Archive for month: October, 2021

Mahalo to all of the faculty who took the time and effort to share their concerns and perspectives regarding the findings and recommendations of the Tenure Permitted Interaction Group (PIG) at the University of Hawai‘i Board of Regents meeting held last Thursday, Oct. 21st.  

Don’t Mess with Tenure

There were 634 pages of lengthy and meaningful testimony and those testifying virtually overwhelmingly opposed the Tenure PIG recommendations. This sent a very strong and powerful message and point to the BOR: Faculty need to be actively engaged in building and strengthening the University of Hawai‘i as a land grant R-1 research institution. The ill-advised dismantling of UHʻs existing tenure system, as recommended by the Tenure PIG, would be ruinous and destructive, and start the downfall of the quality of Hawai‘i’s public higher education system.

The passion of the faculty behind the testimonies, both written and oral, came through loud and clear. It was clear the Tenure PIG was an epic failure. It strayed from its intended purpose and charge and obviously did not include faculty input in its recommendations.

Support from UH Administrators

Faculty concerned about upholding the quality of the UH inspired several UH administrators. Typically, administrators are at odds with the faculty, but on this Tenure PIG issue, they fully supported the viewpoints of the faculty and stepped forward to also voice their concerns during the Board of Regents meeting and in the media.

A Major Victory

The faculty efforts paid off. Faculty set the tone for the meeting, single handedly stopped the recommendations of the Tenure PIG in their tracks, and prevented them from being implemented. This was no small feat and will go down in history as a major victory by the faculty.

Not Out of the Woods Yet

But we cannot celebrate just yet. The policy recommendations in the Tenure PIG remain intact and although implementation has been averted for now, the Board of Regents voted to defer these recommendations to an ad hoc committee of the whole for review. We have come very far and cannot afford to let our guard down. But from the unabashed display of boldness by the faculty last week, we know that faculty are being taken seriously and are a force to be reckoned with.

We Stand on the Shoulders of Those Before Us

If you are currently a tenured faculty or a tenured track faculty in instruction, research, extension, specialist, librarian, or other faculty classifications, then you are a direct beneficiary to those retired and more than likely deceased UH faculty who have over the decades fought tirelessly and vigorously to protect and ensure your faculty rights under tenure, academic freedom, collective bargaining, and many other terms and conditions of employment.  These former UH faculty members, who even before the Stateʻs recognition and adoption over collective bargaining rights for public employees in 1970, recognized the value of UHʻs unique classification system and the importance and significance of upholding tenure in order for the UH to continue to grow and prosper into the great research and instructional institution we have today.

The Current Battle is Nothing New

Attacks over UHʻs faculty classification system and faculty tenure by the ever evolving and changing Board of Regents (BOR) is not new nor will it ever cease.  Moreover, significant and detrimental attacks occur after numerous decades have passed when those who were involved, and who can recall and remember, are no longer here with us.  Recorded history will reflect that in 1967 the BOR hired an external consultant (i.e. Public Administration Service or PAS) to review UHʻs faculty classification plan and recommended abolishing the research and specialist classification and to reclassify them as either an APT or faculty but removing the distinction of researcher and/or specialist.  Faculty rose in opposition and testified against the recommendations.  The BOR did not adopt the recommendations and the research and specialist classifications remained intact and remained as faculty.  One of the reasons why the BOR held off on taking action was the impact of individuals in these positions in regards to their loss of tenure and the impact of conversion to the APT classification.

The Benefits You Enjoy Today Were Won By Those Who Came Before You

The previous generation of faculty recognized and appreciated the importance of protecting faculty rights over tenure, academic freedom, collective bargaining, and other terms and conditions of employment, not only for the institution itself but also to help the UH flourish and excel in the areas of research, instruction, and extension.  They put in the time, effort, work, and made the sacrifices necessary to ensure that the institution would continue to grow, thrive, and advance for the next generation and the generations to come by organizing and opposing the forces that threatened the cornerstones of academic institutions.

