Passed: December 1, 2021
Posted: February 24, 2021 (AFPSF edited version posted November 5, 2021)
Sponsor: Academic Freedom and Professional Status of the Faculty Committee[https://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/committees/standing-senate-committees/afps-current/]
Background
What the colleges have to say about external letters and reviewers,[https://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/news/the-tenure-track-project/d-external-reviewer-selection/what-the-colleges-have-to-say-about-external-reviewers/]
An external reviewer is an individual who provides an evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship and is not a voting member of the candidate’s unit. Note that by this definition, an external reviewer can be a Cornell faculty member, e.g., a member of the candidate’s graduate field who is in a different department.
The purpose of an external reviewer is to provide an outside perception of the candidate’s research and scholarship. Collectively, the external reviewer letters should inform the reader about the breadth, depth, impact, and trajectory of the candidate’s professional accomplishments.
Because of the importance of this dossier component, both the candidate and department should be able to suggest reviewers.
The proposed independent list method is as follows: The candidate and department independently produce a list of reviewers. The lists should be comparable in length and assembled with one goal in mind: The potential reviewers should be able to provide a fair and objective assessment of the candidate’s professional accomplishments. The department should engage voting faculty with knowledge of the candidate’s discipline in compiling their list.
Using the two lists, the department develops the final list of external reviewers. The independent lists need to be included in the dossier so that it is clear to voting faculty which of the received letters are from reviewers chosen by the candidate, by the department, or by both the candidate and department. The college or unit should also standardize the three numbers associated with this process: The length of the independently produced lists, the minimum number of reviewers chosen from the candidate’s list, and the minimum total number of reviewers.
As part of the final dossier, the lists should also provide an indication of which people on the lists were asked but declined to provide an assessment and the reason for that choice, if available.
The Resolution
Whereas the selection of external reviewers is central to the tenure review process;
Whereas candidate input to the process should be structured in a way that is fair and transparent;
Be it resolved that the independent list method for selecting external reviewers be adopted by each college or unit.
Vote results: 85 Yes, 7 No, and 6 Abstain; 33 DNV
Suppose the candidate, for whatever reason (I can think of several possibilities), submits a short list. On the proposed arrangement, the department would be required also to provide a short list. Even if the lists do not overlap, their union would be short. Not every person asked to write need be willing or able to do so. So the dossier might end up with fewer letters than would be optimal.
Why limit the number of names listed by the department?