Read on Twitter
I have been asked to serve as an external reviewer for two #tenure cases this week. One of the ways I was asked is really problematic IMO, & an especially obvious (and too common) ethical pitfall and form of gatekeeping. #highered thread. 1/12
The way someone like me gets on a list to ask is pretty standard: A candidate for tenure/promo puts together a set of names that are appropriate given expertise in candidate's area of scholarship; this list then gets approved by a chair/committee and some/all are approached. 2/12
But WHO solicits reviews varies across institutions. At many places a review comm member, chair, or admin staff reaches out to people on the list & requests a review. In other words, the last time a candidate has anything to do w/ it is when they submit the list of names. 3/12
This is the correct way to solicit external review letters for tenure and promotion cases. 4/12
But there are (too many) institutions/programs that require the person going up for tenure/promo to actually call/email the people on the list and ask them to serve as a reviewer of their own file. This is so wrong. 5/12
Even just for the sake of review integrity, the moment I say yes it might be seen as a tacit agreement that I am going to give a positive review. You know I am one of your reviewers; there might be 5-6 of us; my ability to give a critical review is potentially compromised. 6/12
But the real problem, the most insidious aspect of this, is that this totally privileges those who are already comfortable/connected in The Academy - at the potential expense of firstgen, BIPOC, and other candidates who might not enjoy that same sense of belonging. 7/12
If you already feel vulnerable, coming up for tenure is 2x the nightmare (for lots of well-established reasons). Now add the pressure of having to call "leading experts" in your field to ask them to participate in a review that makes or breaks your entire career. 8/
Even people who grew up around/in academia find this nerve-wracking. I never had to call reviewers myself, but as a #firstgen college student (even carrying my straight white guy privilege) I might have been too intimidated to call experts I considered out of my league. 9/12
So that means: The most potentially impactful positive letters don't end up in the file. They're in the files of people who felt the baseline agency to request them - or candidates whose departments took care of them and handled that part on their behalf. 10/12
Take care of your untenured people. Do the work and don't ask them to be the ones who have to call up higher-ranking members in their fields essentially begging for their approval. 11/12
All tenure and promotion candidates deserve access to the most appropriate/accomplished scholars in their discipline as reviewers (if they choose). Don't make them jump through hoops to make it so. 12/12
