OVERVIEW
Hello, and welcome to my Tenure and Promotion E-Portfolio. If you’ve found your way here, you may be on this journey yourself, or maybe you are just really into an open process like me. Either way, WELCOME!
First, please note that this portfolio has not yet been adjudicated. It was submitted on 15 November 2024 and I expect to know my fate by 30 May 2025. This is being posted online in case it helps others going up for tenure to have a template. Remember the bias we often have when looking at things like this: many of us tend to focus on the things where we’re “not as good” as the template, but ignore the many cases where we are actually “better.” I’m not sure that this particular document or dossier will create such feelings, but know that it’s likely I’d feel the same reading your packet.
What exactly does tenure entail? At my institution, this involves being evaluated at the department, and College level for a history of teaching, scholarship (research), and service. If ultimately approved, it results in great job security (though not absolute, which is probably good); if rejected, it results in a year to find another position before being fired. There is a tenure dossier prepared by the candidate and then added to by the department chair who also solicits letters from internal to the college, and external to the college senior faculty and professionals whom can provide evaluation and/or support of the candidates tenure. Professional colleagues are permitted to write letters of support and make some "evaluation" or comparative comments. I was informed that, Our criteria for tenure are: "demonstrated excellence in research, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship and the capacity to make significant and lasting contributions to the department (biology, in my case) proposing the appointment. Letter writers are encouraged to discuss the candidate relative to other scholars who are at similar and different career stages as this is a benchmarking exercise to help us understand the candidates current standing in and impact on the field, as well as their future trajectory." The department chair and members of the department Reappointments and Promotion Committee (RPC) will then be the first to evaluate the dossier of the candidate. The department chair and RPC writes their own recommendation letter as well after their evaluation that is submitted to the college-wide Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure Committee (APTC). The letter must express the RPC's assessment of the candidate's compliance with each element (teaching, scholarship or creative activity, and service) of the criteria and clearly state a favorable or unfavorable overall recommendation to the APTC. The APTC conducts its own review of the candidate's dossier and considers the RPC's recommendation. Only members of the APTC who hold the rank for which the candidate is applying or higher rank, who are unrelated to the candidate, and who have not participated in an RPC review of the candidate shall participate in the APTC review. Applying a simple majority rule, eligible APTC members vote to uphold or reverse the recommendation of the department RPC. As APTC Chair, the Provost votes only in case of a tie. After a review by the eligible members of the APTC, the chair of the APTC (Provost) submits the letter to the President of the College by March 30 of the academic year of application. All voting members of the APTC sign the letter. Simultaneously, copies of the letter are sent to the candidate and the chair of the RPC. The President of the College reviews the RPC and APTC evaluations and recommendations for tenure or promotion. Normally, the President accepts the APTC recommendations, but the President has the prerogative to disagree with such recommendations with cause. The President makes a final recommendation to the Board of Trustees for approval at its April meeting in the academic year of a candidate’s application. The President or the Provost notifies the candidate of the Board’s action by May 30.
I do not have ready access to the final dossier (with recommendation and evaluation letters), but I do have access to the parts I wrote. I include those parts here as PDF files and posted content; note I have redacted a section about students on whose committees I have served (there are many in various departments that could also serve as a potential template that can be found online).
You’re probably already guessing that this isn’t the same Overview letter I sent my committee. That’s true! It’s mostly full of procedural stuff that isn’t all that useful to someone outside this specific tenure and promotion context. However, the rest of my portfolio, by and large, is here — rendered a little more readable for the open web than a stack of PDFs.
This overview, then, is really only to orient you to this project with a few key details. You might be wondering: why release your tenure and promotion materials before you know if you got tenure and promotion. A great question. Many folks choose not to disclose to anyone outside their closest circle that they are even up for tenure, let alone sharing their portfolio for all to mock and judge (please don’t). But I was inspired by other colleagues who have shared their dossier online that I found useful in preparing my own materials (though not many within STEM, so this is my attempt to provide additional content and templates in this area). I also was inspired by an article I read by Nick Clare called “Can the Failure Speak?: Militant Failure in the Academy.” As summarized more eloquently by a colleague, "It helped give me language for my frustration with the lack of models of healthy failure in the academy, and by extension, the lack of models of healthy process. If we never talk about things until after we have succeeded at them, we cannot possibly model process."
