|
TOWARDS A RETHINKING OF THE TENURESHIP POLICY OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
by
Roland G. Simbulan
Professor and Faculty
Regent,
University of the Philippines
System
Introduction
During my campus visits and consultations with faculty
constituents in the UP System's seven constituent universities
(UP Diliman, UP Manila, UP Los Banos, UP Visayas, UP Baguio, UP
Mindanao, and UP Open University) and in our regional extension
programs (UP Clark in Pampanga and UP Subic), I have been
repeatedly confronted with the issue of the UP System's
tenureship policy. I have been approached by both rank-and-file
faculty as well as administrators, including Vice Chancellors
for Academic Affairs, deans and department chairs who lament the
loss of their faculty because of this policy. In particular,
this is about the refereed publication requirement in our
tenureship policy. In the implementation of our tenureship
policy today at UP, controversies regarding the
"publish-or-perish-policy" for untenured faculty in whom the
University has invested just refuse to perish. There is
widespread demoralization in the University's faculty ranks
because of the effect of the University's "publish-or-perish"
rules in its tenureship policy. The policy is quite often seen
as "cruel" by many junior faculty members who are devoted to
teaching and are recognized as excellent teachers by their
students.
Should there be Tenure?
Yes, there should be tenure, for the idea of a tenured
professor was originally advanced to protect the faculty's
academic freedom. The problem in the "Up-or-Out Rule" is not
with the tenureship rule per se that
requires instructors to obtain an M.A. in 5 years so that they
can be "upped" to assistant professor, or they are not
reappointed ("out"). The problem for many junior untenured
faculty is with the "Tenure-or-Out" rule which requires the
publication of a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal in
order to gain tenure within five years as instructor, within 3
years as assistant professor, within 2 years as associate
professor and within a year as a full professor. Failure to do
so within the specified periods will mean no reappointment or
reclassification as a part-time lecturer no matter how
outstanding one is as a teacher or that one is taking up a PhD
or has one already.
Losing Outstanding and Experienced Faculty Members
I contend that this rule is really an
administrative nightmare in the few years that we have been
implementing the tenureship policy, especially if there are no
substitutes of equivalent or similar experience. In most
instances, administrators are forced to appoint a new graduate
and start at zero in faculty development.
My office, the Office of the Faculty Regent, has documented
so many cases from our various units where we are losing or
removing good teachers with advanced degrees because of the very
strict requirement of a peer-reviewed publication in our
tenureship system. But the harsh paradox of the present
tenureship system is that we are losing some of our finest
teachers, and often replacing them with young, inexperienced
teachers because of the difficulty of hiring on a lateral basis.
Loss of Investments in Faculty Development
We invest hundreds of thousands if not
millions of pesos to send our faculty to study locally or abroad
for the MAs and Ph.Ds, only to terminate them as a result of the
implementation of our tenureship policy, for lack of a refereed
article in an academic publication. Sometimes, we even have to
shorten their return service to the University because of this,
after they come back from their study leave with pay. Let me
reiterate that the University invests immensely in the education
of our junior faculty whom we also overload with subjects. By
the time they become experienced teachers with good evaluations,
we throw them out because they lack the publication
requirement. Meanwhile, it is the private universities like
Ateneo, De La Salle, and the University of Asia and the
Pacific(UAP), etc. that reap this harvest of our outstanding
teachers whom we did not renew. Our loss is often definitely
their gain, of our experienced faculty
with advanced degrees whom we did not renew because of
our publications requirement for tenure. This is for sure
hurting the University in more ways than one.
For Excellence: UP as a teaching and research university
I contend that the implementation of a
rigorous tenureship policy is the number one concern of the UP
System faculty today. The present tenure system implies
temporariness and the possibility of being replaced, it is
assumed quite often wrongly, when a better qualified
person comes along. But oftentimes, the replacement or
substitute is less qualified in terms of academic qualifications
and teaching experience. I cannot understand why we must
impose a time limit to non-tenureship as long as the faculty
member is a good teacher, though still lacking a refereed
publication. To get a less qualified and less experienced
teacher as a replacement is to go against the very grain of
academic excellence, but administrators often are left with no
choice because they say that "this is the policy of the
University." The situation undergoes a vicious circle because
the new entrant would also be faced with the same dilemma.
There is a hemorrhage of good faculty members due to the
implementation of the tenureship policy, a situation inimical to
the University's quest for academic excellence.
Proposed Alternative Tenureship Tracks
Good teachers must be reviewed until such
time that they are ready to apply as tenured faculty members and
they are ready with the publication requirements. But let us
also add other privileges and benefits to being a tenured
faculty so that it becomes a valid goal that every faculty
member will really aspire for.
In the case of our high schools (UPIS and the Rural High
Schools in UPLB and UP Visayas), and units such as Human
Kinetics or P.E. Departments, we can assign alternative
performance indicators in place of the refereed publication.
UPLB Rural High School faculty members, through their principal,
have submitted an alternative proposal specific to their
situation as high school teachers which, I understand, is being
reviewed for the entire system by a university ad hoc
committee.
The Present Conditions of Non-Tenured Faculty
Most non-tenured faculty are overworked,
have overloaded teaching units, are enrolled for 2nd degrees,
yet receive salaries a lot less than some of their students who
are working in call centers.
It was in the process of implementing the publication
requirement in our tenure rule that many have realized that we
need to solve the following obstacles that make it difficult for
our junior faculty to cope with our stringent publication
requirements for tenureship:
1. The enigma of a limited number of refereed journals in
certain academic fields or disciplines, despite an increase in
research activities; and
2. the lack of proper enabling conditions
in the academe that are fertile to scholarly writing and the
prevalence of overloaded teaching assignments and committee work
that we assign to non-tenured faculty.
Other questions raised are in connection with the standards
we set for the criteria of peer-reviewed publications like:
1. Who determines what are peer-reviewed journals or
publications? Should we not come out with a complete list of
acceptable peer-reviewed journals so faculty members can
determine where to publish?
2. Does the university not accept peer-reviewed online
journals for tenureship requirements?
3. Are contributions in human rights or environmental
advocacy or applied social sciences, for instance, in popular
(but not peer-reviewed) publications not acceptable to meet the
tenureship requirements as new indicators that can be
incorporated?
We all envision a University that recognizes and gives
tenure to great scholars, but can it not give the same
recognition to its great teachers too? I have met some of our
best junior teachers at UP who display an extraordinary devotion
to their students and cultivate very creative lecture styles.
It is sad to see these excellent teachers who commit extensive
time to their students, depart untenured because they have
expended their energies to teaching instead of research and
writing. A new crop of junior faculty arrives and the whole
process begins again. Students end up paying the penalty with a
professor with an outstanding publication record but only
mediocre teaching ability and who barely has time for them.
While I strongly support the goal of strengthening UP's
reputation as a "research university", we should be keen on
situations that may either be not applicable or result in
self-inflicted human resource losses to the
University. The implementation of this tenureship policy has
now become inimical and stifling the growth of some of our
units.
I urge the University administration to reflect and
re-examine the current tenureship policy being vigorously
implemented in the University in the light of its quest for
excellence as well as the current limitations and constraints in
its academic resources. And perhaps we can review the
University's tenureship policies without sacrificing our goal of
excellence.
I hope that the "publish-or-perish" policy of the
University can be re-examined in the light of these experiences
and situation.
|
|---|
