Search News


Browse Archives

News

A 'Perplexing' Tenure Decision

September 11, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Since 1999, Gabrielle Stryker has been an assistant professor of biological sciences at Oakland University, in Michigan -- one of a handful of women specializing in the hard sciences at the institution. In her years of work, she helped pull in a $1 million grant from the National Institutes of Health and published numerous interdisciplinary research papers with colleagues from other departments. She was well liked by her peers and students, despite common perceptions that she “speaks her mind” and “expects a lot from others," according to interviews with several colleagues. 

When she came up for tenure review in 2005, her department and university faculty review committees voted unanimously to approve her tenure, writing that she “meets or exceeds promotion criteria in all areas.”

But tenure was not to be in Stryker’s future. After what many of her peers have called a “perplexing” decision by Provost Virinder Moudgil to deny her tenure last summer -- and a lengthy, yet unsuccessful, arbitration process requested by the local American Association of University Professors union that represents Oakland’s professors – she has spent the last few weeks packing up her office. Her employment contract has expired and she is no longer an employee at the university.

"I'm still sort of in shock," Stryker said Sunday, adding that she has applied for unemployment and will be forced to sell her home because she and her family now cannot afford it. Her husband, an officer in the Marines, has recently been recalled to active duty because of the continuing war in Iraq. She has two children, one in middle school and one who is college age. Stryker says has begun sending her C.V. to institutions nationwide and anticipates having to move from southern Michigan in the near future. 

Todd Estes, a professor of history at Oakland, said that in the three years he’s sat on the university’s Faculty Review and Reappointment Committee and in his 11 years on campus, he’s never quite seen a case like that of Stryker. “If a provost -- seemingly without a shred of negative evidence turned up in the preceding reviews -- may summarily dismiss a candidate who has cleared three rigorous reviews with unanimous support, then no candidate for tenure no matter how strong a record they had would be safe,” he said. 

Moudgil, who was the chair of the biology department when Stryker was hired, could not be reached for comment regarding the situation. Last summer he asked that the institution’s Board of Trustees not reemploy Stryker due partly to “her lack of independence as a researcher.” He felt that too much of her work had been conducted jointly with other professors both inside and outside of her department, although this practice is not against the department's rules.

The board ultimately approved Moudgil’s recommendation in August 2005.

After the board’s decision, the AAUP quickly decided to request that an arbitrator review the situation, and many expected a quick decision in favor of Stryker. However, after a yearlong process, which ended on August 14, the arbitrator ruled that the university had acted within its authority to deny tenure.

During the hearing, Moudgil testified under oath that he was not "predecided" on whether to grant tenure to Stryker, but some professors at the institution say they've seen a document written by Moudgil that said he "had it in for Stryker" because she had voted against some of his recommendations when he was her department chair.

During arbitration, Moudgil said that Stryker's research was not sufficient and that she had not done enough service to warrant tenure.

Stryker said that she did as much research as other faculty members who have received tenure both inside and outside of her department. She also noted that she served as the chair of a departmental technology committee, helped bring in influential speakers, and assisted in rebuilding the department's Web page in service to the university. 

"What more could I do?" she asked through tears during an interview.
 
Fay Hansen, an associate professor of biology – who was directly involved in her department’s review of Stryker – said that something went “terribly wrong” in Stryker’s case.

Hansen has sat on numerous review committees and says that Stryker’s case for tenure was “much stronger” than many colleagues she has seen receive tenure. It’s the first time she can remember a professor not receiving tenure in her department. She’s been at Oakland for 21 years, and received tenure in 1992.

Hansen said that Stryker's research met the biology department's requirements and she believes that Stryker met all existing policies on research independence and service to the institution for promotion and tenure. She added that Stryker’s background in epidemiology and molecular immunology was an “excellent fit” with the biology department’s needs.

Kathy Pfeiffer, an associate professor of English at Oakland, says that many professors were “shocked and disappointed” in Moudgil’s decision because he had been, to that point, “singularly supportive of faculty.”

“I myself have benefited enormously from his support and am very grateful for it,” said Pfeiffer.

Hansen said that this situation proves that there is “no consistency” on granting tenure at Oakland. “Are they suggesting that we should have med school research credentials when we already have lots of teaching responsibilities?” she asked. “To almost all of this, this is incredibly scary.”

The AAUP also says it has done all it can. “Our bargaining agreement calls for binding arbitration in cases such as this,” said Jim Cipielewski, president of the local AAUP chapter and chair of the Language and Reading Arts Department at Oakland. “As a result, there is no recourse for the association to continue this particular case.”