To be clear: I hope deeply, profoundly, that I am not modeling failure here. But if I wait to show you this portfolio until it has been adjudicated, I am also not modeling process. So this is what it looks like to apply for tenure and promotion. And this is what it feels like to leap into this abyss so publicly: very scary. But I think this kind of autoethnographic work has great value. There is so much about the academy that is opaque; openness is no salve, but it can reduce opacity.
Second, this is but one portfolio tailored to one set of standards. I don’t know whether I have met the standard yet, but I know it’s not likely to be your standard. I think the value here is less in showing you a replicable model and more in one of what I would like to see eventually as many portfolios out in the world at many stages in the process, more conversation about the affective experience of being on the tenure track, more stories and more kinds of narrative.
We know that tenure can be an extremely exclusionary process, fraught with microaggressions and straight-up discrimination against scholars of color, Indigenous scholars, disabled scholars, queer scholars. I am increasingly suspicious of who is served by “confidentiality” in these processes when extremely qualified people from various marginalized community are disproportionately blocked from tenure and promotion. I am insulated by a series of privileges when I make the choice to put my work in the open pre-adjudication. But I believe that more conversation is better.
Finally, given that this portfolio has not yet been adjudicated, please do not email me to tell me about any typos or minor errors you find. The text here is lifted directly from the submitted text, which I cannot change. If you find a major error, you should probably tell me so that I can share updates, and note this so that others may avoid similar potential missteps. Additionally, if you are interested in potential collaborations, would like to converse directly about my tenure process or resources that I have shared, or if you want to simply share your feedback - PLEASE CONTACT ME HERE.
First, please note that this portfolio has not yet been adjudicated. It was submitted on 15 November 2024 and I expect to know my fate by 30 May 2025. This is being posted online in case it helps others going up for tenure to have a template. Remember the bias we often have when looking at things like this: many of us tend to focus on the things where we’re “not as good” as the template, but ignore the many cases where we are actually “better.” I’m not sure that this particular document or dossier will create such feelings, but know that it’s likely I’d feel the same reading your packet.
What exactly does tenure entail? At my institution, this involves being evaluated at the department, and College level for a history of teaching, scholarship (research), and service. If ultimately approved, it results in great job security (though not absolute, which is probably good); if rejected, it results in a year to find another position before being fired. There is a tenure dossier prepared by the candidate and then added to by the department chair who also solicits letters from internal to the college, and external to the college senior faculty and professionals whom can provide evaluation and/or support of the candidates tenure. Professional colleagues are permitted to write letters of support and make some "evaluation" or comparative comments. I was informed that, Our criteria for tenure are: "demonstrated excellence in research, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship and the capacity to make significant and lasting contributions to the department (biology, in my case) proposing the appointment. Letter writers are encouraged to discuss the candidate relative to other scholars who are at similar and different career stages as this is a benchmarking exercise to help us understand the candidates current standing in and impact on the field, as well as their future trajectory." The department chair and members of the department Reappointments and Promotion Committee (RPC) will then be the first to evaluate the dossier of the candidate. The department chair and RPC writes their own recommendation letter as well after their evaluation that is submitted to the college-wide Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure Committee (APTC). The letter must express the RPC's assessment of the candidate's compliance with each element (teaching, scholarship or creative activity, and service) of the criteria and clearly state a favorable or unfavorable overall recommendation to the APTC. The APTC conducts its own review of the candidate's dossier and considers the RPC's recommendation. Only members of the APTC who hold the rank for which the candidate is applying or higher rank, who are unrelated to the candidate, and who have not participated in an RPC review of the candidate shall participate in the APTC review. Applying a simple majority rule, eligible APTC members vote to uphold or reverse the recommendation of the department RPC. As APTC Chair, the Provost votes only in case of a tie. After a review by the eligible members of the APTC, the chair of the APTC (Provost) submits the letter to the President of the College by March 30 of the academic year of application. All voting members of the APTC sign the letter. Simultaneously, copies of the letter are sent to the candidate and the chair of the RPC. The President of the College reviews the RPC and APTC evaluations and recommendations for tenure or promotion. Normally, the President accepts the APTC recommendations, but the President has the prerogative to disagree with such recommendations with cause. The President makes a final recommendation to the Board of Trustees for approval at its April meeting in the academic year of a candidate’s application. The President or the Provost notifies the candidate of the Board’s action by May 30.
