Slowing faculty hiring was a common suggestion mentioned throughout the academic task force report summaries as a method for cutting costs. That combined with attrition, however, will make it increasingly difficult for Cornell to maintain competitive hiring practices. We fear that such an approach will threaten the viability of academic departments across the University. That said, we were intrigued by a mention made by the College of Engineering regarding the prospect of instituting a post-tenure review process — something, if implemented cautiously, could do good for the University.

Most fundamentally, tenure protects academic freedom and gives faculty the confidence to teach controversial points of view. Thus, the idea of institutionalized post-tenure review raises eyebrows amongst academics. But post-tenure review would not mean diminishing the value of tenure, nor would it provide the basis to dismiss tenured faculty at any point in their career. Rather, it would provide an avenue for constructive feedback that would ensure greater productivity on behalf of the University faculty.

In a report released in 1999, the American Association of University Professors outlined various concerns the organization had with the concept of post-tenure review. “At its most draconian, post-tenure review aims to reopen the question of tenure,” the report stated. “The most objectionable feature of many systems of post-tenure review is that they ease the prevailing standards for dismissal and diminish the efficacy of those procedures that ensure that sanctions are not imposed for reasons violative of academic freedom.”

By no means do we question the value of academic freedom or condone the use of post-tenure review as a means of facilitating the dismissal of tenured faculty. But tenure is more than a reward for academic accomplishment. It is a “responsibility earned by the demonstration of professional competence in an extended probationary period,” the same report states. We see the responsibility of tenure to be two-fold, encompassing the duties of the professor to both remain fruitful and respond to critical feedback from fellow faculty and students.

In March, an effort to institute a system of post-tenure review was shot down by the faculty of the University of Maryland at College Park. The plan — brought forth by undergraduate and graduate student leaders — sought to hold tenured professors more accountable by establishing a committee of students and faculty that would evaluate a professor’s work on a yearly basis. Receiving a negative review three years in a row would translate to salary cuts.

The Maryland approach was far too objective, and its inclusion of pay cuts as punishment came close to infringing on the central protections afforded by tenure, which we support. But the controversy calls into question Cornell’s system of faculty evaluation, which is long overdue for a revamping.

The University has struggled with the issue of establishing an appropriate medium for course feedback. Some colleges have taken it upon themselves to make end-of-the-semester course evaluations public in limited ways, which is a step in the right direction. Additionally, we would like to see the creation of committees comprised of students and faculty whose job it is to regularly review a professor's level of productivity, and convey their findings to the community at large.

All facets of the University are subject to review and there is no reason why faculty should be exempt. As Cornell continues to cut back, it is important that all members of the community are keeping the University’s engines churning at optimal speeds. A post-tenure review system would be a way to ensure productivity.