Cipielewski added the group’s “resolve is to do everything we can to prevent such cases in the future.” Faculty leaders have recently negotiated a tentative bargaining agreement that provides more guidance from the university to untenured faculty at earlier stages of the tenure process. “Our expectation is this will allow these assistant professors to understand more clearly what the university expects,” said Cipielewski, who added that he did not agree with the arbitrator’s decision in Stryker’s case.

Stryker said that she is considering filing a lawsuit against Oakland, but says she may not be able to afford a lawyer.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A 'Perplexing' Tenure Decision

  • Does it Help?
  • Posted by Andrew Purvis on September 11, 2006 at 6:50am EDT
  • I wonder if those who hold a blanket anti-tenure position are now a little more informed about the need for a reasonable tenure system. Here is a professor who had received unqualified support, who had every expectation that her life would be with Oakland, and who had planned and purchased a home accordingly. Yet one person can overrule a panel of the professor's colleagues and deny tenure.

    People don't get into education with the thought, "Gee, I can't do anything, so I had better teach." Nor do they look to the tenure when determining college courses, thinking, "How can I get into a field that has fewer jobs than applicants and a small chance of landing any real security and decent pay?"

  • Posted by marya on September 11, 2006 at 7:25am EDT
  • Not so puzzling. The devil's in that document, and revenge is a dish best taken cold, as this one was.

  • "Safety" from being refused tenure
  • Posted by JBM on September 11, 2006 at 7:30am EDT
  • It is very strange that academics are complaining that they are not "safe" from being refused tenure. There is no right to tenure anywhere.

    Further, this quote got my attention:

    "Stryker said that she did as much research as other faculty members who have received tenure both inside and outside of her department."

    I have seen the exact same thing happen to people APPLYING for jobs: If they have outresearched and outpublished the hiring committee, they are toast at the prescreening stage of the process. Have their "rights" to be safe from being refused tenure been violated too?

  • Call Out the Right-Wing Attack Dogs
  • Posted by T.R.M. on September 11, 2006 at 9:20am EDT
  • This professor has an almost unbeatable card to play: Her husband is an officer in the United States Marine Corps. She should contact Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and David Horowitz, claiming that she was denied tenure because "the left-wing bias" of university officials made them want to punish the family member of a U.S. military officer.

    It doesn't matter if there's no actual truth to the claim. When you've got that kind of firepower and public outrage on your side, the university will cave before too long.

  • the rest of the story
  • Posted by BJG on September 11, 2006 at 9:30am EDT
  • We're missing critical information here. What were the other reasons cited in the provost's decision? Where is this document in which he allegedly plans to disrupt her career and how did these other faculty members come to see it? What formal guidance in preparation for tenure review did Dr. Stryker receive, did it involve her department chair, and what in that process was actually documented as part of meeting university guidelines? And where by the way are the university attorney and president? Someone presumably has been looking out the university's interests in case this provost is off on a personal vendetta. If not, shame on them, and then Dr. Stryker -- go get yourself a lawyer -- it will be worth your effort although you will still likely want to find another place to work.

  • Posted by SP on September 11, 2006 at 10:05am EDT
  • Same issue I always raise. Tenure is yes-no. If yes, nice job. If no, devastation and rebuilding a career (or sometimes not) elsewhere. The contract system of permanent jobs, used all over the world except in North America, is fairer, and that is what the US needs. She would have been on probation for three years, then renewed for another three (with targets to meet) or given a permanent contract at that point. No enormous tenure dossiers and masses of committees to appease. Long or permanent contracts are good enough for Oxford and Cambridge, after all.

  • Safety?
  • Posted by Andrew Purvis on September 11, 2006 at 10:05am EDT
  • The only mention in the article of anything close to "safety" was the comment by Estes that even the most well-supported professor can get kicked to the curb by one person less qualified to judge the candidate than the (in this case three) committees that have already done so.

    No one has claimed a "right" to tenure, and commenters such as JBM would do well to remember that. The issue here is the consistently positive feedback the university provided to Stryker followed by the sudden reversal by one individual's decision and the attendant arbitration.

    Let's take that business example so many like to use in arguing against tenure. How long would a business be able to recruit top executives if it indicated, during the hiring process, an interest in promoting the candidate, provided certain goals were met, only to turn around and fire the employee, who has invested years with the company? Want to executives are downsized every day? Sure, but that would be a poor analogy unless the real reason was budget cuts that made tenure impossible to offer and the existing position impossible to retain.