I do not have ready access to the final dossier (with recommendation and evaluation letters), but I do have access to the parts I wrote. I include those parts here as PDF files and posted content; note I have redacted a section about students on whose committees I have served (there are many in various departments that could also serve as a potential template that can be found online).
You’re probably already guessing that this isn’t the same Overview letter I sent my committee. That’s true! It’s mostly full of procedural stuff that isn’t all that useful to someone outside this specific tenure and promotion context. However, the rest of my portfolio, by and large, is here — rendered a little more readable for the open web than a stack of PDFs.
This overview, then, is really only to orient you to this project with a few key details. You might be wondering: why release your tenure and promotion materials before you know if you got tenure and promotion. A great question. Many folks choose not to disclose to anyone outside their closest circle that they are even up for tenure, let alone sharing their portfolio for all to mock and judge (please don’t). But I was inspired by other colleagues who have shared their dossier online that I found useful in preparing my own materials (though not many within STEM, so this is my attempt to provide additional content and templates in this area). I also was inspired by an article I read by Nick Clare called “Can the Failure Speak?: Militant Failure in the Academy.” As summarized more eloquently by a colleague, "It helped give me language for my frustration with the lack of models of healthy failure in the academy, and by extension, the lack of models of healthy process. If we never talk about things until after we have succeeded at them, we cannot possibly model process."
To be clear: I hope deeply, profoundly, that I am not modeling failure here. But if I wait to show you this portfolio until it has been adjudicated, I am also not modeling process. So this is what it looks like to apply for tenure and promotion. And this is what it feels like to leap into this abyss so publicly: very scary. But I think this kind of autoethnographic work has great value. There is so much about the academy that is opaque; openness is no salve, but it can reduce opacity.
Second, this is but one portfolio tailored to one set of standards. I don’t know whether I have met the standard yet, but I know it’s not likely to be your standard. I think the value here is less in showing you a replicable model and more in one of what I would like to see eventually as many portfolios out in the world at many stages in the process, more conversation about the affective experience of being on the tenure track, more stories and more kinds of narrative.
We know that tenure can be an extremely exclusionary process, fraught with microaggressions and straight-up discrimination against scholars of color, Indigenous scholars, disabled scholars, queer scholars. I am increasingly suspicious of who is served by “confidentiality” in these processes when extremely qualified people from various marginalized community are disproportionately blocked from tenure and promotion. I am insulated by a series of privileges when I make the choice to put my work in the open pre-adjudication. But I believe that more conversation is better.
Finally, given that this portfolio has not yet been adjudicated, please do not email me to tell me about any typos or minor errors you find. The text here is lifted directly from the submitted text, which I cannot change. If you find a major error, you should probably tell me so that I can share updates, and note this so that others may avoid similar potential missteps. Additionally, if you are interested in potential collaborations, would like to converse directly about my tenure process or resources that I have shared, or if you want to simply share your feedback - PLEASE CONTACT ME HERE.
Dr. Ethell Vereen (center, in lab coat) pictured with a group of his Morehouse College scholars
DOSSIER
Submitted For Consideration of Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure
Morehouse College
November 15, 2024
Academic Year 2024-2025
Cover page and Table of Contents - PDF
1.1 Statement of Interest in being considered for tenure and promotion - PDF
Letter to Committee: Synopsis of Teaching, Scholarship, and Service
1.2 Curriculum Vitae - PDF
Submitted For Consideration of Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure
Morehouse College
November 15, 2024
Academic Year 2024-2025
Cover page and Table of Contents - PDF
1.1 Statement of Interest in being considered for tenure and promotion - PDF
Letter to Committee: Synopsis of Teaching, Scholarship, and Service
1.2 Curriculum Vitae - PDF
Teaching |
Scholarship |
Service |