UNC fails to award tenure

[tfk53]

UNC Board of Trustees denies tenure to Nikole Hannah-Jones, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer for The New York Times Magazine who in April was being appointed to the Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism at U.N.C.’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media. The last two people appointed to this position were given tenure upon the appointment. Appears to be a conservative backlash about her involvement with the NY Times magazine's 1619 Project. Apparently this bothered the trustees more than decades of student-athletes making a mockery of going to class.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/19/b...-scroll-weight

[acdevil]

Shameful

[PackMan97]

Shameful

I guess she wasn't helping recruiting enough. Maybe she refused to set up some fake classes for athletes? I'm gonna go ask Manalishi on PackPride for the inside story on this one.

[dudog84]

I guess she wasn't helping recruiting enough. Maybe she refused to set up some fake classes for athletes? I'm gonna go ask Manalishi on PackPride for the inside story on this one.

Still too soon.

[MartyClark]

UNC Board of Trustees denies tenure to Nikole Hannah-Jones, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer for The New York Times Magazine who in April was being appointed to the Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism at U.N.C.’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media. The last two people appointed to this position were given tenure upon the appointment. Appears to be a conservative backlash about her involvement with the NY Times magazine's 1619 Project. Apparently this bothered the trustees more than decades of student-athletes making a mockery of going to class.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/19/b...-scroll-weight

Maybe someone in the academic world can tell us how tenure works. It was my understanding, perhaps wrong, that professors earned tenure with years of service at an institution. It sounds like Ms. Hannah-Jones joined the U.N.C. staff fairly recently.

I have no opinion on her qualifications or whether she should be granted tenure but need more information before I can conclude that there was a racist motive in UNC's decision.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Maybe someone in the academic world can tell us how tenure works. It was my understanding, perhaps wrong, that professors earned tenure with years of service at an institution. It sounds like Ms. Hannah-Jones joined the U.N.C. staff fairly recently.

I have no opinion on her qualifications or whether she should be granted tenure but need more information before I can conclude that there was a racist motive in UNC's decision.

I think I understand the process but I am far removed so I will defer on this to someone who is actually in academia rather than guessing.

I do not think that anyone thinks this was racially motivated. I'm really not sure what led you to believe that.

I think the original poster is pretty clear in explaining the precedent and the alleged reason why tenure was denied.

[MartyClark]

I think I understand the process but I am far removed so I will defer on this to someone who is actually in academia rather than guessing.

I do not think that anyone thinks this was racially motivated. I'm really not sure what led you to believe that.

I think the original poster is pretty clear in explaining the precedent and the alleged reason why tenure was denied.

The lede on the NYT articles speculates that conservative backlash over her role in the 1619 project was the basis for her not getting tenure.

Unless I'm missing something, the NYT article suggests that her position on a racial issue was a factor or perhaps the reason.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

The lede on the NYT articles speculates that conservative backlash over her role in the 1619 project was the basis for her not getting tenure.

Unless I'm missing something, the NYT article suggests that her position on a racial issue was a factor or perhaps the reason.

It is based on her perceived political position, not her race. There's a difference. I am fairly sure that a white journalist involved in the same project likely would have gotten the same response. But I think there are likely people here who are a lot closer to this situation and academia in general who can provide a more informed opinion.

[Wander]

Maybe someone in the academic world can tell us how tenure works. It was my understanding, perhaps wrong, that professors earned tenure with years of service at an institution. It sounds like Ms. Hannah-Jones joined the U.N.C. staff fairly recently.

I have no opinion on her qualifications or whether she should be granted tenure but need more information before I can conclude that there was a racist motive in UNC's decision.

It varies from field to field, but one typical path at an R1 like UNC is: you join without tenure but on "track" to get it, then in 5-6 years you get evaluated for tenure based largely on your publications and grants/awards during your time at the institution. But you can also try to get tenure early, or if you have substantial experience join with tenure from the start. Based on strictly on outsider perspective, it seems to me she should get tenure in any of these cases – her department voted for her (it's uncommon for a university to go against a department recommendation, though not unheard of or inherently unethical), she has extremely prestigious awards, etc.