If It Can Happen To Them, It Can Happen To You

Unfortunately, on Wednesday, October 13, 2021, the University of Georgia Regents approved changes to itʻs boardʻs post tenure review policy against the objections of its faculty and its union, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), as reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which faculty and the AAUP criticized as a hobbling of tenure.  The current threats to tenure across the nation, including public higher education institutions, will continue to be constant and relentless.  It will require more advocacy, engagement, and solidarity of faculty and UHPA with not only the Board of Regents, but also the UH Administration. 

Now it’s Your Turn To Carry The Torch Forward

Today, a significant threat and challenge has again reared itʻs ugly head .  Faculty are again faced with dealing with BOR recommendations that will definitely change and significantly impact all faculty in a very harmful and negative manner, as well as, negatively impact the institution they serve.  

It’s Time to Take Action NOW

The BOR is scheduled to hear, discuss, and possibly take action on the Tenure PIGʻs report and recommendations at its next meeting scheduled for this Thursday, October 21, 2021 (insert link here).  Faculty across all ten UH campuses are calling upon each other to organize and take action by submitting written testimony as well as providing oral testimony over the Tenure PIGʻs report and recommendations.  It is time that the BOR hears the voices of faculty across the institution. 

Every generation faces their own unique personal and professional challenges.  One thing is also certain: you have an individual choice and decision to voice your opposition to these recommendations or to remain silent.  As the saying goes, no vote – no grumble.  Your future as a faculty member and the future of other UH faculty will be up for decision.  This is your moment, now, to take action and that means submitting testimony, preferably oral but at least written.  

Submit Your Testimony Now

All written testimony on agenda items received after posting of a meeting’s agenda and up to 24 hours in advance of the meeting will be distributed to the board. Late testimony on agenda items will be distributed to the board within 24 hours of receipt. Written testimony may be submitted via the board’s website at this link, US mail, email to bor.testimony@hawaii.edu, or facsimile at (808) 956-5156. All written testimony submitted are public documents. Therefore, any testimony that is submitted for use in the public meeting process is public information and will be posted on the board’s website.

Those wishing to provide oral testimony for a virtual meeting must register in advance via this  registration link Given constraints with the online format of our meetings, individuals wishing to orally testify must register no later than the registration closing time as noted on the agenda. It is highly recommended that written testimony be submitted in addition to registering to provide oral testimony. Oral testimony will be limited to three (3) minutes per testifier.  You will be provided a (1) minute warning bell to wrap up your testimony.

Individuals providing oral testimony at a virtual meeting will need to connect through the Zoom application. When signing up, please note that the name used upon registration may be included in the meeting minutes. After completing the registration form, registrants will receive an email confirmation with the necessary meeting information and connection instructions.

On the meeting day, individuals registered to provide oral testimony will be placed in a viewing room upon connection to the scheduled meeting. When called upon to begin their testimony, oral testifiers will be unmuted and have the ability to turn their video on. Microphones will be muted and video will be disabled upon conclusion of providing testimony.

For further assistance regarding testimony, please contact the board office at bor.testimony@hawaii.edu or (808) 956-8213.

For disability accommodations, contact the board office at (808) 956-8213 or bor@hawaii.edu. Advance notice requested five (5) days in advance of the meeting.

Permitted Interaction Group (PIG) or Wild Pig

On Friday, September 10, 2021, the University of Hawai‘i Board of Regents posted their agenda and meeting materials for the September 16, 2021 meeting.  Included on the agenda was the report of the Tenure PIG.  Based on the February 18, 2021 BOR meeting, the Tenure PIGʻs purpose and scope was to review and investigate the issue of tenure in areas including the history and purpose of tenure at IHEs, particularly regarding the University of Hawai‘i (UH); the evolution of, and current views and developments on, tenure at institutions outside of UH; and the current process, criteria, and decision making on tenure at UH.  We question Tenure PIG Chair Ben Kudo whether the report submitted by the Tenure PIG meets the purpose and scope of its original intention.  Nevertheless, the following is UHPAʻs critique of the proposed changes to UH Regents Policy RP 9.201.

Symbolic or Sinister?

