The Arizona International Campus opened last fall as a branch of the University of Arizona, and as a unique experiment: the only public institution in the state operating without tenure. That caused an uproar among some professors at the university, who dubbed the new campus “Fire-at-Will U.”
But it didn’t daunt Kali Tal and the other four “founding faculty members,” as the administration called them. In April 1996, the new professors, who were the only ones hired that first semester, were excited about getting in on the ground floor of a new interdisciplinary institution, and about shaping a place that eventually is to operate autonomously. That spring, two more professors came. Of the seven full-time faculty members at the new campus, Dr. Tal says, four gave up tenured and tenure-track jobs to come to Arizona International.
“I thought when I took the job at A.I.C. that I was helping to create a new kind of system, which would have the advantages of tenure but none of its drawbacks.” says Dr. Tal, who moved to Tucson from Woodbridge, Conn.
But within a year, she had changed her mind. She learned that her annual contract would not be renewed-and that she would not be told why.
The post was Dr. Tal’s first full-time teaching job since earning her Ph.D. at Yale University in 1991. Arizona International lauded her abilities when she was hired as a humanities professor. And she was a popular professor. But a year later, she says, she had become the institution’s “sacrificial goat.”
A Public Campaign
Since then, Dr. Tal has been on a campaign to expose what she says are deep flaws in Arizona’s experiment.
Her story touches a nerve at a moment when a number of academics are promoting alternatives to tenure. “I think in an ideal world, a non-tenure system which protected due process and academic freedom could indeed be devised,” she says. “However, I think the people who currently are most deeply interested in eradicating tenure have absolutely no desire to see such a system evolve and will do everything they can to prevent it.”
B. Robert Kreiser, associate secretary of the American Association of University Professors, shares her concern: “When the state Legislature established this campus, it was with the understanding that it would not be with any tenure, but with other protections of academic freedom and due process. Judging from this case, one might conclude that the assurances were without foundation.”
Officials at Arizona International say that it took some time to develop specific protections for professors, but that all employees were given contracts that laid out their rights and responsibilities.
Arizona’s experiment began when the Board of Regents decided to create the state’s only four-year liberal-arts institution, initially as an extension of the university, to deal with projected enrollment increases at state institutions. The state has allocated $7.7 million over the past four fiscal years to the new campus, which enrolled 48 students last fall. It is several miles from the main campus, in the university’s 1,300-acre science-and-technology park. Arizona International’s departments and degrees are entirely interdisciplinary, and students are required to complete internships and a capstone course.
Scholars such as Alexander W. Astin, a professor of higher-education and director of the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles, sits on an advisory board. And a faculty committee at the University of Arizona oversees some aspects of the new campus. David C. Gnage, senior finance officer of Arizona International, calls it “one of the most exciting projects I’ve ever been involved in.”
Dr. Tal, too, was excited about the project. But she says now that she and her teaching colleagues were brought to the campus under false pretenses. She says that they expected to get multiyear contracts, and that they received assurances that faculty members would be involved in developing governance policies to protect academic freedom and due process. The first four professors had already started working on the new campus before they got their notices of appointment.
None of the other professors could be reached for comment; one has taken a leave of absence to return to a lecturer post at the University of California at Berkeley.
In the letter offering Dr. Tal a job, the campus’s chief executive officer, Celestino Fernandez, said her work with students and her undergraduate teaching would be the “basis for evaluation and reappointment.” But in the end, she says, she was never evaluated. She believes it was her strained relations with the C.E.O. that did her in. Dr. Tal readily acknowledges that she made public her criticisms about what she says were salary discrepancies between male and female professors. She says this was appropriate, since professors had been told that they would be involved in developing policies. Dr. Tal sent several memos outlining her concerns via e-mail to the campus’s 15 employees.
Dr. Fernandez, who retains tenure in the university’s sociology department, said Arizona International made no promises to employees that it didn’t keep. “We were interested in bringing people to the campus who would want to make a long-term contribution to the fulfillment to the institution’s mission,” he said. “That doesn’t always work out.”
He added: “I believe that our faculty members have academic freedom to do their teaching, and due process.”
Dr. Fernandez says Dr. Tal was evaluated by himself and others, including some of her peers, whom he did not name. He said she was judged on two criteria: her teaching and her ability to work with others. He refused to say where she fell short. But he noted that the criteria were part of the conditions for employment approved by the Board of Regents this past spring--after Dr. Tal’s contract was not renewed. He said he had made it clear to all of the professors that until the regents acted, the campus would operate under policies set by the University of Arizona. Under those policies, he said, Dr. Tal was just a “nontenure eligible” employee. Under the university’s policies, this meant that if the president decided not to renew her appointment, she had no right to a hearing. In a letter turning down her appeal, Manuel T. Pacheco, who was then the president, wrote that “only tenured faculty members have a right to expect their appointments to be continued into subsequent years.” He did acknowledge that when she and her colleagues were interviewed for the jobs on the new campus, “there was discussion of a future intention to seek Arizona Board of Regents authority to offer multi-year contracts in the future.” But he said this was never officially promised.
If Arizona International didn’t make explicit promises, it made some implicit ones--beginning with its first advertisements for faculty posts. In the September 13, 1996 issue of The Chronicle, it advertised for full-time teaching posts and announced, “All positions are one-to-five year renewable contracts.” As it turned out, all of the first five faculty members were hired on one-year renewable contracts. Only this past spring did the regents approve granting multiyear contracts on the campus.
Her campaign to publicize her case has been to greater effect. She has made a name for herself as the author of Worlds of Hurt: Reading the Literatures of Trauma (Cambridge University Press, 1995). She is the administrator of SIXTIES-L, an electronic discussion list with 600 subscribers, and edits the scholarly journal, Vietnam Generation. She has sent out e-mail messages to academics around the country and has put together a 150-page packet of materials documenting her case, which she has sent to every member of the Legislature. She has also contacted the Modern Language Association and the national office of the A.A.U.P., which has written to the university expressing concern about Dr. Tal’s treatment.
Professors at the University of Arizona plan to look into her case, too. “I am very concerned about there being clear personnel policies for evaluating faculty at A.I.C.,” says Jerrold E. Hogle, head of the faculty at the university. “I don't see them as being adequately developed as of yet, and I told Dr. Fernandez so.”
As for Dr. Fernandez, he says: “Conditions of faculty service are only a minor component of the different model we’re implementing. We’re not faculty centered. We’re students centered.”
Society for a Return to Academic Standards
Last Updated: 8 April 1998
