Ball State University is now one step closer to being able to fire underperforming tenured faculty, following a vote before spring break by the University Senate.
The policy, which passed 37-19, creates an evaluation system to hold tenured faculty to a level of minimally acceptable standards set by individual departments. It allows for the creation of a peer-driven process to improve underperforming tenured faculty and a method by which consistently underperforming faculty can be dismissed.
The chronic unsatisfactory policy will need to be approved by the Ball State Board of Trustees before implementation.
Implementation could take a year, said Michael Hanley, faculty council chair and professor of journalism. The policy would be added to the Faculty and Professional Personnel Handbook and to the salary documents of every department.
The policy stems from the process departments go through to determine faculty raises each year.
Rather than have evaluations come from the administrative level, from offices such as the provost or president, the evaluations start at the department level, Hanley said.
Each academic department determines how faculty are evaluated and what it means to be unsatisfactory.
Under the proposed policy, if a tenured faculty member receives two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations, or three in a five-year period, a remediation process will begin. A committee of the faculty member’s peers will form and create an improvement plan.
If the tenured faculty member completes their remediation plan, then they are considered satisfactory for the calendar year they were under the remediation. The plan replaces the typical annual evaluation for that year.
However, if the faculty member fails to complete their remediation plan, they will be classified as having chronic unsatisfactory performance.
Faculty deemed chronically underperforming will work with their dean or chairperson to find a solution. If a solution is not determined, the dean or chairperson can either drop the issue if the allegations are unsupported or terminate the faculty member, according to page 102 of the current Faculty and Professional Personnel Handbook.
Every step of this policy can be appealed using the same appeal process for the salary decisions of departments.
It took two years for this policy to go through the university governance system.
“This has to be the most complicated issue the governance system has seen in years,” Hanley said.
Two points about the policy's effects have prevailed throughout its development. Joe Chapman, a professor of marketing, mentioned the first point.
“There are some faculty within the College of Business that have been here for a long time that are contributing positively to the university and they would get thrown under the bus in this policy,” Chapman said.
Chapman said standards are different depending on each department and that they sometimes have to be approved by administration.
Karen Kessler, an associate professor of theatre, voiced a second opposing point and said the power to protect faculty who perform well lies within the departments.
“…There are lots of different ways to protect faculty who are doing a good job. I feel like there is a baseline place where people are afraid of accountability,” Kessler said. “You wouldn’t want your students going to a school where there was not accountability. We need to embrace the idea of being accountable.”
In the end, University Senate representatives passed the policy, to the approval of Hanley, Provost Terry King and Ball State President Paul Ferguson, they said.
“Everyone agreed it was an open process. Everyone got to voice their opinion,” Hanley said.
King added that the faculty involved did their research and due diligence in discussing and addressing the aspects of the policy.
“Really, at the end of the day, it’s a great example of how faculty members in their own units define what the minimum acceptable levels of performance for their job [are],” King said.