The departmental review committee recommended me "enthusiastically and unanimously" for tenure. They did not have any "significant reservations" about my case. If they had had "significant reservations", I would have been given the chance to respond to them prior to the P&T committee's decision. But, paradoxically, I was not given that chance because my departmental review committee believed my case was strong. They rated me as "Outstanding-plus" for teaching, "Outstanding-plus" for research, and "Outstanding" for service. Normally, the college requires an "Outstanding" level of achievement for each of these in order to qualify for tenure.
All three of the members of this committee have served on the Promotion and Tenure committee, so it would be reasonable to assume that they are familiar with the actual evaluation methods and standards that would be used by the Promotion and Tenure committee. They also come from a variety of disciplines, allowing them to take a broad perspective in evaluating my case.
For the most part, this committee has been one of the few beacons of light in an otherwise nightmarish and kafkaesque process. I should make clear that it would be very easy for me to be quite displeased with this committee. It could be argued that they did great damage to my chances for tenure by improperly preparing me for the concerns that would be raised by the Promotion and Tenure committee, by incorrectly interpreting the current methods and standards for tenure evaluation at Colby, and by failing to mark my case with "significant reservations" so that I would have had a chance to strengthen my case. I understand that there has been at least one department in the past who tagged a case with "significant reservations" even though the department actually held no such reservations, in order to allow the candidate a chance to meet with the P&T committee.
However, I choose to believe that my department review committee is the one that is actually best qualified to judge my case and is most familiar with its unusual elements. In fact, the tenure procedures at Colby seem to be structured with this same assumption in mind (even the Dean of Faculty claimed this in one of his emails to me), although in practice it appears that P&T committees are willing essentially to ignore the department committee’s opinions and recommendations (another disconnect between tenure theory and practice at Colby). It is extremely curious to me that not a single one of the summaries I received from the P&T committee addresses the stark contrast between their evaluation and the evaluation of my department committee. It seems obvious to me that such a stark difference in opinion should be accompanied by at least some kind of explanation.
In addition, two members of the committee have been incredibly supportive and open in terms of discussing issues with me and trying to help me figure out what went wrong. They seem to be as honestly flabbergasted by the Promotion and Tenure committee's decision as I am. This is also disturbing; that they could have been taken as much by surprise as I was. The third member of my department committee has essentially refused to communicate with me since the tenure denial. I assume that is because he was also a member of my Promotion and Tenure committee and he is taking a very broad view of his obligations to the college's curious requirements for secrecy. The damage the tenure process can do to personal relationships is one of the biggest tragedies of this whole way of doing things.
Randolph M. Jones
People involved in my tenure case
How (not) to get tenure at Colby College