The process to reform the University's tenure review procedures stalled last week after the faculty voted to withdraw the proposals from consideration and refer them to the Faculty Executive Committee. The proposals would, for instance, stop departments from revealing the identities of outside references to tenure candidates and allow deans to supplement the department's review by soliciting additional references. Though these changes may seem technical or irrelevant to students, some faculty members are acting as if the nature of the undergraduate experience at Brown is at stake. Despite our strong belief in the value and uniqueness of this experience, we're not convinced these faculty members are correct.
Several faculty members allege that the administration is overly focused on Brown's research credentials and rankings, and wants to adjust the tenure review process to emphasize scholarship over teaching and advising. Professor of Comparative Literature Arnold Weinstein told Inside Higher Ed last week he was worried about the "possible erosion of the value of undergraduate teaching" and the "unintended devaluing" of the College. Professor of American Civilization Susan Smulyan told Inside Higher Ed in April that Brown is a "very unusual place" because unlike Harvard or Yale, professors here "could make a career where teaching mattered and where community mattered."
After reading these quotes and hearing off-the-record comments from other faculty members, our first reaction was to defend the College from the encroachment of rankings-oriented administrators. But we now think that our initial views were simplistic and mistaken. Indeed, the view typified by those quotes presents a false dichotomy between research and teaching.
Brown's culture and undergraduate focus are surely unique, but this culture isn't simply the result of a faculty that cares about students. Rather, what makes Brown unique is that faculty members are both excellent teachers and leading scholars in their fields. And students choose Brown not simply for the opportunity to work with a devoted faculty, but to work with a devoted faculty that also happens to be among the best in the world when judged on the criteria of research and expertise. We reject the notion that the two pillars of a great faculty — teaching and research — are irrevocably in tension or that Brown students are only entitled to excellence in one of the two.
Some have argued that because junior faculty are making decisions each day about how to allocate their time, they may feel pressured by an apparent zero-sum game — a minute spent talking to a student is a minute that can't be devoted to making the next great discovery. But we hope that Brown attracts faculty who have a desire and an ability to balance the two. Plenty of other schools relieve professors of the pressure to publish and demand only maximum time in the classroom. And plenty of other schools would be more than happy to overlook teaching incompetence and hire a brilliant scholar. We want professors who care about both teaching and research and can do both at a high level — that's what truly defines Brown.
Though the reform process has stalled, we look forward to continuing the conversation about which specific proposals best achieve these goals and which may go too far. But considering that students here beat a 9 percent admission rate and pay nearly $50,000 a year, we're receptive to the idea that the requirements for a lifetime job guarantee at Brown should be demanding.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials (at) browndailyherald.com.
