'Collegiality' as a Tenure Battleground [How "nice" are you?] (NYT

July 12, 2002

'Collegiality' as a Tenure Battleground [How "nice" are you?] (NYT)

By TAMAR LEWIN

For generations, professors seeking tenure at colleges and universities have been evaluated on three factors: teaching, research and service to the institution.

But a number of young professors, especially women, have recently contended that their bids for lifetime academic appointments were derailed by a more slippery fourth factor: collegiality.

"More and more cases are coming up on some version of the collegiality issue," said Martin Snyder, director of planning and development at the American Association of University Professors. "We just saw three cases simultaneously that all came down to the same thing. They're all male-dominated departments that hadn't tenured a woman in a long time, or ever, and there's some language about how the woman `just doesn't fit in.' What comes through is the sense that these are aggressive women who are seen as uppity."

Male professors, too, have complained about being penalized for perceived disagreeable personality traits. But some academics say collegiality evaluations can be a particular obstacle for women who are self-promoting, hard-edged or otherwise outside female social norms.

In recent years, several women who have been denied tenure after clashing with their colleagues have filed suit, charging discrimination or breach of contract. But almost without exception, courts have refused to become enmeshed in personnel decisions, ruling that universities have broad discretion to consider collegiality. Among the cases are these:

In Nevada, Marcella Ann McClure, a biologist who raised more than $1 million in grants for research on viral ecology, sued the University of Nevada in Las Vegas when she was turned down for tenure after her department, for the first time, added collegiality as a category for evaluation, and solicited letters from faculty and staff members on how well she got along. In March, the State Supreme Court ruled against her, finding that universities had the discretion to consider collegiality.

In Maryland, Peri Iz, a Turkish woman with a Ph.D. who was teaching at the University of Baltimore's business school, was denied tenure after her department found that she was "inflexible" and reluctant to take criticism or advice. After a faculty appeals committee said she was a victim of "personality discrimination," Dr. Iz sued the university, and won $425,000 in damages. But the judgment was reversed on appeal, with the court finding that collegiality was an implied part of tenure criteria and that there was no contractual right to tenure.

In California, Gail Gottfried, a psychology professor, sued Occidental College last year after being denied tenure, based on reviews that spoke of her "perceived absence of collegiality" and of positive contributions outweighed by a "negative atmosphere." Her case is pending.

Despite the courts' reluctance to intervene, there have been efforts to confine tenure reviews to the traditional three categories. In 1999, the American Association of University Professors adopted a statement urging that colleges not use collegiality as a category.

"Historically, collegiality has not infrequently been associated with ensuring homogeneity, and hence with practices that exclude persons on the basis of their difference from a perceived norm," the statement said. "An absence of collegiality ought never, by itself, to constitute a basis for nonreappointment, denial of tenure or dismissal for cause."

Still, the ability to work productively with colleagues is an important qualification in any job, especially in what amounts to a lifetime academic appointment. Many academics say personality problems significant enough to become an issue in a tenure decision are likely to reflect extreme and disruptive behavior, not just lack of charm.

"The vast majority of people are able to carry out their work with a reasonable level of civility and without creating great levels of animosity toward them," said Derek Savage, deputy general counsel at Johns Hopkins University. "When a wide variety of people find someone difficult to work with, it's usually not that they're all wrong, it's that there's a problem."

Because tenure reviews are confidential, and based so deeply on personal judgment, it is often difficult to assess precisely what went wrong with a particular candidate.

A case in point was that of Dr. Carol Stepien, an aquatic biologist who was denied tenure at Cleveland's Case Western Reserve University in 1999 - the same year she received national attention for her use of DNA analysis to debunk the idea that the blue pike, a Lake Erie fish declared extinct in 1975, had somehow made a comeback.

In seven years at Case Western, Dr. Stepien published widely, co-edited a well-received textbook and brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money - but also had run-ins with colleagues and graduate students.

Dr. Stepien filed a grievance after her tenure denial, and the faculty panel that reviewed the case said her male colleagues - there were no tenured women in the department then - might not have been comfortable with Dr. Stepien's "demanding and assertive" style.

Neither Case Western administrators nor professors still at the university would discuss the Stepien case. But Dr. Suzanne Ferguson, who retired two years ago after serving as chairwoman of the English department and as an adviser to Dr. Stepien, said she was appalled at the treatment Dr. Stepien got from her male colleagues.

"Because Carol looks rather sweet and compliant, they thought they were hiring the good daughter," Dr. Ferguson said. "But she wasn't the good daughter. She was abrasive, she was pushy, and she didn't consider people's feelings about their pet projects. I was shocked by the tenure file the department created. It was clear they were trying to put together things they could use against her. I had no idea anybody would dare put together a file like this."

