Student group, B.R.E.T.T., demands tenure reform

The tenure denial of Assistant Professor of Sociology Brett Johnson in Spring 2011 has upset many students and sparked a dialogue between administration and students about the tenure process.Many sociology students and other students sympathetic to Johnson’s tenure denial have formed the Bring Reform to the Educational Tenure Track group (B.R.E.T.T) which calls for change to the tenure process.

“The B.R.E.T.T. group has two objectives: first, to have Brett’s tenure rejection re-evaluated and, second, to revamp the tenure process so decisions like this about great professors will not happen again,” B.R.E.T.T. member and sociology major, Fred Burdine (‘13) said.

The group’s Facebook page has 158 members.

“From what I understand, the ideological debate that is going on in the upper levels of Luther is: do we want professors who are known for scholarship … or do we want professors who are interested in mentorship and students’ overall transformation?” Burdine said. “Brett falls into the second category more than the first.”

This year is Johnson’s eighth and final year teaching at Luther. Once a faculty member is denied tenure they are permitted to teach one additional year at Luther while they search for a new position elsewhere.

The tenure process involves a third year review as well as a sixth year review when the final tenure decision is made.

During the third year review, the Appointment, Tenure and Promotion (ATP) Committee, comprised of senior faculty, review the candidate’s file and give the candidate feedback as to how he or she is doing.

“When reviewing a professor for tenure, the [ATP] committee looks at that professor’s file,” Head of the ATP Committee and Professor of Accounting and Management Charles Christianson said. “The file is comprised of a record of all the courses
they have taught at Luther, student evaluations, students’ comments from the most recent two semesters, a curriculum vitae, a personal statement from the professor about their commitment and service to the college, evidence of teaching, letters of recommendation and a section on scholarship.”

During the sixth year review the ATP committee reads through the candidate’s file and then makes a recommendation to either grant or deny tenure. This recommendation is then sent to the dean and college president who also weigh in before it is sent to the Board of Regents who make the final decision.

“There are at least three good solid stages of people who are reading, writing and making a judgment,” Christianson said. “It’s possible that the decision could go one way or the other at any stage of the process.”

Tenure approval is reviewed upon three major criteria: teaching, scholarship and service.

“The thing that students are most disgruntled about is that Brett is absolutely effective in the two of the three areas: teaching and service,” B.R.E.T.T. member and sociology major Alyssa Gammelgaard
(‘12) said. “This is not just my opinion; I’ve heard this from everyone who has taken a class from him.”

The central purpose behind the scholarship requirement is to help professors stay abreast of changes in their fields.

“We don’t want professors just reading, but out there coming up with their own ideas and sharing them,” Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the College Kevin Kraus said. “Sharing is important, whether it’s through publishing or going to conferences and saying ‘here’s what I think’ in front of other scholars in your field, so then you can then go back to classroom and better engage students with current debates.”

Johnson recognizes the many steps involved with granting or denying tenure.

“The tenure process is multi-layered with many people’s judgements taken into account – including teaching evaluations from students,” Johnson said.

“Ultimately, the college made the judgment that I did not meet the requirements of the sociology program’s scholarship statement – more specifically, that my publication of peer-reviewed journal articles was inadequate. There are differences of opinion among faculty about the proper weighting of teaching, research and service regarding tenure.”

Not only is B.R.E.T.T. disgruntled about the criteria upon which tenure is evaluated, they are upset by the lack of student voice and transparency in the tenure process.

“As a group, we were originally vying for Brett’s tenure renewal, but this no longer seems like a possibility,” Gammelgaard said. “While we don’t want to give up on Brett, if effective, influential professors are going to be continued to be denied tenure in the future, then we as students see this as a problem.”

B.R.E.T.T. is calling for more student sway in the tenure process.

“Why is it that the people most removed from the classroom are so involved in making these final decisions?” Gammelgaard said. “We aim to bridge the gap between the administrators making the ultimate decisions about tenure and the students.”

Christianson disagrees with this sentiment.

“Students are heavily involved in the decision,” Christianson said. “All of the comments made that are a part of student evaluations are factored into the decision.”

In addition, B.R.E.T.T. is advocating increased transparency in the tenure process.

“Half the people in the sociology department didn’t know he was denied tenure until we were invited to partake in the hiring process of a new sociology professor to replace Brett,” Burdine said. “The lack of awareness is something a lot of people are upset with.”

Many sociology students are writing letters over their anger of Johnson’s tenure denial. Ultimately, these letters will be presented when B.R.E.T.T. makes its case to Student Senate for tenure reform.

So far, 15 pages worth of letters have been collected.

“I think it will be interesting to see what the group [B.R.E.T.T.] has to say to Student Senate about the tenure process,” Kraus said.

The administration is open to student opinion on the tenure process.

“It is my belief that a college is a place where there should be discussion between students, faculty and administrators about lots of different issues,” Kraus said. “Decisions should be part of how the Luther community develops.”

Though members of B.R.E.T.T. realize they will have to bid farewell to a favorite professor, they remain focused on the future.

“Once a new sociology professor is hired the odds of saving Brett are almost none, but we can still make the tenure process better in the future,” Burdine said. “Being active and trying to affect change reflects the very values Brett Johnson taught
us.”

Johnson believes that individual professors should be allowed to fulfill different roles on campus according to their strengths.

“Not everyone needs to be a great advisor to first-year students and not everyone needs to be a prolific researcher,” Johnson said. “The Luther community needs to consciously choose its future path. If Luther chooses a path of requiring more faculty publications in order to become a more ‘elite’ institution, like Grinnell or Carleton, it just may come with some unintended sacrifices of other important institutional priorities.”