1) Here are some context notes about the tenure review process for journalists and others commenting on the @nhannahjones case. Observing these might help reduce confusion and misinformation:
2) The substantive academic merit case for tenure is decided by a committee typically called something like 'tenure and promotion' or 'promotion and tenure.' It's widely regarded as the most challenging, arduous committee to be on bc of how extensive and rigorous the process is.
3) At larger institutions that committee makes recommendations after a similar process happens at the level of the department or school (school of journalism, of engineering, etc.). But in either or both cases, the recommendations of such committees are where the substance is. ..
4) It's important to understand also that the tenure review process typically involves outside reviewers in one's field, who then make a report on the quality of the work to the tenure committee. Outside reviewers can't be your buddies. So it's not, like, a faculty club saying ..
5) ...'we like you, you're one of us.' Once the committee makes a yes or no recommendation on tenure, that recommendation typically goes to the president / provost / senior admin. who typically have the power to overrule the committee recommendation. If they do at that point..
6) it's already, and righty, considered with suspicion, because again the substantive merit review happens on the committee and via external in addition to internal expert review. When the case makes it to the trustees or governors, it means it's already been ...
7) adjudicated by the tenure committee (mainly faculty) and senior university leadership. The job of the trustees is to rubber stamp a rubber stamp. So when they contravene both the committee *and* the president / senior leadership of the institution it's a big deal. ...
8) It's also important to emphasize, again, that by the time it gets to the trustees we're *far* beyond arguments about academic merit, meaning wading through thousands of pages of scholarly work, student evals, peer evals, service record, etc. ...
9) Not all processes are exactly the same everywhere, especially since not all colleges and universities have the same organizational structure; but so far as I understand, Jones's case passed the committee and the senior leadership. When trustees go against those recs ...
10) you should be asking questions about political and/or personal motives well outside the scope of academic merit *or* fiduciary duty. One more thing...
11) Jones's case was for tenure in a journalism school. Note: law profs don't usually have PhDs, nor do med school profs, nor do many MBA-holding biz school profs, nor do MFA-holding art / creative profs. A PhD is the terminal degree in some but not all fields. So ...
12) for people saying 'she doesn't have a PhD, she hasn't produced peer reviewed scholarship,' you're misunderstanding things. Academic journalists don't usually have or need PhDs and they produce journalism, that is their scholarly output. /end
Addendum: ncpolicywatch.com/2021/05/19/pw-… 
Also: If you're interested in learning more about why university governance is such that a non-academic panel of partisan operatives in NC has the power to overrule an academically merited tenure case, check out my discussion in this podcast:
https://twitter.com/AaronRHanlon/status/1393224132649799680?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
