Productivity and Competence: Post-Tenure Review in American Universities.

Current efforts for tenure reform, particularly post-tenure review, must be examined carefully to make sure that they do not violate the assumption that undergirds the idea of the professions. Whether it be accountancy, law, medicine, or other professions, possession of the appropriate licensure/degree normally conveys a "rebuttable presumption of an individual's professional excellence." Within this framework, however, review for cause has long been an acceptable means of reviewing a faculty member's proper fulfillment of duties. In recent times, however, some colleges and universities—faced with a public dissatisfied with higher education's costs and outcomes—have turned to a review of faculty, absent cause, in order to address questions of productivity. A major part of the current debate over such a post-tenure review is the form that it should take. The question asked by this paper is whether the standard of peer review—the fundamental defense of the integrity of any profession—can be shown to be a satisfactory answer to the concerns of higher education's publics. We cite leading management writers and current management practice in sup support of the standard of peer review in reforming tenure practices. We then suggest some guidelines for pursuing post-tenure review as tenure reform within such a framework.