The Tenure PIGʻs findings and recommended changes to RP 9.201 Personnel Status is to align tenure with the mission and priorities of the University by ensuring that tenure is awarded to positions that will fulfill enrollment requirements and strategic growth priorities.  Based on this criteria the Tenure PIG recommended amending Section III. Policy, Paragraph B. Faculty Promotion and Tenure by adding the following criteria on awarding tenure:

2.   Before recruitment for tenure-track position occurs, and before award of tenure, the administration shall ensure that: (1) the position fulfills current enrollment requirements and strategic growth priorities for the university and the State: (2) there are no qualified faculty in other units that are available and that could meet the needs of the hiring unit; (3) the balance of tenure-track and other faculty is appropriate given enrollment, mission, and accreditation standards; and (4) the unit is successful and relevant in contributing to the institutional mission and goals.

3.  The administration shall ensure that tenure criteria are clear and that they prioritize the necessity for faculty to be adaptable in meeting the changing needs of students and the university, including changes in the delivery of higher education that may occur over time.

Based on initial review, some of the amendments appear to be a silent message to the UH administration demanding a reduction of tenure leading positions at the UH.  For the past several decades, the UH administration has been aimlessly reducing the amount of tenure leading positions under the guise of budgetary shortfalls and cuts due to the Stateʻs fiscal constraints.  Records reflect that tenure positions at UH are down over 25% from their peak.  Ironically, Executive/Managerial at UH has grown substantially over the same period of time.  

Thus, itʻs interesting for the Tenure PIG to note in its Resolution that “WHEREAS, the Task Group also acknowledges the fact that in recent years, the University has been steadily reducing the number of tenured faculty, and that tenure is still critical to attract, retain, and support University faculty;”  On one hand, the Tenure PIG acknowledges the importance and value of providing faculty with tenure, but on the other hand it recommends placing additional restrictions with vague and ambiguous criteria in order to grant tenure.  It reads illogical since they are not synonymous and harmonious with each other.  Reading between the lines interprets such changes as a directive to reduce tenure faculty.  We have many questions and concerns over using this measurement to determine the tenuring needs of the university

Which Tail is Wagging the Dog?

One of the criteria for awarding tenure is to base the position on whether it fulfills the strategic growth priorities for the university and the State.  Without any further details and explanation on what are the defined and approved strategic growth priorities, this statement is read solely as downsizing the number of tenured faculty to adapt to restraints and resources in a time of financial crisis which has been occurring over the past several decades.  We question: Which priorities have precedent?  The universityʻs or the State?  Who determines these strategic growth priorities for UH?  What happened to UHʻs autonomy and what priorities does UH have autonomy over?  What are the current priorities for the university and the State?  Do these priorities work collaborative together or do they conflict?  How often will these priorities change and are they defined by short and long term goals?  Bottom line.  We have many questions and concerns over using this measurement to determine the tenuring needs of the university.

Authoritarian Policy?

The second caveat is that before recruitment for tenure-track positions occurs and before the awarding of tenure, the administration shall ensure that there are no qualified faculty in other units that are available and that could meet the needs of the hiring unit.  Based on the vagueness of the language and the ambiguity that shines, is the Tenure PIG recommending that employees submit and be compelled to involuntary reassignments, transfers, demotions, relocations, etc. between units, departments, colleges, and campuses?  While Faculty support voluntary recruitment and promotion from within, the unclear purpose, intent, and application of this language is deeply concerning.  If there isn’t a clear understanding and recognition that such a policy would be subject to mandatory bargaining, that would be astonishing and unbelievable as well.  The skinny down 2 ½ page Report of the Permitted Interaction Group on Tenure that proposed the change doesnʻt provide any substance and/or clarification on its intent, purpose, and application.  We have many questions and concerns over using this measurement to determine the tenuring needs of the university.     

Recalibrating the Scale?

The third caveat is that before recruitment for tenure-track positions occurs and before the awarding of tenure, the administration shall ensure the balance of tenure-track and other faculty is appropriate given enrollment, mission, and accreditation standards.  While one can assume that consideration over enrollment, mission, and accreditation standards has and is already being done, the question here is what is meant and defined by the new stipulation of “balance”?  There is no clarification, definition, or meaning behind what balance of tenure-track and other faculty mean.  Does it mean that tenure positions shall be equally distributed among the different faculty classifications?  Or does “other faculty” mean non-tenure track faculty and a directive to reduce the amount of tenured faculty to equal non-tenure track faculty?  If so, would that practice meet the enrollment, mission, and accreditation standards of the UH?  Moreover, the importance and significance of accreditation is rightly acknowledged here because what impact, if any, positive or negative, will this have on UHʻs accreditations?  Interestingly, the Tenure PIG did acknowledge in their Resolution that tenure is still critical to attract, retain, and support University faculty.  We have many questions and concerns over using this measurement to determine the tenuring needs of the university.     

