|
CONTENTS
Introduction
Georgetown University's Medical Center
Tenure at Georgetown
Faculty Compensation
Post-Tenure Review
Conclusion and Recommendations
Proposed Resolution on Tenure
I. INTRODUCTION Back
to top
The Georgetown University Medical Center is in the
process of steadily reducing a deficit in a process that has had
considerable impact on the University as a whole. While last year
that deficit was an estimated $57 million, this past fiscal year
the deficit stood at $35-36 million. Under the directive of cost-cutting
and generating new revenues, the Medical Center administration
has made several decisions, however, that threaten University
tenure and the academic life of the University. These decisions
include the Faculty Compensation Plan, passed by the Board of
Directors in September, 1997, and the Post-Tenure Review plan
which is currently under consideration. Both of these policies
will be addressed in this document.
After reviewing the reasons as to why these policies
threaten tenure at Georgetown, this document concludes that the
repercussions of these steps for the whole Georgetown faculty
require that the faculty as a whole be consulted and educated
on these issues. It also suggests that the financial conditions
that have provoked these measures be disclosed in detail to the
faculty, and that the faculty be fully involved in any restructuring
necessitated by financial stringencies in such a way as to focus
and strengthen the teaching and research mission of the University.
II. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY'S
MEDICAL CENTER Back to top
Georgetown University's Medical Center is one of
the premier medical centers in this region of the nation. Over
the past decade, it has moved up significantly in the overall
rankings of medical schools nationally. Much of this climb in
ranking is due to the enhanced level of its graduate training,
its higher profile and expanded research component, the reputation
of its clinicians, and its doubling of extramural support. Fundamental
to this is the high calibre of its faculty and the high level
of graduate students that it has been able to attract.
Over the past two years, however, Georgetown University
Medical Center has been struggling with financial deficits. These
deficits have come about through the advent of managed care, as
well as through management and administrative decisions that proved
to be serious financial mistakes. Whatever the cause, the financial
issues must be dealt with in a way that preserves, and does not
destroy, the faculty, the academic and service mission of the
Medical Center, and its high level of performance and national
reputation. In particular, if Medical Center policies threaten
tenure and academic freedom, they undermine the academic nature
of the University, not only at Georgetown's Medical Center but
also in the University as a whole.
II. TENURE AT GEORGETOWN
Back to top
According to the AAUP 1940 tenure statement, which
has been adopted by Georgetown University, tenure:
"is a means to certain ends, specifically: 1) freedom
of teaching and research and extramural activities, and 2) a sufficient
degree of economic security to make the profession attractive
to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence
tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in
fulfilling its obligations to its students and society."
These rights sustain the basic functions of the
university (teaching, research, and public service) and permit
faculty to participate in governance without fear of retribution.
Without academic freedom and economic security, there can be no
effective participation in governance, whether in the Faculty
Senate, in Executive Faculties, or within programs and departments.
[See Appendix A]
Two recent Medical Center policy initiatives, one
on faculty compensation (that went into effect on July 1, 1998),
the other on post-tenure review (currently under consideration),
would redefine tenure at Georgetown University in a way so fundamental
that they would threaten its very existence. [Appendices B and
C]
A. FACULTY COMPENSATION
Back to top
On March 9, 1998 and May 14, 1998 the Medical Center
administration circulated two memoranda detailing the Faculty
Compensation Plan that was to go into effect on July 1, l998.
These guidelines establish base salaries for the tenured and tenure-track
faculty of the Medical Center and reserve to the Medical Center
the right to review and adjust base salaries annually in the event
of economic stringencies that affect only the Medical Center.
Salaries above the guaranteed base are also to be
determined by the administration on an annual basis. The administration
can apparently, without notice, lower that amount by up to 30%
of total salary (minus the practice portion) in FY 99(1),
although it cannot go beyond the base. With both the base and
the increments above the base adjustable on an ongoing basis,
there is, in effect, no economic security for faculty in the Medical
Center.
