Specifically, the Association warns against limits and dangers to academic freedom that could result from post-tenure reviews, and essentially suggests a bevy of alternative options for imposing sanctions and other disciplinary actions rather than resorting to post-tenure review, and that a proper review process can be identified by its lack of intrusion into areas best covered by other processes contractual agreements. It is not surprising that they conclude post-tenure reviews are ineffective when they have removed any effectiveness form their definition of a proper review.
Resolution no. 3/17/96 on post-tenure review: Adoption of Fresno model as baseline. (1996, March 17). CSSA board of directors. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from California State University Website: http://www.csustudents.org/plenary/resolutiondocuments/96-3-17_Post_Tenure.pdf
In this incredibly succinct and straightforward resolution, the California State Student Association lays out their reason for wanting to implement a system-wide post-tenure review process (namely the unmitigated existence of individual unnamed professors who were deemed to be ineffective in the classroom). Their reasoning also includes the stated rules governing...
The system wide implementations of the proposed post-tenure review process is essential to ensure the same quality of instruction at all CSU campuses, the students maintain. Costs associated with this implementation are not addressed.
SACUA. (1998, January 12). Comments by the University of Michigan's president and provost on post-tenure review. Retrieved November 6, 2009, form University of Michigan Website: http://www.umich.edu/~aaupum/leecb.htm
In entirely unequivocal language taken from the approved minutes of two meetings, the President and Provost of the University of Michigan both spoke out against post-tenure review as it is usually understood in the modern context, with President Bollinger asserting that post-tenure review has always existed in the form of consequences for lack of performance. Both felt that the addition of a post-tenure review program to existing performance reviews would be an unnecessary financial burden and an "anti-intellectual" move for the university to make. Concerns regarding lack of performance standards are summarily dismissed.
