The state legislature having required post-tenure review at Indiana University, the Trustees recently approved a Post-Tenure Review Policy. The idea is to review tenure faculty every five year andpunish or reward them based on the review. Since tenured faculty can’t be fired except for cause, cause being things like criminal convictions, gross immorality, not showing up for classes, or going senile, the hope is that the reviews will get them to work harder.
The wrong use of it's jumped off the screen at me, so thanks for your aside on that.
It strikes me that the creation of "a whole new disciplinary pathway, with dubious new criteria, and extensive new compliance and paper work" makes terrific sense as a higher ed institutional response:
1. Dubious criteria create ambiguity, a bureaucracy's sweet spot to inflict arbitrary pain on its subjects; and 2. New pathways, compliance regs, and forms create meaningless busywork, a bureaucracy's sweet spot for easier work justifying greater budget. Both increase opacity and centralize power away from faculty, for whipped cream and a cherry on top.
Eric, you are tilting at windmills. Your well thought out and very wise suggestions will, of course, be ignored. Have you ever considered running for public office?
I actually did run, and won! I was one of 6 delegates to the Indiana State Republican Convention last year, and seven of us ran for the 6 slots. So I am not hopeless as a candidate.
(a) Not later than five (5) years after the date that a faculty member is granted tenure by an institution and not later than every five (5) years thereafter, the board of trustees of an institution shall review and determine whether the faculty member has met the following criteria:
(1) Helped the institution foster a culture of free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity within the institution.
(2) Introduced students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks that may exist within the curricula established by the:
(A) board of trustees of the institution under IC 21-41-2-1(b);
or
(B) faculty of the institution acting under authority delegated by the board of trustees of the institution.
(3) While performing teaching duties within the scope of the faculty member's employment, refrained from subjecting students to views and opinions concerning matters not related to the faculty member's academic discipline or assigned course of instruction.
(4) Adequately performed academic duties and obligations.
(5) Met any other criteria established by the board of trustees.
(b) When reviewing a faculty member under subsection (a), the board of trustees of an institution shall assess and review the staffing needs of the institution based on the:
(1) branches, campuses, extension centers, colleges, and schools of the institution; and
(2) degrees or programs of the institution approved by the commission for higher education under IC 21-18-9-5.
The wrong use of it's jumped off the screen at me, so thanks for your aside on that.
It strikes me that the creation of "a whole new disciplinary pathway, with dubious new criteria, and extensive new compliance and paper work" makes terrific sense as a higher ed institutional response:
1. Dubious criteria create ambiguity, a bureaucracy's sweet spot to inflict arbitrary pain on its subjects; and 2. New pathways, compliance regs, and forms create meaningless busywork, a bureaucracy's sweet spot for easier work justifying greater budget. Both increase opacity and centralize power away from faculty, for whipped cream and a cherry on top.
From their perspective, well played.
Eric, you are tilting at windmills. Your well thought out and very wise suggestions will, of course, be ignored. Have you ever considered running for public office?
I actually did run, and won! I was one of 6 delegates to the Indiana State Republican Convention last year, and seven of us ran for the 6 slots. So I am not hopeless as a candidate.
An MIT Econ PhD ends up getting tenure at Indiana Uni, what a loser 🤣🤣🤣🤣
For revision:
From SEA 448 < https://iga.in.gov/pdf-documents/124/2025/senate/bills/SB0448/SB0448.06.ENRH.pdf >:
Sec. 2.
(a) Not later than five (5) years after the date that a faculty member is granted tenure by an institution and not later than every five (5) years thereafter, the board of trustees of an institution shall review and determine whether the faculty member has met the following criteria:
(1) Helped the institution foster a culture of free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity within the institution.
(2) Introduced students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks that may exist within the curricula established by the:
(A) board of trustees of the institution under IC 21-41-2-1(b);
or
(B) faculty of the institution acting under authority delegated by the board of trustees of the institution.
(3) While performing teaching duties within the scope of the faculty member's employment, refrained from subjecting students to views and opinions concerning matters not related to the faculty member's academic discipline or assigned course of instruction.
(4) Adequately performed academic duties and obligations.
(5) Met any other criteria established by the board of trustees.
(b) When reviewing a faculty member under subsection (a), the board of trustees of an institution shall assess and review the staffing needs of the institution based on the:
(1) branches, campuses, extension centers, colleges, and schools of the institution; and
(2) degrees or programs of the institution approved by the commission for higher education under IC 21-18-9-5.