The full story from Dr West

Sr. Catherine Michaud’s Tenure Case: A Factual Account

In the fall of 2009, Sr. Catherine began her request for tenure by submitting her self-evaluation to the departmental peer evaluators. After a thorough evaluation they recommended her for tenure. Their recommendation went on to the chair, Dr. Russ Connors. He thoroughly evaluated her and recommended her for tenure. He then passed on his and the peer evaluators’ evaluations and recommendations to the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC), who thoroughly evaluated her and recommended her for tenure “without qualification.” In late January of 2010, they sent their evaluation and recommendation to Dr. Alan Silva, the Dean of the School of Humanities, Arts, and Sciences. He rejected the recommendation of the Department and the FPC on the grounds of an insufficient number of peer-reviewed publications and presentations. He did not contest her excellence in the areas of teaching and service.

Sr. Catherine appealed Dr. Silva’s decision. He rejected her appeal. She then appealed the decision to Ms. Colleen Hegranes, the Senior Vice-President for Academic Affairs, who rejected her appeal. She then appealed to Sr. Andrea Lee, President of the University, who rejected her appeal. Finally, she appealed to the Board of Trustees, who in a brief letter on August 27 informed her that they had rejected her appeal.

Losing the appeal means that Sr. Catherine will receive a terminal contract to teach this coming academic year. And thus, in June of 2011, she will lose her job. SCU, like most universities, has an “up or out” policy: faculty members whose request to move up to tenure is rejected have to move out after one more year.

At one point, the Administration, perhaps realizing that turning down Sr. Catherine’s request for tenure could prove to be controversial, offered what we in the Department have to come to call the “one+two terminal contract,” that is, she would get the one year granted to all those turned down for tenure plus two more years, and then be terminated. In exchange, she would stop her appeal and withdraw her request for tenure. It would be as if she had never made a request: the whole process would retroactively cease to have existed. What would exist is the certainty that by June of 2011 she will have lost her job.

Sr. Catherine turned down this offer. She believed that the Administration had not provided a compelling reason to overturn the recommendation of the Department and the Faculty Personnel Committee. She believed that she was worthy of tenure. Furthermore, this offer precluded her from applying for a sabbatical leave for which she was eligible in 2011–12.

She made a counter proposal. She would drop the appeal and withdraw her request for tenure if the Administration would offer her one+four terminal contract with the right to apply for a sabbatical leave. Sr. Andrea rejected this proposal.

Sr. Catherine also proposed that she be allowed to return to the rolling contract she was on before she attained her doctorate and before she went on track leading to tenure. Such contracts are for three years and offer the possibility of renewal. Sr. Andrea rejected this proposal.

It was not easy for Sr. Catherine to make these proposals, for she believed she deserved tenure.

And we in the Department believed she deserved tenure. At each stage of appeal we wrote letters on her behalf. From the beginning we acknowledged that the number of publications and presentations to peers was not as high as one would wish (though it was not negligible). We made and re-made an argument we call “holistic,” that is, an argument that looks at the whole person, weighing both strengths and weaknesses against the needs of our students and our department, and considering the circumstances affecting a faculty member’s performance in all areas. The Administration rejected this argument for a holistic appraisal, claiming that they only tenure those who are peak performers, who are “excellent” in every respect, who have no area where they come up short. We find their claim bogus: our University has very few tenured faculty members who are peak performers in every respect. We also reminded the Administration that Sr. Catherine is a peak performer as a teacher—teaching is supposed to weigh 50–60% when evaluating someone for tenure or promotion. She is also a peak performer in her service to the University—service is supposed to weigh 10–20%.

But all our arguments were of no avail.