  • sexism
  • Posted by Alan C on September 11, 2006 at 10:35am EDT
  • I suspect sexism. I'm aware of instances like this at several universities, and it's almost always a male provost vs. a female professor who dared to "challenge" the MAN.

  • Andrew
  • Posted by JBM on September 11, 2006 at 10:40am EDT
  • "Moudgil, who was the chair of the biology department when Stryker was hired, could not be reached for comment regarding the situation."

    Why is a person who was chair of the department "less qualified" to evaluate her credentials than anyone else involved in the evaluation?

    I underscored the comment in the story about being "safe" from denial of tenure because it expresses a misconception that is likely at the basis of this dispute. No one is "safe" in this way.

    My use of the word "right" in relation to any conviction that if one does everything one is asked, one should be "safe" from being denied tenure, is arguably questionable. Despite the questionable word choice, there do seem to be serious misconceptions at work here that I don't know how to reconcile with everyday hiring practice. I have seen stellar scholars cut down on a regular basis for many, many reasons over the course of many, many years. It is in no way uncommon, so why all the upset in this case?

  • Posted by A.J. Cataldo on September 11, 2006 at 11:01am EDT
  • This is completely unacceptable. The Provost should resign. Furthermore, the AAUP has failed to support a solid case, suggesting that they are the subject of what we in the acadmic environment refer to as "regulatory capture theory." I question their actions and/or failure to completely support Stryker. It would appear that "teaching" ethics is more important than "behaving" ethically.

  • Additional information
  • Posted by Barbara Oakley , Associate Professor at Oakland University on September 11, 2006 at 4:05pm EDT
  • You all might also be interested to know that this past year, a professor came up for tenure with no publications whatsoever, no grant monies, and a unanimous vote against by the department.

    The Provost gave this professor tenure.

  • One person
  • Posted by Andrew Purvis on September 12, 2006 at 7:25am EDT
  • When a committee of colleagues who are still teaching evaluate an active member of the faculty, yes, they are more quialified than a former department chair. Allowing one individual whose career has removed him from research and the classroom to override people still functioning in the research and education roles is an appalling thing.

    I agree that some may perceive a "right," but it would be difficult to argue that Stryker did not have at least a reasonable expectation.

    While I will defend the idea of tenure, I do feel there are problems, both with the ways in which it is granted (or not, in this case) and the ways in which it is used like journalists' "shield laws." Thus, we need to reexamine both ends of the tenure process in order to fix it.

    That top scholars are being "cut down" when they are contributing to the field and to their employers is, I would argue wrong. The difference with this case is that we have it before us. Would articles of similar cases have aroused similar responses, provided the medium and reporting? I can only say that I suspect so. Other may disagree, of course. We must remember, though, that any attempt to reconcile tenure with "everyday hiring practices" necessarily proposes that what we ask of academics is comparable to what we ask of those in commerce. That is a difficult case to make, I think.

  • Justification?
  • Posted by WFB on September 12, 2006 at 10:00am EDT
  • If the Provost's decision is intellectually or academically justifiable, then why "no comment"? His silence is the most damning aspect of this whole story. Why is he hiding? The lack of accountability on the part of our administrators generally is an ongoing and troubling issue. There is no review process for administrators like that which can make or break a professor; there is no assessment of administrative work like that to which we must devote increasing amounts of time and effort; they do not file annual reports for the university community to review and evaluate.

  • Abuse of Power
  • Posted by Arnold , Professor on September 12, 2006 at 8:00pm EDT
  • This is definitely a case of a person in high authority abusing their power. The president should have put a stop to this before it happened. It is unclear why he/she did not, but one could certainly draw conclusions. In general it is unthinkable that the provost would actually go through with this action. After reading "Additional Information," it is clear that the provost there is not terribly concerned with research. Please tell the female:male ratio in the Biology Department at Oakland University. I would suspect it is very low. This should prompt some action.

  • Faculty gender ratios in Oakland University's Biology Department
  • Posted by Barbara Oakley , Associate Professor at Oakland University on September 12, 2006 at 10:20pm EDT
  • If you look at OU's biology webpage, http://www2.oakland.edu/biology/faculty.cfm, you'll see 18 (by my count anyway) actual professors--not counting non-tenured special instructors or adjunct faculty, or the Provost. There were 4 women as of last year. Dr. Stryker didn't get tenure, so that brings it down to 3. One--Jill Zeilstra-Ryalls--is leaving for a considerable promotion elsewhere, I am told as a result of the shenanigans going on in the department and at the university. (Jill has been one of Oakland's top researchers.) So that leaves 2 women out of 18 professors in the department. Pretty lousy ratio if you ask me.

