Board committee recommends tenure and approves post-tenure review policy; trustees discuss faculty development
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Student and Academic Affairs Committee recommended 25 tenure or promotion actions to the full board and approved a revised post-tenure review policy that triggers reviews for cause rather than automatic periodic reviews. Trustees asked for clarity on faculty development, metrics and how the policy would align if state law changes.
The Tennessee State University Student and Academic Affairs Committee on Sept. 18 recommended to the full board the approval of tenure and promotion actions for the 2024–25 cycle and approved a new post‑tenure review policy to be effective immediately.
Provost John Melton and faculty leaders presented 29 portfolios; one applicant subsequently resigned and the committee voted to forward the remaining recommendations (25 approvals after the modification noted in materials) to the full board. Provost Melton told trustees applicants had been vetted through departmental, college and university personnel committee reviews and that candidates’ portfolios reflect teaching, scholarship and service evaluations used to support promotion and tenure decisions.
Trustees asked about faculty development and compensation as drivers of faculty turnover and of assistant‑professor-heavy faculty rosters. The provost and academic leaders said TSU’s onboarding, annual evaluations and partnerships (for example with AQ for online faculty development) will be emphasized; they also pointed to compensation gaps compared with peer institutions and recent resignations tied to pay competition.
On post‑tenure review, faculty senate chair Vicki (VT) presented a revised policy developed by faculty that triggers post‑tenure review based on specified criteria rather than instituting mandatory cyclical reviews for all tenured faculty. Professor Ken Chilton, who led the ad hoc faculty committee, told trustees the faculty recommended a triggered model because the university’s small department sizes make a universal mandatory program burdensome and because annual reviews and remediation should surface problems earlier. Trustees asked how the new policy compares to the University of Tennessee (mandatory cycles) and the University of Memphis (triggered model) and how many faculty currently are on improvement plans; the administration said five faculty were currently on formal improvement plans and that PTR removals are rare nationally.
The committee voted to recommend the tenure/promotion slate to the board and to approve the post‑tenure review policy; the student affairs committee also approved modest changes to admissions testing/guidelines (aligning SAT with ACT thresholds) to clarify first‑time freshman admissions criteria.
Why it matters: tenure and post‑tenure review govern academic standards, faculty retention and student experience; trustees requested clearer faculty‑development metrics and assurances that compensation and recruitment strategies align with the university’s academic goals.
Discussion vs. decision: the committee made formal recommendations (tenure/promotion slate and post‑tenure policy) and held discussion on faculty development and admissions policy changes.