Fix the process President must play role in tenure process

An assistant political science professor's battle for tenure indicates flaws and ambiguities in the tenure process. The University must fix these flaws in the process before another faculty member is victimized.

Almost everyone involved with Timothy Lomperis' case-from members of the department to the provost-have been frustrated by the length and acrimony surrounding it. The process of granting or denying Lomperis tenure has treated him unjustly-the case has hit many snags during the past few years. It's unfair to Lomperis, those involved in his case, as well as future candidates. These flaws include ambiguity surrounding who the faculty hearing committee reports to and the weight of its decision.

In 1992, then-president Keith Brodie wanted to recommend to the Board of Trustees that Lomperis receive tenure, but vague language in the University's bylaws thwarted his intentions. Although the president clearly has veto power over the provost's recommendation for tenure, the bylaws do not specifically say whether the president can recommend tenure for a professor who has been rejected by the provost.

"I pushed pretty vigorously for tenuring professor Lomperis-not that that got anywhere," Brodie said last spring. "It was probably a useful exercise at defining the limits of the president."

The new president's hands should not be tied as Brodie's were. When the trustees appointed Nan Keohane as president, they specifically charged her with strengthening the University's faculty; to achieve that goal, she must be able to play a vital role in tenure process, the bylaws do a disservice to the tenure candidates and the University.

Furthermore, Appendix M of the Faculty Handbook, which outlines the faculty hearing committee's procedures, is unclear. During the last six months, those involved with the Lomperis case have been very confused about the role of the hearing committee. Typically, the hearing committee responds to the provost on tenure decision; however, when the provost is a respondent, the case becomes more complicated. The Academic Council, which has begun informal discussion about Appendix M, should begin serious formal talks to delineate a clear line of authority in appellate decisions.

With the Lomperis case, Keohnae should follow the faculty hearing committee's recommendation and appoint an ad hoc committee of outside scholars to examine Lomperis' case. Keohane should also examine the case herself and forward her recommendation along with the ad hoc committee's review to the trustees for a final decision by the trustees' spring meeting.

Equally important as resolving this case equitably is clarifying the tenure process. Before the president appoints a new provost, these kinks in the system must be ironed out. A supposedly first-rate faculty and student body deserve that much.