  • Male:Female Ratio
  • Posted by A female on September 12, 2006 at 10:20pm EDT
  • 15:3 (The Provost doesn't count)

    Next fall the department will be down to 2 as one woman has taken a position at another University. She knew any attempt to become full with the current provost would be difficult. She is going to Bowling Green as a full Professor.

    Another women has been denied being put up for full multiple times, she had her lab taken away this last year. But then we all have heard that women just don't have the same aptitude for science...

    http://www2.oakland.edu/biology/faculty_research.cfm

  • Dr Stryker's case at Oakland U
  • Posted by VBK , Professor at Oakland University on September 14, 2006 at 2:40pm EDT
  • With regard to the Stryker case, I am perplexed by the failure of anyone to ask what the arbitrator based his decision on. Most of the arbitration cases I am familiar with have gone in favor of the faculty. Check out the arbitrator's reasoning and you might be surprised. It is not fair to blame the provost as if the arbitrator did not have the opportunity to check the basis for the provost's decision. Secondly, it is absolutely the case that the administration at Oakland has reversed more negative recommendations by faculty committees than the other way 'round. Thirdly, there is an inaccuracy in one of the comments, which must be corrected. The colleague who was "unanimously" denied tenure by her department was actually recommended for tenure by the college and university committees. And she had a publication record. Let's be faithful to the facts.

  • Tenure
  • Posted by Barbara Oakley , Associate Professor at Oakland University on September 14, 2006 at 5:20pm EDT
  • VBK, I don't mean to be testy here, but did or did not the person in question have a unanimous "against" vote at the departmental level? Did or did not she bring in any funding? And, of course, anyone can have a publishing record by simply publishing in non-peer-reviewed publications. Did or did not this individual have any peer-reviewed journal papers--and if so, how many?

  • Posted by thekid on September 15, 2006 at 7:25am EDT
  • one more thing vbk. the person in psychology pub record was acquired BEFORE she came to OU. thats what i heard--that her articles were in press or published when she came to ou

  • Correction and comments
  • Posted by Barbara Oakley , Associate Professor at Oakland University on September 15, 2006 at 2:05pm EDT
  • Since the above postings, I have been able to find the name of the professor I alluded to earlier. I must make a correction in that I was able to determine that this professor has obtained some funding--on the order of 1/10th of that obtained by Dr. Stryker. Also, this professor does have journal publications--on the order of half as many as Dr. Stryker.

    VBK had earlier alluded to the failure of anyone to ask what the arbitrator had based his decision on. Essentially, without proof of bias, the way the then current union contract was written, the arbitrator simply could not overturn the decision. Such proof of bias is not easy to come by. Never-the-less, such proof appears to have been available, as discussed in the pdf available at http://dimer.tamu.edu/simplog/archive.php?blogid=3&pid=4107 (see also the update at http://dimer.tamu.edu/simplog/archive.php?blogid=3&pid=4116). It appears that the union may have felt the case was strong enough on its own merits to present without the additional proof.

  • Dr Stryker's Case at Oakland U
  • Posted by Vincent B Khapoya (VBK) , Professor at Oakland University on September 23, 2006 at 3:35pm EDT
  • Prof Oakley, I commend you for acknowledging your earlier misstatements about our colleague who was denied tenure by her department, a decision which was reversed by the university committees and the provost. You also noted that she had publications. I was told that they were in peer-reviewed journals. It would seem to me that at tenure, one's entire record ought to be considered and not just the publications while at Oakland.

    With regard to bias, there was ample opportunity for the union and the union's lawyer and the parade of 10 colleagues - including Prof Oakley and Dr Stryker herself- who were called to testify to present evidence of bias. It is patently unfair for some faculty to scream bias and to direct their venom at the provost because the process designed to weed out such bias did not go their way.

    As I said during a recent union meeting, I was surprised by the arbitrator's decision because in the past most of the arbitration decisions have favored faculty.

    Before any more harangues, please read the arbitrator's decision. It is tightly written and argued. It appears the lawyer did his homework, carefully examined all the materials submitted, and attentively listened to the testimonies of those called to testify. He even gave Dr Stryker credit for her fine teaching skills.