It's time for tenure process to change

I think by most accounts President Tilghman has done a good job thus far. She has a very difficult job that involves appeasing numerous personalities — trustees, students, faculty, and staff all come to her. But it appears to me that, seeing as Princeton is a university, her overarching interest should be education and the quality of education that Princeton offers.

This is where President Tilghman's record falls down. I have two objectives: first, to highlight how poorly and unfairly Professor Andrew Isenberg's tenure appeal has been handled, and secondly to ask some necessary questions about the way we treat those who educate under the tenure system.

Firstly, some background is in order. Prof. Andrew Isenberg is a professor in the history department and has taught numerous courses on the history of the American West and an American Studies course entitled American Places. Prof. Isenberg has consistently received rave reviews from students and colleagues alike. He is widely considered one of Princeton's best active professors. Moreover, he has served as a departmental representative, thesis advisor and had one book published by Cambridge University Press and has another in the works. It would seem that all the obvious pieces are in order for Prof. Isenberg to receive tenure and remain at Princeton indefinitely, continuing to research and teach — what he loves. Sadly, he won't.

Prof. Isenberg was denied tenure last spring and has appealed the decision on technical grounds. The appeal goes to the dean of the faculty, currently David Dobkin, who is obliged to form a committee to hear the appeal and render a decision. That's where the problems for Prof. Isenberg begin. His appeal originally went to former Dean of the Faculty Joseph Taylor, who for some undisclosed reason, delayed forming a committee over the summer and carried it over to the new academic year. This is the first time that has ever happened. No one can explain why.

Secondly, the chair of the committee, Prof. John Fleming, was only named just before Thanksgiving Break. All the while, Prof. Isenberg was actively soliciting and receiving job offers from other universities. The only possible explanation for this unfair and excruciatingly drawn-out process of review is this: The University hopes that by delaying sufficiently, Prof. Isenberg will be forced to take a position at another university because of financial and family concerns, thereby eliminating the need for the University to stand by the decision it originally made. This method of stalling is non-confrontational and sufficiently passive — tactics this University seems to favor.

The point is, the University owed Prof. Isenberg a fair and expeditious appeal. He was denied one. That is shameful and unacceptable.

The University U-Council and other concerned students have repeatedly questioned administrators, created and signed petitions and sought explanations about the tenure process. They have been stymied at every turn.

At the most recent meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community, President Tilghman damningly admitted that in order to get tenure "research has to be [professors'] first priority." Much less consideration is given to teaching ability, reputation among students and service to the University. It was the first time an administrator admitted this to me and they seem very wed to their needlessly opaque system of awarding tenure.

I wonder why professors who serve the University or teach extremely well aren't given tenure or aren't offered other positions to keep them at Princeton. Each year the University sees great teachers leave over tenure issues and poor teachers obsessed with esoteric research given tenure contracts. Why?

The other question I have asked of Dean Dobkin and President Tilghman concerns incentives for tenured professors to keep updating curricula and ensuring that students are enjoying their courses. Both admitted that no system of incentives, other than salary increases, exists. And as one professor told me, "Professors don't do it for the money." So, essentially, we have a system of tenure that does not sufficiently acknowledge service and teaching ability (the two things students care most about) and has no incentive for tenured professors to stay cutting-edge and interesting in lecture.

The current system desperately needs revamping, but no one wants to do it. It's frustrating for me especially, because as a U-Councilor, these are the things we want to fix and yet we are constantly thwarted by a rigid and unreceptive administration.

Last year the U-Council said it was worried about the intellectual climate on campus and this is the easiest and most obvious way to fix the problem — change the tenure system somehow to keep good teachers on campus and stop treating them as poorly as Prof. Isenberg was treated.