“The choices are simple; livin’ them ain’t easy.”

—Cassandra Wilson, “Find Him”

Rejection of Post-Tenure Peer Review at Iowa State University was narrowly handed down on May 5 by faculty members who were afraid of being openly exposed for their own shortcomings by a group of intra-departmental professional colleagues who would have reviewed each other at seven-year intervals rather than the good old-fashioned way of a singular evaluation from a Department Chairperson or Executive Officer.

How sad was it?

During a two-week voting period in late April, only 821 out of the 1,688 eligible faculty members took time out of their busy schedules to submit a ballot on this extremely controversial issue which had some faculty members running amok with sensitized fears over “curtailed academic freedoms” being swiftly taken away if Post-Tenure Peer Review were implemented here at Iowa State University.

Lighten up, ISU Faculty. It’s only constructive criticism. That is all.

With a maximum of 48.6 percent of the faculty bothering to even vote, final totals for Post-Tenure Peer Review resulted in 431 against and 390 in favor to defeat this measure, which will not rapidly fade away at any immediate juncture.

Perhaps the remaining 876 non-voting faculty members had simply chosen to not vote either in favor or against. The final outcome would have had much greater impact in the columns of the yeas and nays.

Again, this was not to be.

The masks of apathy already reflected in ISU students had been fully extended to faculty members like a double-sided mirror.

Obtaining a broader understanding of the Faculty senate is to just think of them as the “grown-up” version of GSB, except its members carry graduate degrees.

Sounding similar to GSB, this governmental body is increasingly more concerned with important non-issues, such as dwindling on-campus parking spaces, stricter meeting lengths and “mandatory” instructors’ e-mail addresses on course syllabi, as primary excuses for conducting all dialogue and no solid concrete resolutions.

Voting against Post-Tenure Peer Review clearly symbolizes a university faculty who basically refused to accept any amount of accountability for overall professional conduct both inside and outside of the classroom.

Further reinforcing the simple fundamental irony of demanding students to become accountable to professors when they are not mandated, to do the same thing.

No professor can freely survive within his or her own self-made cocoon if the faculty is not forced to equally service its students via instruction or advising at 100 percent maximum.

My previous encounters with a Post-Tenure Peer Review system took place when I was active in the workforce, where I had to undergo periodic employment performance evaluations that were either conducted by co-workers or supervisors on several different occasions to provide constructive criticism on my overall work habits. These were extremely helpful for further on-the-job improvement.

Non-Post-Tenure Peer Review for faculty equally presents an appallingly negative return on my present-day investment on a second college education by being personally subjected to actions of educational malpractice from previous instructors who flatly reject complete acceptance of their inferior actions.

Not all faculty members whose classes I previously had taken were totally “tarnished apples.”

On the other hand, there were many superior instructors who were the “shiny apples” with whom I have gained immeasurable amounts of long-term beneficial knowledge.

These “shiny apples” were the ones who became truly human enough to admit that they didn’t have complete answers to questions which were asked, showed an enthusiastic passion for teaching and kept the intimate details of their personal lives to a bare minimum (unless it was tied into the lecture).

They were, both inside and outside of my major, my very best ISU instructors.

Rejecting Post-Tenure Peer Review further isolates the ISU faculty from other academic staff at other colleges and universities (including both the University of Northern Iowa and University of Iowa) throughout the United States, where similar formats have been implemented with mixed positive and negative responses.

It was the most intelligent idea ever devised by the Faculty Senate in becoming highly aggressive in forcing fellow members to take the evaluations of their peers very seriously instead of just relying on an specific chair or executive officer.

There was nothing wrong with having Post-Tenure Peer Review at ISU. Too bad the faculty didn’t see it as the newest management wave, with numerous classrooms being more organized in terms of dual accountability from professors and students.

I wouldn’t start celebrating total victory soon, folks. It could come back to haunt you.

---

Adrian De Vore is a senior in hotel, restaurant and institution management from Newark, N.J.