Historically, the AAUP has linked financial security
with academic freedom and professional independence. Such academic
freedom has always been an essential aspect of tenure. The new
compensation guidelines change the terms of economic security
for tenured faculty--a breach of the contract of tenure that has
been, and is, in place at Georgetown. It is also a breach of contract
law, which is based on the principle that contracts cannot be
changed unilaterally. These guidelines remove economic security
and shift the meaning of tenure for Georgetown faculty in mid-career.
Insofar as every tenured member of the Medical Center is tenured
through the University, rather than through the Medical Center
alone, this policy treats one sector of the tenured faculty differently.
It makes an exception to general University policy that could
as readily be applied to tenured faculty on other campuses in
the University. It establishes the principle that the University
may change the contract of tenure as it sees fit.
In addition, the guidelines provide a base salary
to newly-hired tenure-track faculty that is approximately at the
20th percentile of the salary of basic science faculty. These
guidelines include a provision that would allow the Medical Center
to terminate the appointment of any tenure-track faculty member
who does not bring in over 50% grant funding for his/her salary,
regardless of the quality of teaching, research and service done
by that faculty member.(2) Under
these conditions, it will be more difficult for the Medical Center
to attract good tenure-track faculty. This policy therefore threatens
one of the basic elements of tenure as defined by the AAUP, viz.
a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession
attractive to men and women of ability.
A further component of the new compensation guidelines
is that remuneration is being tied to productivity. As Sam Wiesel,
EVP for the Medical Center, states in his May 14 memorandum, "This
move to measurable performance based on productivity in a traditional
academic milieu represents a profound cultural change." For example,
tenure-track faculty who, for at least one year, have received
less than 50% of their salary from direct external research support
"will be eligible for nonrenewal of their faculty appointments."
(March 9 faculty compensation memo). A tenured faculty member
with a salary of $150,000 can be reduced, in FY 99, to $105,000
without notice and without warning if his/her level of effort
on sponsored research grants is less than 50%. Remuneration for
research is to be based, clearly, upon the ability of a faculty
member to attract grants from the outside. In other words, the
"eat what you kill" philosophy of the faculty practice plan for
clinicians(3) is now to be applied
to basic science faculty who traditionally have never had their
salaries depend on grants. The new guidelines tie all Medical
Center faculty salaries to research grant funds. The basic scientist
is no longer to follow his or her scientific curiosity wherever
it leads. The commercial marketplace becomes the benchmark, although
the Faculty Handbook, in its description of faculty responsibilities,
makes no mention of external funding as a requirement for appointment,
promotion, or tenure.
This significant shift, away from a salary traditionally
paid according to rank, time, and quality of service, trivializes
a faculty member's contribution to teaching, service and scholarly
activities. As stated by the Executive Vice President for the
Medical Center:
"It is expected that a faculty member will be primarily
a researcher, or primarily a clinician, or -- in rare instances
-- primarily an educator." (May 14 memorandum from Sam Wiesel)
For a teaching institution, this is a startling
shift in purpose and emphasis. The new compensation guidelines
make no mention of scholarly merit or of the extent and quality
of teaching. Moreover, service to the institution, whether to
the Medical Center, the University as a whole, the community,
or the profession, is given no value at all.(4)
Further, the compensation guidelines fail to consider
a significant fact of life. In the research-grant business, most
faculty members have good years and lean years. While a grant
is in effect, there are good years. But when that grant terminates,
there is a lean period while additional grant applications are
prepared and acted upon. The handful of other medical centers
that have instituted compensation guidelines have done so around
incentives instead of reductions in salary and provide for holding
salaries even in the period between grant loss and the commencement
of a new grant. By failing to do so, Georgetown is one of the
few in ignoring this very important fact of economic life.
This policy has a pernicious effect on the academic
freedom of faculty members to conduct research where their scientific
curiosity leads them. Academic freedom is not only the freedom
to speak the truth in the classroom or in written scholarship.
