Democratizing the Tenure System

THIS FALL two women were offered tenure by Harvard's Administration. For those in the academic community who believe in equal representation on the Faculty and in an active policy of awarding tenure to women, the tenuring of Diana Eck in Comparative Religion and of Nancy Clecker in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology came as a victory at the end of a long fought battle that is really not yet over. For the students in Foreign Cultures 12, "Sources of Indian Civilization," who knew Eck was up for tenure, it was the end of an anxious wait. The end of what was for them, an unfought battle--"unfought" because the system of tenure in this college pointedly and totally excludes student opinion. In our state of satisfaction, we temporarily forgot that our enthusiasm and appreciation of Eck's teaching abilities had very little to do with the decision to award her tenure at Harvard.

This brings us to the crux of the problem. What is the role of the undergraduate in determining who teaches him or her during four important years of his or her life? More important, should the undergraduate play any part at all in this process of selection? At this point, the Committee on Undergraduate Education is the only campus organization that bases course-evaluation on student opinion. The CUE guide is the only means for students to express their views in public. No doubt one feels a sense of self-importance when filling out a CUE guide survey. Criticisms offered in these surveys often help structure the course. But the CUE guide is mainly a resource for the student, compiled by students and written up by other students. Neither instructors nor departments play any role in the preparation of the CUE guide. Consequently, one cannot expect it to be considered in any great detail when the question of tenure of a junior faculty member arises. All those magnanimous (and terrible) things that you felt about the person who taught you are condensed into one small number that really doesn't make very much difference at all.

The system of awarding tenure must have certain underlying principles that make up its basic structure. Here I attempt to look at the system from a student's point of view and not in an analytical or explanatory sense, with the hope that this will answer some questions about the undergraduate's role in the whole process. Student opinion on the issue of playing a part in the process of tenure is by no means unanimous or clearly defined. It is clouded by incomplete knowledge of the structure of the tenure system and by the University's policy of remaining tight-lipped on the issue. My own view presented here is bound to be incomplete. Yet a partial view is, I feel, in this situation, an indicator not without value in determining the truth about the whole.

It is fair to make the judgement that tenure is awarded on the basis of a person's ability to communicate--as a researcher and as a teacher. There is a prevalent feeling among students in this college that it is the person's capabilities as a researcher, as a writer and academic that dominate the tenure decision. I think it can be agreed that this idea is not without factual basis. Often, it is this aspect of academia that lends itself to Harvard's prestige, to its reputation as an institution of great learning and to increasing its financial resources. Should this be the main criterion for awarding tenure? Is it not possible to say that a person's teaching abilities are of vital importance to those people who crowd the halls of Sever, Emerson and Jefferson? Consequently, can it not be said that students should and must be involved in the process of awarding tenure? Let us look further for an answer.

It is clear that at this point student involvement in determining tenure is minimal. But the student is perhaps in the most advantageous position to judge the teaching abilities of his or her instructor. Looking at the issue on a more mundane--yet no less important--level, the student is paying a vast amount of money toward tuition. Considering these two facts together, one is surprised that the University makes no attempt to take into account student opinion on the particular issue of awarding tenure.

Two issues are at hand here--the importance of teaching undergraduates and the role of student opinion. I think it is time to make a judgement based on a critical approach. The various departments and the Administration cannot be oblivious to the large undergraduate population of this college. To consider the powers-that-be as people who are looking only for prestige and recognition cannot be true. Yet there persists the notion that the capabilities of doing good research and teaching oppose each other as factors of 'prestige' vs. 'loss of scholarly recognition' in the process of tenure. This idea links up with the fact that we, as students, are essentially left out of the whole deal. Our role as responsible individuals in the academic community is undermined by the structure of the system of tenure.

Unbelievable as it may sound, I think that it is time for change. At this time it is not at all clear that student opinion will eventually find a place in the almost sacred institutions that influence academic policies at Harvard. To put it quite bluntly, the prospects for change are bleak. How change is going to come about is another question altogether. It will not be easy and will require a good deal of experimentation of the trial and error kind before it can have a positive effect on the academic community. Yet a search must be mounted for a compromise between students and the Administration that will leave both with a sense of satisfaction about fulfiling their roles as two groups of academically responsible individuals. It is time to make the attempts to begin the process of renewal to recognize the student as an integral part of an academic community that acts in accordance with the principles of true democracy.

Vijaya Ramachandran '86 is a foreign student from India living in Leverett House.