But, I try not to be too judgmental without knowing the internal workings of these things. Maybe there are legitimate grievances or concerns behind the scenes that are not public – there are any number of possibilities there. So I would say it looks unfair from the outside (and probably is, knowing UNC), but I can't be 100% certain.

[Section 15]

I can offer a little bit of personal experience on how tenure is awarded, having held non-tenure track positions at two universities (what was known then as three and out - i.e. you teach for three years and then you either have to be put on a tenure track or you leave). I was in a field that was clogged with tenured faculty. This was over 40 years ago and schools had loaded up on tenure track faculty in the late 60s and early 70s on the assumption that the baby boom was going to last forever and there would be an endless supply of students. Apparently demographics wasn't a strong suit in my field. Because I was just a couple of years behind there was never an option for me to be on a tenure track. I saw the light and switched to the business world in a completely different field and worked happily for the next 30 years.

However, the concept of tenure is not hard and fast. Yes, the traditional way is to start as an assistant professor, graduate to associate, and by the time you are ready to become a full professor, the tenured members of your department will be ready to vote you tenure depending on your academic accomplishments, such as papers published in peer reviewed journals, presentations at professional conferences, and most importantly, how much they like you. Academic politics was far more cut throat than anything I ever experienced in the business world. In my observation, teaching ability was never very important in a tenure decision.

Having said that, tenure (and rank) are what the department, and school, decide it should be. Accomplishments outside of academics can weigh heavily. In the case of Nikole Hannah-Jones, I have read that in addition to a Pulitzer and the 1619 project, to which she was a primary contributor, she was also a recipient of a McArthur Genius grant. These accomplishments are catnip for any academic department looking to burnish its credentials, even though they occurred outside the academic environment. The point being that any university can hire a faculty member with full tenure and rank if they want to. It is pretty much their decision.

Anyway, that's the how I understand tenure in higher education. I'm sure that others can add to this or correct me if have remembered something incorrectly.

Section 15

[cspan37421]

It is based on her perceived political position, not her race. There's a difference. I am fairly sure that a white journalist involved in the same project likely would have gotten the same response. But I think there are likely people here who are a lot closer to this situation and academia in general who can provide a more informed opinion.

I recommend reading the Wikipedia entry on historians' reaction to the 1619 Project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_16...rom_historians

Seems like an academic, not political, critique, but perhaps that's in the eye of the beholder?

Having said that, let me be the first in this thread to say

5, 4, 3, 2, ...

[Bostondevil]

Yeah, I do know how this stuff works. Ms. Hannah-Jones has been named to an endowed chair position. The faculty also recommended her for tenure. Recruiting offers at this level, especially when a candidate is offered an endowed chair, always come with tenure. I think it is highly unlikely that Ms. Hannah-Jones will remain in the position without tenure. When the faculty recommends tenure, the Board of Trustees' approval is supposed to be a mere formality. They don't usually have the background/experience to understand how the tenure process works. Tenure, of course, gives professors protection from being fired for expressing views, political views included, that are not always in agreement with governing boards. The fact that they over-ruled the faculty in this instance is bush league. Nobody on the Board of Trustees has a PhD. Lots of attorneys and businessmen though. See for yourself. https://bot.unc.edu/ Political? Racist? Sexist? Doesn't really matter. It will be viewed as all three and used as a reason not to accept faculty positions at UNC moving forward. If UNC doesn't fix this now, it will be a stain for a long time to come. It's already pretty bad. It might affect the ability of current faculty to get research grants - the real money that fuels any large research university.

I hate UNC basketball but I've always been proud of the flagship public university in my home state. This nonsense is yet more fuel to add to the fire that UNC is not a good place to go, for faculty or students.

[mph]

Yeah, I do know how this stuff works. Ms. Hannah-Jones has been named to an endowed chair position. The faculty also recommended her for tenure. Recruiting offers at this level, especially when a candidate is offered an endowed chair, always come with tenure. I think it is highly unlikely that Ms. Hannah-Jones will remain in the position without tenure. When the faculty recommends tenure, the Board of Trustees' approval is supposed to be a mere formality. They don't usually have the background/experience to understand how the tenure process works. Tenure, of course, gives professors protection from being fired for expressing views, political views included, that are not always in agreement with governing boards. The fact that they over-ruled the faculty in this instance is bush league. Nobody on the Board of Trustees has a PhD. Lots of attorneys and businessmen though. See for yourself. https://bot.unc.edu/ Political? Racist? Sexist? Doesn't really matter. It will be viewed as all three and used as a reason not to accept faculty positions at UNC moving forward. If UNC doesn't fix this now, it will be a stain for a long time to come. It's already pretty bad. It might affect the ability of current faculty to get research grants - the real money that fuels any large research university.