It has always included the freedom to pursue research as the particular
academic is inclined, secure both in position and in economic
protection of salary. Even in the area of freedom of speech, however,
the Medical Center faculty are under duress. We already know of
cases in which tenured faculty members at the Medical Center have
refused to be involved in governance because of fear of retribution.
We know of instances in which Medical Center faculty assigned
to the University Faculty Grievance Committee have refused to
sit on particular Medical Center grievances or to put their names
to Grievance Committee decisions because of the fear of retribution
with regard to salaries. Both the Faculty Compensation Plan and
the proposed Post-Tenure Review are additional steps in the taking
away of academic freedom at the Medical Center.
B. POST-TENURE REVIEW
Back to top
The Medical Center administration has proposed a formal, post-tenure
review of faculty. If this proposed policy is taken as it presently
appears, it is a solution in search of a problem. A survey made
of all department chairs by the Medical Center Caucus of the Faculty
Senate reaches the startling conclusion that not one chair has
reported the existence of any deadwood among the faculty in his
or her department. Thus, the motivation for this proposed policy
is to be discovered elsewhere than in the problem it purports
to address. Moreover, this proposed policy has nothing to do with
the economic crisis of the Medical Center. Should the department
chairs be in error, and should there in fact be some deadwood
among the faculty, the contribution to solving the fiscal shortfall
by trying to remove this deadwood by these means would be miniscule
if at all. It is far more likely that the costs in real terms
to the Medical Center and its faculty would far outweigh any gain
in economic terms that may result.
The AAUP argues strongly against post-tenure reviews.
In its May 1997 report, the AAUP notes that, "Lurking within the
phrase [post-tenure review] are often two misconceptions: that
tenured faculty are not already recurrently subject to a variety
of forms of evaluation of their work, and that the presumption
of merit that attaches to tenure should be periodically cast aside
so that the faculty member must bear the burden of justifying
retention."
Tenured faculty at Georgetown University go through
an annual review in the salary process. At the Medical Center
this is now done by the administrator, generally the chair of
the department. This review could (and should, according to the
AAUP) easily be expanded by bringing into the process a small
faculty committee within the department. And there is review by
outside evaluation of the department. Outside evaluation is recommended/required
by Medical Center regulations every five years. Unfortunately,
the administrators of the Medical Center have failed to carry
out this mandate with any consistency, thereby impugning their
good faith in the post-tenure review proposal that has been put
forth. There has been no attempt on the part of the administration
to show that there is a problem with these processes which, if
utilized, could not be addressed.
In a letter of May 28, 1998 the AAUP looked specifically
at the April 1998 "Draft of the Georgetown Medical Center Post-Tenure
Review Policy". The AAUP notes that one possible consequence of
this policy "is a climate that discourages controversy or risk-taking
in teaching and research because tenured faculty fear that in
some measure they must be responsive to the changing interest
of administrative officers." The letter goes on to say that, "it
is not unreasonable to suggest that the entire thrust of the text's
system of post-tenure review is not a review at all but, in its
own words, a 'hearing' replete with evidence, witnesses, even
a faculty advisor to accompany the affected faculty member...the
"review" in "post-tenure review" appears to have disappeared in
a system which is more adversarial than collegial, more punitive
than developmental." In general, the AAUP recommends institution
of post-tenure reviews only if the purpose is explicitly developmental.
A formal post-tenure review as proposed would come
at an enormous cost, a point which the literature on post-tenure
reviews emphasizes. As proposed, the post-tenure review would
be highly adversarial, with evidentiary witnesses and even a faculty
advisor to accompany the affected faculty member. The hearing
would take place before five faculty members. Although the burden
of proof is to be on the administration to demonstrate "professional
inadequacy", the disruption to the faculty member will be horrendous.