Dr. Stepien reapplied for tenure, was turned down and filed two more grievances. The faculty panels again sided with her, in one case recommending that a dean write her a letter of apology for having mishandled her case, by allowing a disgruntled graduate student to remove data from Dr. Stepien's laboratory. No apology came, and in 2000, Dr. Stepien moved to Cleveland State University - and sued Case Western.

Dr. Stepien settled her case in May; neither she nor Case Western would discuss the terms. But her new employer made public part of the settlement: On May 6, Case Western wrote to Mark Tumeo, the dean of Cleveland State's graduate school, announcing a $10,000 grant to Dr. Stepien's laboratory, in recognition of her teaching, research and service at Case Western.

"She is stellar," Dean Tumeo said, adding that while he did not know what had happened at Case Western, his experience elsewhere had been that women who came up for tenure in the sciences were often criticized as being pushy and aggressive.

"In the academy," he said, "there is unfortunately a strictly enforced orthodoxy, which doesn't necessarily accommodate diversity."

Although this article does not mention K-12, I would like to point out that a very similiar practice takes place in education on the K-12 level -- at the beginning of the hiring process.

In my own experience, without prior notice, I was twice asked to take a "personality test" when applying for a K-12 teaching position, even though this is not what the school calls it. (All teacher applicants take the tests when a school or district uses the test; not just me.)

The test is timed - you have to answer the 50 or so muliple choice questions in X minutes (meaning: you must answer quickly). The Gallup organization, as well as other big companies, create these tests -- which do not measure knowledge of subject matter, nor anything else pertaining to teaching.

IMO, these tests should be called: "ARE YOU A LIBERAL OR A CONSERVATIVE? NOW WE WILL FIND OUT"

I have never seen any news articles written about these tests. It infuriates me that such tests are secretly flung at applicants, because what it says to me is this: The fact that you know the subject matter really DOES NOT COUNT, the fact that you can teach DOES NOT COUNT, the fact you do not have a criminal record really DOES NOT COUNT, and the fact you have outstanding prior recommendations DOES NOT COUNT. What REALLY counts as a teacher is that you "believe" what WE believe.

Here is the type of question from such a test: A student has cheated and is now crying. As a teacher, what you would do is: (a) empathize with the student or (b) tell the student cheating is wrong. (and other choices)

Now, I would think if you are a liberal teacher, you will chose (a) empathize. But, if you are a conservative, you will probably choose (b).

I think these tests for K-12 teachers should be illegal -- and prohibited. They provide no information pertaining to the actual skill or subject matter knowledge of the teacher. Rather, IMO, these "tests" are solely intended to determine what a teacher's political beliefs may be.

I also think that while collegiality may be a factor in any job situation, if there is a problem with a person so severe to be denied tenure, then the person should have already been fired prior to the tenure application. Otherwise, collegiality is really not an issue at all.

BTW, these tests never prevented me from getting a job, as one time, the principal told me he was confused by my score, but he hired me anyway. Another time, I withdrew my application after being forced to take this test (you have to sign a statement that you are taking it "voluntarily" BUT at the same time they tell you if you do not take it, you are no longer eligible for a position). I did not want to be considered by such a school district engaged in these deceptive practices. NO prior notice, and FORCED to do something irrelevant to the job.

Now, I would think if you are a liberal teacher, you will chose (a) empathize. But, if you are a conservative, you will probably choose (b).

We are engaged in warfare for the hearts and minds of those who follow us, namely our children.

Answer (a), without disclosing to anyone you are doing so. Live and teach using answer (b). Our country, and our future will be better for it.

I recognize that that isn't how things should be, but it does recognize and give appropriate response to the subversive ways of our enemies (thats how I feel about those who would sneak that test on you and others). I honestly don't know how you can live and work in that enviroment.

Obviously I don't know your situation, but I have been on several promotion and tenure committees in my university department, and can tell you that this "collegiality" business is very important and it doesn't have anything to do with political ideology. (believe it or not!)

Want to know what it involves? There are many "young" faculty (just out of grad school, no matter how old they are chronologically) who think that their "specialty" is all that matters and they shouldn't have to teach Western Civ or U.S. History. No matter how we spell out in our interviews that ours is a "teaching university," people get through our process who think they are going to (I'm not making this up) teach "women in the pre-colonial era" as their entire course on U.S. History!!! Moreover, they utterly REBEL at teaching Western Civ if they are "Americanists."

Now, this has everything to do with "collegiality" because if everyone doesn't pull his or her fair share, some people end up with 5 sections of 35 kids each, while others have 2-3 with (literally) 4-5 kids each. If you think there isn't a massive difference in grading (at a department where we require tons of writing and essay tests) then you're mistaken. "Collegiality" is a generic phrase used to refer to "pulling your own weight" and literally "doing your job."

Oh, and I am on the lookout for ANY political discrimination, but I can assure you that so-far, once they have been offered a job, the issues are all about workload and fairness.

