The Faculty Senate is asking the faculty to approve or disapprove changes in ISU’s tenure, promotion and evaluation policies.

I believe the faculty should reject (that is vote “NO” on the first question on the ballot) the two pages printed on blue paper. If approved, these pages would establish a university-wide system of peer review in which committees of faculty would be reviewing their colleagues. Such a system would be very costly. Faculty who serve on these committees in departments which already have such a system groan at the time required to study the big boxes filled with thick portfolios documenting most everything the reviewee has done. The entire system would have to be constructed via the preparation of college policy documents consistent with the university’s policy and then departmental policy documents consistent with the university and college documents. If we are to have such reviews, it would be better for this system to grow up from the departments which desire them, rather than be imposed from the top. It is currently possible to set up a peer review for each faculty member who wishes one without setting up a university-wide system of reviews.

The proposed reviewing system also raises concerns about academic freedom and collegiality. A reviewing committee with an agenda could cause real trouble. The advice of TQM is to be very wary of evaluations, partly because one of their main effects is aggravating those reviewed. The AAUP is also against the kind of reviews proposed here. The unpopularity of this proposal was demonstrated by the Senate’s tied vote on a motion to reject it outright and by the subsequent decision to separate it from the rest of the document for fear that it would bring down the P&T proposal with it.

What I dread most is that it may pass by a small margin or due to unenthusiastic “Yes” votes. If it is to pass, let it be endorsed by a substantial majority of faculty who are firmly convinced of its merit and who are committed to working diligently writing their department’s policy statement and to reading the portfolios carefully when it is their turn to be an evaluator. We should not tax the entire faculty and put collegiality at risk without a broadly held belief that we are doing something really valuable. Vote “NO” if you have doubts or are reluctant to commit your own time to making these reviews work.

The second question on the ballot is whether the remaining 27 pages should be approved. There are so many different items in those pages that a simple characterization is impossible. The Senate came within one vote of sending it to a new committee for a year of further study. The faculty should tell the senators that there are some good ideas in it but that it needs more work. I think the Senate’s decision to pass this document to the faculty has less to do with “we like it” than with “we are tired of this; let’s get it off our desks and let the faculty decide.” The latter explanation will seem especially credible to anyone who has tried reading and digesting these 27 pages and the part of the Faculty Handbook they will replace. Throughout it, the language lacks the crispness with which one expects policy to be stated. Portfolios are made mandatory, and so are job (“position”) descriptions for faculty. One of the central changes relieves faculty from doing hard research to get promoted, by agreeing to accept many more things under the rubric “scholarship” than are currently accepted. The Senate made a valiant attempt to amend this document from the floor, and they did improve it, but everyone knows that it is hard to guess all the implications of those last-minute wording changes. I think the document merits another review. To bring that about, vote against it and explain your vote to your senator.

Bryan E. Cain is a professor in mathematics.