next »

[oatmeal]

OP--This is a tough place to be in. If you believe, based on evidence, that you should vote not on tenure then you should vote no on tenure. The fact that you like the person should not enter this--even though it is hard to separate that out at times. I have seen too many colleagues vote yes on a marginal (very) tenure case because they liked the person and it has led to many problems (especially in teaching but also in lack of a research agenda) down the line. It also devalues tenure.

I do not believe you should discuss it with the candidate at all. Not least because of potential appeals or law suits but really because your vote is just one vote. If you speak up at the meeting against tenure, do you want to tell hu this? Probably not. Hu should know that their case is weak (though some candidates are clueless) and it is not your responsibility to discuss the case, especially at this late stage. Has there been some mentoring? What happened in the third year review? Was hu warned in writing? In the meeting, you can say what you think is right or not say anything. It is your choice. I would speak up, based on evidence. I think that is one of the responsibilities of having tenure. Good luck and it is good that you are concerned about your colleague. Compassion goes a long way and it does help when making a difficult personal decision.

[ruralguy]

If everything is as you say, OP, then vote against, don't look back.

If your colleagues are the type to blab, then you have sucky, childish colleagues.

But thats no reason to not to vote no.

Part of being a senior faculty member is the "pain" of firing people, denying grants, kicking out students, etc.
It all sucks, but if you are well justfied, then you just have to let the prcoess go forward. If the guy whines, then he whines.
You refer him to the chair or dean, and say NOTHING else about it. If he brings it up, and you ask him nicely to refer to these people, and he does not, then you say, not so nicely, that he had better just be quite, or more trouble will accrue. You want him to talk to the proper authority about it, or be left alone, and thats the end of it.

A word to the wise: try to make friends outside of work. This is the crap that happens when people equate colleague with friend.

[nontrad_assoc]

Thank you all for the good comments.

It is hard to replace the person in this field in our location (for a variety of reasons), so there appears to be an administrative push to keep Hu "out of sympathy for the other members of the department" so I will probably have to speak up to say "please help me by getting rid of Hu."

Hu has been warned that there are problems but hasn't improved.  It was in writing and in lower results from students and faculty feedback.

I feel more confident moving forward hearing all of these comments, so thank you again.

[tee_bee]

Wow this reminds me of a time when a good friend of mine recruited his friend to join our faculty, and he turned out to be a problem teacher, even though he was a great guy. But he resigned before the P&T decision, sparing us all a lot of grief.

OP, when the vote come down, it sounds to me like you will not be the only negative vote for tenure. If your colleague singles you out for voting against him, it's worth knowing (although not saying) that your vote was not "the" decisive vote--it was a consensus (or nearly so) vote. I realize that the tenure denial will be uncomfortable, but the next several decades will be more so if this person keeps you holding the bag.

Writing as an average-to-mediocre teacher (although I try hard!), I don't think that one's teaching skills are a measure of their humanity, worth, etc. But teaching skills are important in academia, of course, and your colleague should know this.  I don't envy your position, but appreciate your willingness to look at the big picture.

[litdawg]

I've been a bit distracted the last week, so I'm sorry I missed this discussion. I certainly agree with the advice given to vote against tenure for a colleague such as you describe. However, I'm surprised that the deliberations for such an important matter would happen only in a meeting when the vote is taken. If I were you, I'd be talking to a few other people who will be voting on the case *before* the meeting.

I'm not suggesting a whisper campaign; however, I do think you need to hear other viewpoints and see if others share your perspective before the vote occurs. Consensus is always better than split votes, and open discussion without the pressure of a deadline ("time to vote now") makes for better decision-making, especially when people have to sort through conflicting values and pressures. Start with one person who would be the easiest to broach the topic with.

[larryc]

I've been a bit distracted the last week, so I'm sorry I missed this discussion. I certainly agree with the advice given to vote against tenure for a colleague such as you describe. However, I'm surprised that the deliberations for such an important matter would happen only in a meeting when the vote is taken. If I were you, I'd be talking to a few other people who will be voting on the case *before* the meeting.

In my experience the results of every important meeting I have ever attended were decided in advance (often without me!).

[prytania3]

Why on earth would you discuss this with your untenured colleague first? There is nothing that he or she can do about it now. That conversation can only cause suffering and has no potential to help anyone -- unless there is some last-minute thing that you haven't mentioned but which you're hoping your colleague will do. And if tenure is granted -- who knows? maybe everyone else thinks your colleague is fantastic and they end up convincing you, rather than the reverse -- this will make both your lives very unpleasant.

No fooling. In total agreement.

[litdawg]

I've been a bit distracted the last week, so I'm sorry I missed this discussion. I certainly agree with the advice given to vote against tenure for a colleague such as you describe. However, I'm surprised that the deliberations for such an important matter would happen only in a meeting when the vote is taken. If I were you, I'd be talking to a few other people who will be voting on the case *before* the meeting.

In my experience the results of every important meeting I have ever attended were decided in advance (often without me!).

Exactly right! I remember when I first realized this. It still took me several years to figure out the best ways to participate in such conversations--negative gossiping and kvetching are so much more common patterns of communication that it can be hard to engage in consensus building/consultation without experiencing the draw or pressures of those mean-spirited pitfalls.

[untenured]

If this problem is as bad as you say, then certainly others will have heard the problems.  Can you get more powerful colleagues to take ownership of denying tenure?