I hate UNC basketball but I've always been proud of the flagship public university in my home state. This nonsense is yet more fuel to add to the fire that UNC is not a good place to go, for faculty or students.

UNC and it’s academic reputation, such as it is, will be just fine. That a flagship public university depends on the support of the public is a political reality if not an ethical one. This is an unusually high profile tenure case and it’s neither surprising nor inappropriate that the BoT took an active role in the review process.

[Bostondevil]

Yeah, I do know how this stuff works. Ms. Hannah-Jones has been named to an endowed chair position. The faculty also recommended her for tenure. Recruiting offers at this level, especially when a candidate is offered an endowed chair, always come with tenure. I think it is highly unlikely that Ms. Hannah-Jones will remain in the position without tenure. When the faculty recommends tenure, the Board of Trustees' approval is supposed to be a mere formality. They don't usually have the background/experience to understand how the tenure process works. Tenure, of course, gives professors protection from being fired for expressing views, political views included, that are not always in agreement with governing boards. The fact that they over-ruled the faculty in this instance is bush league. Nobody on the Board of Trustees has a PhD. Lots of attorneys and businessmen though. See for yourself. https://bot.unc.edu/ Political? Racist? Sexist? Doesn't really matter. It will be viewed as all three and used as a reason not to accept faculty positions at UNC moving forward. If UNC doesn't fix this now, it will be a stain for a long time to come. It's already pretty bad. It might affect the ability of current faculty to get research grants - the real money that fuels any large research university.

I hate UNC basketball but I've always been proud of the flagship public university in my home state. This nonsense is yet more fuel to add to the fire that UNC is not a good place to go, for faculty or students.

Amendment - and I like to claim that I will admit it when I am wrong. I do know how this stuff works - at Harvard - and to a lesser degree at the University of Maryland. Two things have come to my attention upon further review. 1) Something I am unfamiliar with is endowed chairs at professional schools that are actually for professors of the practice. Professor of the practice is a title that usually means non-tenured, so, I will admit that I do not know exactly how tenure/professor of the practice works at UNC but apparently this position is a professor of the practice position. 2) At Harvard, tenure, even without an endowed chair, means that the money for the position is funded by a dedicated portion of the University's overall endowment. The way to think about it, the endowment considers the position permanent and will fund it in perpetuity no matter who holds the position. It does not have to be a named endowed chair, but in order to create a new tenured position at Harvard, the endowment must be increased to fund the position - usually by a donation or donations. As long as the endowment doesn't collapse and a professor doesn't break the very few rules that could lead to their dismissal, a professor cannot be fired. At public universities, since a portion of their funding is dependent upon state governments, tenure isn't really tenure. Professors with tenure can be fired if sufficient cuts to the funding are made by exterior forces. Endowed chairs at public universities are therefore a bigger deal. State governments can't cut the funds that come from endowed chairs.

Faculties vote to give tenure and the decision moves up for final approval. That final approval rests with the president of the university at most places.

[sagegrouse]

Amendment - and I like to claim that I will admit it when I am wrong. I do know how this stuff works - at Harvard - and to a lesser degree at the University of Maryland. Two things have come to my attention upon further review. 1) Something I am unfamiliar with is endowed chairs at professional schools that are actually for professors of the practice. Professor of the practice is a title that usually means non-tenured, so, I will admit that I do not know exactly how tenure/professor of the practice works at UNC but apparently this position is a professor of the practice position. 2) At Harvard, tenure, even without an endowed chair, means that the money for the position is funded by a dedicated portion of the University's overall endowment. The way to think about it, the endowment considers the position permanent and will fund it in perpetuity no matter who holds the position. It does not have to be a named endowed chair, but in order to create a new tenured position at Harvard, the endowment must be increased to fund the position - usually by a donation or donations. As long as the endowment doesn't collapse and a professor doesn't break the very few rules that could lead to their dismissal, a professor cannot be fired. At public universities, since a portion of their funding is dependent upon state governments, tenure isn't really tenure. Professors with tenure can be fired if sufficient cuts to the funding are made by exterior forces. Endowed chairs at public universities are therefore a bigger deal. State governments can't cut the funds that come from endowed chairs.

