next »

[offthemarket]

The last department I was in had an exceptional person (C) with a partner who was a postdoc hitting the job market (D).  D was pretty good, but clearly not a great fit and wouldn't have been hired without C as a spouse.  But a position was created for D just to keep C from hitting the job market.  Several years later, it's clear that D is no good, but I think most people think it was worth it to keep C.  I'm not so sure but since I've left, it's none of my business anyway.

[msparticularity]

OP, is B a good enough instructor to justify consider creating a non-TT continuing position for him/her, rather than moving forward with tenure proceedings? If so, this might become the counter-offer to your spousal pair, since tenuring a partner who doesn't deserve it just to keep the spouse is destructive to the department and to tenure processes for others yet to come.

[mended_drum]

I'm confused.  Isn't there a clear hierarchy here?  Shouldn't the chair and/or dean be the person to have a sit-down with B?  Who cares whether "nobody wants to do it"; it's somebody's responsibility.  Is the OP just talking about people in the department?  Or are "we" administrators and other faculty on the T&P committee?  Because I don't see why A's demands should have anything to do with how the committee (outside of the department) votes or what the dean decides to recommend.

Or is this a very small institution?

[niceday]

When I was an undergrad, we had a prof who was terrible teacher.  The story goes that hu was a spousal hire.  Like yours, they (supposedly) wanted A who wouldn't come without B. Then when the tenure decision was to be made - A wouldn't take it without B getting it too. Then, once A & B were happily tenured, A quit.  And they were stuck with B. 

Urban legends are wonderful, aren't they...

This happened for real in my grad program. A said would only come with B. B would not otherwise been hired at the program. Both were hired. Post-tenure, A quit -- leaving a whole bunch of grad students who'd come to the program solely to work with A in a lurch. A multiple year mess ensued. No urban-legend, I witnessed this first hand.

[mouseman]

You are right - if we want to keep A, we may have to tenure B. But I won't lower the tenure standards for B to keep A and am getting annoyed that A is basically asking us to do just that. I'd rather let A leave if he/she wants to. It's just not fair to everyone else for B to skate through because their spouse did a good job, plus we get stuck with someone we never would have tenured otherwise in B. This is the nightmare situation that makes people shy away from spousal hires although I still think they generally work. Losing A is a big loss as A is outstanding.

Ouch.  I sympathize.  Is A also a bit delusional about B, or just throwing his/her weight around?

[shrek]

What do the outside letters say? What do senior faculty say? What about the P&T committee? Etc.
The department committee needs to review each case without regard to the other and vote accordingly. It's hard, it may cause division and possibly hard feelings for A if B doesn't get tenure, but that's the way it goes.

At the next level, do you know what will happen? Does the college level committee rubber stamp? (at my university-- it doesn't, especially since some departments are known to try to make cases for just about anyone). What about the university level committee? Etc. etc. even if a positive vote at the department level, you don't know what will happen up the line.

[aprilmay]

msparticularity, a non-tt position would probably work. But we have been told, by A, that a non-tt position would not be acceptable to A and B.

mended_drum, yes, the chair should deal with this but that has not happened. Also, there is no precedent for how to handle these situations, no policies, etc.

mouseman, A is delusional about B in that he/she seems to honestly believe that B deserves tenure, which is not the case, and also A throwing his/her weight around because they are outstanding and know it.

[totoro]

Where I was only tenured faculty could discuss or vote on the tenure decision. So A couldn't participate. Can untenured people at your institution really have a say? I would call A's bluff.

[tenured_feminist]

Has your department recently (within the last ten years) tenured anyone with B's record or worse?

The someone who should have the sit down with B is the department head, not A. If the department head won't do it, then the dean needs to don the big boy or girl underwear (and probably read the head the riot act in the process). Where is B in the process? The time to draw lines is third-year review, not the year before tenure. If B is coming up on third-year review and floundering, then the report needs to state clearly what the problems are and what must be resolved to have a shot at tenure.

Are the problems with B of the nature that routinely lead to tenure denials at your institution?

And yes, A should have no involvement in any reviews of B, and if A needs to hear this from the dean, then so be it. Basically, you need to do what you can to separate the two and try to judge B as an individual, which means not giving B extra leeway because of A but also, and just as importantly, not reading B's behaviors through A's frameworks or blaming B if A is being a pushy jerk.

The way this one usually plays out is that B collects a bunch of abstentions in the department and the upper levels of review pull the trigger. A's best friend needs to take A out for a pitcher of beer or a bottle of scotch and do some reality checking.

Totoro, from this situation, I'd guess A is tenured, but even if not, some institutions not only allow, but require, non-tenured faculty to attend, participate in, and/or vote at tenure and promotion meetings.

Anyway, Aprilmay, if you yourself are untenured, stay as far away from this as possible. Getting involved even at the level of gossiping about it with your buddies in the department will do no good and could conceivably do you a good deal of harm. If you're going to lose A and B, lose them under a framework of regret, not mutual hostility, if possible.

[locutus]

Totoro, from this situation, I'd guess A is tenured, but even if not, some institutions not only allow, but require, non-tenured faculty to attend, participate in, and/or vote at tenure and promotion meetings.

I think that A is untenured but is more or less a lock to get tenure.

OP, how many people do you have voting on these two tenure cases? Is it just the full professors in your department. You mentioned the department was small, so is it you and 5 other people voting on this? I'm just wondering about the feasibility of having a united front on this, whatever the decision is.

[t_r_b]

msparticularity, a non-tt position would probably work. But we have been told, by A, that a non-tt position would not be acceptable to A and B.

I would call A's bluff.

Same here. Any day of the week. If A can find some other school that will tenure them both, more power to them. I wouldn't hold my breath.

[msparticularity]

msparticularity, a non-tt position would probably work. But we have been told, by A, that a non-tt position would not be acceptable to A and B.

I would call A's bluff.

Same here. Any day of the week. If A can find some other school that will tenure them both, more power to them. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Yup--this was my point, too. Offer B the position that is actually commensurate with his/her skills and record as a gesture of good faith (not to mention reality) and go from there. I'm guessing that, given the current financial situation in most places and, further, given B's record in recent years, no one but a teaching-intensive institution is going to offer a TT slot to this individual. Since this is apparently no the kind of institution A has in mind for his/her own career, it may be time for A to get a grip and deal realistically with the situation.