Sleight of hand?

The fourth caveat is that before recruitment for tenure-track positions occurs and before the awarding of tenure, the administration shall ensure that the unit is successful and relevant in contributing to the institutional mission and goals.  On face value, it sounds reasonable and practical since it has and is still occurring.  Thus, the question becomes is there more to this mandate that meets the eye?  Again, the skinny down 2 ½ page Report of the Permitted Interaction Group on Tenure that proposed the change doesnʻt provide any substance and/or clarification on its intent, purpose, and application.  We have many questions and concerns over using this measurement to determine the tenuring needs of the university.        

Unconscious or Insulting?

The other significant amendment is that the administration shall ensure that tenure criteria are clear and that they prioritize the necessity for faculty to be adaptable in meeting the changing needs of students and the university, including changes in the delivery of higher education that may occur over time.  

What facts and evidence was revealed during the Tenure PIGʻs investigation that one could make the determination that faculty as they currently exist (hired and developed under current criteria) are not “adaptable” especially “including changes in the delivery of higher education that may occur over time.”  Do we not realize that we are still dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic?

Have we all forgotten about how the UH administration ordered the immediate pivoting from in-person to on-line instruction that blindsided faculty given such short notice of the mandate, and how the majority of faculty only had one-week (i.e. Spring Break) to prepare, to implement a 180 degree change in pedagogy?  A practice that still remains largely in effect today as our communities and our State deals with the impact of COVID-19 variants.

If the situation that faculty are currently facing is not considered “adaptable” or “changing the delivery of higher education that may occur over time,” then what is being expected and meant by this new requirement from the Tenure PIG?  What is meant by being “adaptable?”  By whom will the changing needs of students and the university be declared in the future?  We have many questions and concerns over using this measurement to determine the tenuring needs of the university.        

Discord & Dysfunctional

Clearly, the proposed amendments overall do not really provide a clear and understandable solution to align tenure with the mission and priorities of the University to ensure tenure is awarded to positions that will fulfill enrollment requirements and strategic growth priorities as its stated objectives.  What is even more concerning is that many of the recommended changes, directives, processes, and outcomes regarding tenure are already established and outlined in existing BOR policy, namely RP 9.206 Faculty and Staff Renewal and Vitality Plans.  This BOR policy has been in effect and in existence for over the past 40 years in which all UH Administrators are required to follow and uphold.  Hence, the awarding of tenure has always been aligned with the mission and priorities of the University, including consideration for enrollment requirements and strategic growth priorities.

It’s interesting that former BOR Chair Kudo who was the Chair of the Tenure PIG and who has served as Regent since 2012, did not identify nor suggest any review, analysis, impact, changes, amendments to RP 9.206 or even its abolishment in this review.  This glaring omission of due diligence and neglect is compounded by the vagueness and cloudiness of the skinny 2 ½ page Report of the Permitted Interaction Group on Tenure which was to explain its findings and recommendations.  As a lawyer by profession, one would expect and demand more of former Chair Ben Kudo who has been a regent for almost a decade.

Message in a Bottle?

We question the entire findings and recommendations of the Tenure PIG.  We believe that there is insufficient information and clarification to provide any meaningful insight, knowledge, and understanding of what are the intentions and purpose for these changes to RPs 9.201, 9.202, and 9.213.  On its face it may seem benign to the layperson, but to faculty these changes are not only concerning – it’s threatening, belittling, and disrespectful all wrapped up in one.  The question we have here is who is the primary receiver of this message – the faculty or the UH administration.  If it’s the former, then why in this fashion and why disrupt the faculty by involving faculty in this matter.  However, if it’s the prior, you have definitely got facultyʻs attention and interest.  Be advised that faculty will be at the October 21, 2021 meeting ready and prepared to address their concerns.