Having gone through the evaluation process for the grant of tenure,
the tenured faculty member must now go through it again--and again--and
again (the draft document does not limit how often this process
might be applied to a faculty member). The effect on the department
(and on the five faculty on the hearing board) will be just as
disruptive. The damage to collegiality will be tremendous, and
the very process itself could be used as a threat.
Should the extensive, and expensive, post-tenure
review process be successful in the discharge of some faculty,
we can be certain that it will be followed by even more expensive
grievances and then court proceedings. Even now the policies of
the current and immediately preceding Medical Center administrations
have resulted in the growth of an extensive and expensive legal
counsel's office and the employment of even more expensive outside
counsel from one of the most prestigious Washington law firms.(5)
If anything, these policies and the expense engendered have increased
the financial indebtedness of the Medical Center.
Finally, the proposed system of post-tenure reviews
threatens the continued existence of tenure. University teaching
and research, which are highly specialized, require long years
of training. They are time-consuming and, in general, lower paid
than comparable professions outside academe. If one adds to this
mix the prospect of administrative adjustments of salary and periodic
post-tenure review (with the prospect of losing one's position),
it is unlikely that Georgetown will be able to continue to attract
competent faculty and likely that the excellent faculty it has
attracted to date will soon leave. As noted above, with regard
to faculty compensation, the policy of post-tenure review within
one campus of the university, establishes a precedent for its
implementation on the other campuses. If it cannot be applied
to all campuses, it cannot be applied to one. If it is applied
to one campus, it can be applied to others.
III. CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS Back to top
The two policies detailed above are destructive
of academic freedom and erode the meaning and the institution
of tenure at the University. They also threaten to damage the
academic component of the Medical Center beyond repair.
It is particularly disturbing that these policies
have not been shown to address effectively the Medical Center's
financial difficulties. Indeed, by driving away first rate faculty
and faculty who have proven track records of attracting extramural
grants for research and patients for care as well as graduate
students for education and training, these policies work counterproductively
to exacerbate the financial situation. While universities (including
Georgetown) have, at times, terminated tenure appointments because
of the closure of schools and programs or for reasons of financial
exigency, they have not taken (nor do they have the right to take)
measures that erode tenure for the remaining or for future faculty.
These comments do not mean that we are not concerned
about the financial deficit that is now so consuming the Medical
Center. The problem must be resolved, but it can be resolved only
if certain basic validities are adhered to. It is important, for
example, to speak so as to be believed. Earlier in this paper,
we cited the Medical Center EVPs statement that teaching is no
longer a core function of the Medical Center. We repeat this statement
here:
"It is expected that a faculty member will be primarily
a reseacher, or primarily a clinician, or --in rare instances--primarily
an educator."
This statement was contradicted only four days later
in a letter to the graduate students, when the EVP (Dr. Wiesel)
stated in stark contradiction:
"We want you to know that Georgetown Medical Center
has no higher priority than its educational mission. At the core,
Georgetown Medical Center is a teaching institution. This is its
central reason for existing. This Medical Center was created by
the University to educate and train physicians, biomedical scientists
and nurses."
Thus, first, there must be a basis of trust and
truthfulness between the administration and faculty in order to
address the deficit.
Secondly, there must be the involvement of all segments
of the Medical Center: the faculty, the students, the staff as
well as the administrators. The problem cannot be solved by any
one group alone. It is a problem that affects all segments of
the Medical Center. There must be open and full information available
to all, including students.
Thirdly, financial stringencies must not be used
to advance other agendas. Agendas of shifting the Medical Center
away from its core teaching mission or undermining tenure and
academic freedom has served only to exacerbate the problems of
the Medical Center. Close consultation with the faculty and open
sharing of financial needs and priorities, along with wide discussion
of the financial and academic implications of policy initiatives
will help the Medical Center maintain a balance between its need
for financial stability and its preservation of academic excellence.
Fourthly, policies should be avoided that, in the
long run, will worsen the financial situation of the Medical Center
and reduce its standing in the national and local communities.