I think what you describe is a valid issue -- but, it does not remotely ring any bells for me in terms of the word: "collegiality." Maybe you are talking about should be called: "Taking Direction" or something like that, because you are describing a more objective criteria, involving the work load and content thatis required to be taught. I think this article is talking more about something that gets lumped into the category, but is far more subjective.

But, I know you are more an expert that I am in terms of higher ed. I am curious what comments you may be able to share about the matter I personally find most troubling, described in my post #1. Because what I am talking about there has nothing to do with the issues you raised.

Martin Snyder, director of planning and development at the American Association of University Professors. "We just saw three cases simultaneously that all came down to the same thing. They're all male-dominated departments that hadn't tenured a woman in a long time, or ever, and there's some language about how the woman `just doesn't fit in.' What comes through is the sense that these are aggressive women who are seen as uppity."

That is a filthy disgusting lie and the article proves it. Here are the departments in question

biology
business
psychology
biology

That these professions are male-dominated is a roll-on-the-floor-split-the-sides laugh riot. Particularly psychology. Math, physics and computer science department would hire an ax-murderer as long as she was female. They -- out loud -- talk about the "need" to hire "a woman".

I'm not sure what the real story is here (other than whining) but it could be extreme unprofessionalism. I mean "run-ins with graduate students" are not common.

Trust me, there is no glut of untenured female professors in male-dominated fields. Not by a longshot.

summer, I really don't think this applies to the K-12 situation. The personality tests are not administered at the university level and the bar for professional behavior is remarkably low. Based on my experience, these cases are people who are abrasive, unpleasant and arrogant -- beyond that of the usual Ph.D! The NYT found some women because "arrogant men don't get tenure" doesn't have the sexism angle.

AmishDude, thanks for your post.

I agree this situation does not directly apply to K-12 -- but, I also know, for a fact, that there are FEW women professors in higher ed earning as much as male tenured professors. VERY FEW.

I have read a lot of stats on that, and after reading all those statistics, I decided it would be a huge waste of my time, as a woman, to go into higher ed fulltime as a professor -- what, so I can get paid less than a K-12 teacher? Because that what some female professors make. By contrast, some of the male professors I read about were making 6-figure salaries. I wouldn't mind be able to someday earn that, but it didn't seem possible for a woman to ever go that high. No other women had. So -- why bother.

But, the K-12 situation I mention disturbs me a great deal, because teaching is not even seen as a skill by the teaching profession. It is a mixture of "beliefs" and "opinions" -- and, if you hold the "right" combo of beliefs and opinions, then, you are rewarded with lifetime employment. If not, forget about all the work you did to become a teacher, because it doesn't mean anything anyway.

In the district where I reside right now, they have hired more than 100 uncertified teachers, and are complaining about the "teacher shortage" -- yet, I can tell you they never mention many of these uncertified teachers are friends and relatives of people already employed in the district, -- while many qualified, certified people have been turned away in the past, to the point where one doesn't even want to bother with this district. Other districts, those now using these opinion/personality indicators, are just as bad, IMO.

I also know, for a fact, that there are FEW women professors in higher ed earning as much as male tenured professors. VERY FEW.

Higher ed salaries are based on two factors -- base salary and grant money. The higher salaries come from big grants and they tend to be heads of large labs -- chemistry, physics, engineering. These are male-dominated.

I know from my field that hiring, tenure and promotion is far easier for a woman than a man. Now, other fields may be different because they're more competitive. For example, there are far more English lit Ph.D.s than those in the hard sciences and a higher percentage are female. This would, reasonably, drive female Ph.D. salaries down.

By contrast, some of the male professors I read about were making 6-figure salaries.

Chemistry or experimental physics, I'd bet. Maybe some NIH grants.

Personally, I'd get bored in a profession that easy. :)

The Gallup organization, as well as other big companies, create these tests -- which do not measure knowledge of subject matter, nor anything else pertaining to teaching.

Sounds like a personality test; they want to make sure you're the touchy-feely type-- naive,in other words. I wouldn't think it too dificult to fake them out.

But, what do they gain by sending a bunch of teddy bears into what passes as a classroom these days? One good fight with a student or parent and goodbye to their wet-nose idealism!

BTW, I was not looking into a higher ed position in education, yet I noticed -- education departments in universities tend to pay their faculty much less than any other department.

Supply and demand. I learned that when I was a grad student teaching in the summers. I taught calculus and and higher-level math classes and got much higher pay than most of my colleagues.

If education departments are so useless as everyone claims, and the faculty is paid so poorly, why don't they just eliminate these departments altogether?

Elem. ed. The various subject departments would be more than happy to educate their own. But nobody else can train elementary teachers.

Besides, you wouldn't want an Ed.D. They spend a lot of their time trying to justify their research. That's where you end up with those bizarre educational theories.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.