hulahu,

I am wondering what happens AFTER they switch.  Are these new NTT faculty allowed to renew contracts and move back onto the tenure track?  If so, this may be a department trying to keep good faculty who just won't clear tenure on the established university timetable.  Are these people put on short-term contracts that are then NOT renewed?  If so, the department may be trying to save them tenure denial and allow them to job search for a more appropriate fit.  Are the contracts renewed and no tenure ever established, meaning the tenure line is lost?

I am assuming this is a research university with a tenure clock that is met across the colleges and pretty serious research/pub expectations.  I have heard of this happening before at what used to be called R1 schools, and it's the outcome that makes the ultimate difference here--why exactly this is happening and what is done.  I have also heard of every on of the above outcomes taking place, so you are quite right to be concerned about how this erodes the tenure system--and after all that work to get a TT hire in a department.

[hulahu]

It is too early to tell what will happen with persons who move off the tenure track. But my impression is that there is no way this particuar person is coming back to the tt--they were not able to get anything published during their several years on the tt, so why would returning to the tt be that different? And even if they were, I'm not sure switching back and forth would be allowed under our current university rules.
  Something I have been thinking about lately--is the "out" part of "up or out" tenure, which many find to be the most distasteful part of the process, necessary to preserve tenure? If instead of being "out", someone is switched to non-tt, uses the title of associate professor, is supported and applauded by the administration for their involvement in research process (even if there is no published output from this process), and remains an active teacher despite mediocre teaching evals, does this erode the system of tenure? Or just the sign of a clue-less administration?
  As for contracts expiring, well, persons with 20+ years seniority can be let go. I have also heard a contract person at a very research focused university for 20+ years refer to their position as "back door tenure", but you never know when it will end...I just think our department is really aggressive in eroding tenure.