Current policies of the Medical Center have driven away some of
its finest teachers and productive researchers and scholars. Other
medical centers, some with the highest academic standards, have
been only too happy to sign on those we have drive away. Moreover,
the reputation of the Medical Center in the Washington-area community
of physicians is beginning to deteriorate. Physicians are aware
that outstanding clinical practitioners have departed.
It has traditionally been more acceptable, and perhaps
wiser academically, to cut costs based upon a process of determining
priority programs, disbanding weaker programs to save money while
strengthening stronger programs to attract excellence. This kind
of leadership strategy, building upon remaining faculty, is more
likely to strengthen academic and professional morale than the
policies described in this document, which have helped create
a litigious and destructive atmosphere at the Medical Center.
Whatever policies are pursued in the course of the
coming year, the University would benefit by opening up the decision-making
process in the Medical Center to faculty, providing them with
the information they need to make recommendations on policy, and
giving them a greater voice in setting institutional priorities.
The Medical Center can, conceivably, turn a financial shortfall
into a stronger academic and professional institution, one where
faculty and administration work together to promote the larger
good of the Medical Center and the University as a whole.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON
TENURE (based on language approved by the faculty committee of
the Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University, 1996)
"The faculty of Georgetown University hereby reiterates
its conviction that the stability and future of the Medical Center
are intimately tied to the University's policies on faculty tenure.
The recruitment and retention of qualified scholars and teachers
depends, inter alia, upon the University's commitment, in word
and in practice, to commonly-accepted standards of academic tenure.
The Faculty hereby expresses its strong conviction
that both legal and moral considerations preclude retroactive
modifications of existing concepts of tenure. The Faculty hereby
further urges the Unviersity that any prospective change in the
text, interpretation or enforcement of the University's policies
on tenure be presented to and discussed with the Faculty prior
to adoption or implementation.
The Faculty respectfully requests that this statement
be conveyed to the Vice-Presidents of the Medical Center, the
President of the University, and the Board of Directors of the
University."
Back to top
Footnotes
1. In a May 14 memo explaining
the Faculty Compensation Guidelines, one of the principles used
to guide department and cost center leaders is as follows: "For
FY 99, the non-practice portion of a faculty member's salary will
not be lowered by more than 30% of his/her FY 98 salary." This
particular governing principle is not, however, listed in the
March 9 Faculty Compensation Guidelines set of principles, and,
after FY 99 it could be changed, as long as it does not go below
the guaranteed base.
2. There are no provisions in
these grant guidelines for faculty development.
3. The salaries of the clinical
faculty at the Medical Center come from the following sources:
patient care income, external research or contract support, hospital
services, and teaching. In recent times, clinical practice for
many clinicians has been sufficiently remunerative that their
salaries have been almost solely from that source. Clinicians
operate under a faculty practice plan, which dictates in a formula
the percentage of a clinician's practice income, less expenses
attributable to the production of that income, that goes to the
clinician. Moreover, there was enough income being generated so
that some clinicians who were devoting more time to teaching and
supervising students and residents were being subsidized by the
practice income of others. There then arose the fear that, should
monies be distributed differently or some specialties be in less
demand, some clinicians who, as faculty members, are also teachers,
could be left without any income at all. To meet that problem,
the Board of Directors adopted a policy of a floor on income for
all tenured clinical faculty at the Medical Center equal to the
average salary of a basic science (i.e. non-clinician) faculty
member in the northeastern part of the United States. For example,
that salary floor today is $103,000 for full professors on a twelve-month
salary base.
The new faculty compensation policy, passed by the
Board of Directors in September and effective July 1, 1998, is
now applying this 'practice plan' formulation to the basic science
faculty. Similar plans have been passed in other Medical Schools,
and none of them have the disincentives of Georgetown's Plan.
They also grandfather in tenured faculty.
4. Value is given to clinical
activities as service but not to other forms of service.
5. Hogan and Hartson, whose Higher
Education division was active in advising the Board of Regents
at the University of Minnesota in their attack on tenure.
|