Faculties vote to give tenure and the decision moves up for final approval. That final approval rests with the president of the university at most places.

Harvard having dedicated endowment for all tenured positions is only because the Harvard endowment is nearing $40 billion. Most other universities pay professors, to at least some degree, from tuition income -- hey, they teach; students pay; ergo,... In fact, when last I was associated with Duke, it was trying very hard to raise dedicated endowment funds to fund scholarships, which otherwise had to be funded with other income streams (like tuition payments).

[Bostondevil]

Harvard having dedicated endowment for all tenured positions is only because the Harvard endowment is nearing $40 billion. Most other universities pay professors, to at least some degree, from tuition income -- hey, they teach; students pay; ergo,... In fact, when last I was associated with Duke, it was trying very hard to raise dedicated endowment funds to fund scholarships, which otherwise had to be funded with other income streams (like tuition payments).

So does Harvard. Tenured positions are only partially funded by hard money. It's not that the endowment funds the whole salary of the tenured faculty, it's that all tenured faculty are entitled to some funding from hard money. Harvard's endowment funds scholarships too.

[dudog84]

Harvard having dedicated endowment for all tenured positions is only because the Harvard endowment is nearing $40 billion. Most other universities pay professors, to at least some degree, from tuition income -- hey, they teach; students pay; ergo,... In fact, when last I was associated with Duke, it was trying very hard to raise dedicated endowment funds to fund scholarships, which otherwise had to be funded with other income streams (like tuition payments).

I used to be impressed by this...and then came Jeff Bezos.

Bezos University, anyone? What would be their mascot? Bison? Buzzards? Bees? Buzzsaws? Bo'suns?

[CameronBornAndBred]

I used to be impressed by this...and then came Jeff Bezos.

Bezos University, anyone? What would be their mascot? Bison? Buzzards? Bees? Buzzsaws? Bo'suns?

Amazons. Duh.

[bundabergdevil]

I used to be impressed by this...and then came Jeff Bezos.

Bezos University, anyone? What would be their mascot? Bison? Buzzards? Bees? Buzzsaws? Bo'suns?

We're all just living in the bezosphere.

[luvdahops]

Yeah, I do know how this stuff works. Ms. Hannah-Jones has been named to an endowed chair position. The faculty also recommended her for tenure. Recruiting offers at this level, especially when a candidate is offered an endowed chair, always come with tenure. I think it is highly unlikely that Ms. Hannah-Jones will remain in the position without tenure. When the faculty recommends tenure, the Board of Trustees' approval is supposed to be a mere formality. They don't usually have the background/experience to understand how the tenure process works. Tenure, of course, gives professors protection from being fired for expressing views, political views included, that are not always in agreement with governing boards. The fact that they over-ruled the faculty in this instance is bush league. Nobody on the Board of Trustees has a PhD. Lots of attorneys and businessmen though. See for yourself. https://bot.unc.edu/ Political? Racist? Sexist? Doesn't really matter. It will be viewed as all three and used as a reason not to accept faculty positions at UNC moving forward. If UNC doesn't fix this now, it will be a stain for a long time to come. It's already pretty bad. It might affect the ability of current faculty to get research grants - the real money that fuels any large research university.

I hate UNC basketball but I've always been proud of the flagship public university in my home state. This nonsense is yet more fuel to add to the fire that UNC is not a good place to go, for faculty or students.

At the risk of treading into PPB territory, I don't think this decision should be viewed in isolation, but rather as part of a nascent but growing backlash against critical race theory, its major proponents, and the general notion of viewing virtually every issue through the lens of race. And that backlash is hardly confined to conservatives.

FWIW, while the 1619 Project may have been well regarded in journalistic circles, as other have noted, its reception in the academic community has been mixed at best. Many decidedly less than conservative historians have eviscerated it as little more than an ideological manifesto, and one riddled with factual inaccuracies to boot.