Isenberg's wake

The ensuing controversy over the University's denial of assistant professor of history Drew Isenberg's bid for tenure suggests that it is time for a thoughtful examination and reconsideration of the University's tenure process and policy.

The current tenure process, though, rests behind a cloak of mystery, keeping both students and, much more importantly, the junior faculty who are most directly affected by it in the dark. As a result, it is difficult for anyone not directly involved in tenure deliberations — including the professor up for tenure — to know if all is proceeding fairly.

President Tilghman's recent announcement of a University-wide review of the tenure process is a welcome sign. We hope that such a review will illuminate many of the intricacies of the tenure process for both students and faculty, enabling them to make critical judgments of its merits and drawbacks.

More importantly, we hope that this review will result in a more transparent process: one in which junior faculty are kept better abreast of their progress and University's expectations of them. There is no need for a system that is, in the words of Isenberg, "intentionally opaque."

To reform the tenure process, we encourage the University to apply some objective set of criteria — in addition to the inherently subjective use of peer review — to evaluate a junior faculty member's application for tenure.

Furthermore, junior faculty dissatisfaction indicates there must be better communication between junior faculty and the University regarding their progress (or lack thereof) toward tenure.

For junior faculty, after all, the granting or revocation of tenure constitutes a turning point in their academic careers. At the very least, they deserve an honest, objective evaluation of their progress so that they know where they stand not only when they come up for tenure, but along the way.

Saga has implications for the myth of Princeton

Princeton bills itself as the undergraduate Ivy. Unlike peer institutions to our north, goes the myth of Princeton, undergrads actually see professors here.

As the University examines tenure, it is important to consider not only the process by which it is granted, but also the criteria upon which tenure is based. Princeton prides itself on being an undergraduate-centered university, one where students have the opportunity to interact with top faculty who not only have topnotch research credentials but are also inspiring teachers. In fact, the importance placed on teaching at Princeton is one of the University's biggest selling points as it competes for applicants.

President Tilghman's position that the quality of a tenure candidate's research is the primary factor on which tenure decisions are made, then, seems to contradict the emphasis on undergraduate teaching that the University proclaims. Though teaching, she says, is a factor, it comes far behind this research acumen.

At a University that claims to focus on the undergraduate experience and place a great emphasis on teaching, it simply does not make sense that teaching is considered secondary to research.

It is, of course, important to consider the quality of a junior faculty member's research when evaluating him or her for tenure, but particularly at Princeton, this should not take precedence over the quality of teaching.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

As it reconsiders the tenure process, the University should also reconsider its priorities and how they are reflected through this system. If it wants to live up to its self-proclaimed status as an undergraduate, teaching-centered institution, then it must emphasize the quality of teaching as a criterion of greater importance in the tenure process.