We, the undersigned, collectively have a substantial record of professional service in faculty and administrative positions at Brigham Young University as well as at many other prominent universities.
Some of us participated directly in the evaluation process that considered the cases receiving public attention this past year. Based on our experiences and familiarity with the faculty retention processes, we make the following observations:1. Both the academic freedom and the rank advancement and tenure procedures were authored by faculty. They represent faculty governance procedures working as they should at a major university. These procedures do not allow for anyone to be terminated without due cause and then only after an established appeals process.
2. We believe that the academic freedom document properly defines the role of the faculty and its freedoms and that of the university as well. The BYU academic freedom document prohibits speech or action that "seriously or adversely affects BYU's mission or its sponsoring church."
3. BYU's rank advancement and tenure policies are consistent with those of most other U.S. universities.
4. BYU, like most other respected universities, conducts peer reviews of each faculty member's academic performance. For retention at BYU, this occurs in the third and sixth years at the university. The third-year review has three possible outcomes. Based on accomplishments during time on the faculty, individuals are informed that their academic performance has been determined to be currently on track and they are being admitted to "candidacy" for tenure, deficient in some way and needs to be improved if they are to be granted tenure at the time of their sixth-year review, or unacceptable and they are being recommended for termination.
5. As prescribed by the university rank and status policy, during each formal review, a faculty member's performance is evaluated by six different groups or individuals: a department committee, a department chair, a college committee, a dean, the university rank advancement council (composed of faculty) and the university administration.
6. In participating in the above processes, we have never encountered any occasion when a university official or church authority contacted any of us and attempted to influence the outcome of our decisions regarding rank and status.
It is important to understand that BYU is inseparably intertwined with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Tuition charged to students is only $1,100 per semester, with church tithing funds providing about 70 percent of all operating costs of the university. The annual investment by the church in BYU can easily be estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars.
Because of this intimate relationship, BYU faculty members are often seen as representing the church. A BYU faculty member who promotes or politicizes an agenda contrary to church beliefs can cause significantly more harm to the missions of BYU and the church than would an outspoken church member or even nonmember who occupies another position.
Some faculty critics believe that church leaders are becoming increasingly "anti-intellectual and are pressing the university to rein scholars in." Our experience has been to the contrary. We continue to enjoy great latitude to conduct research and to publish.
We acknowledge that BYU faculty are restricted from public statements that are considered to be harmful to the mission of the university or the church. We also believe that there are common constraints of one kind or another on faculty at most institutions. We willingly support and accept the environment and standards at BYU.
Two of our colleagues have elected to make public their retention evaluations. We know from personal acquaintances that the recommended actions for these two faculty were adjudicated by some of the most respected and competent men and women faculty on campus. We believe that the two faculty in question were evaluated on the basis of established review criteria.
Further, it is our perception that a large majority of faculty support the rank advancement and tenure policies and the academic freedom standards at BYU and believe they are being implemented fairly. We also believe that BYU has become a significantly better university in recent years, partly because of increasingly demanding teaching and scholarship standards.
We acknowledge that the existing policies can be improved and undoubtedly will be. We also acknowledge that subjective decisions based on these policies may not always be correct. However, we are convinced that these policies are being applied as fairly as possible by competent faculty.
L. Douglas Smoot
Dean, College of Engineering and Technology
Professor, chemical engineering
W. Steven Albrecht
Arthur Anderson Alumni Professor
Director, School of Accountancy
and Information Systems
and 30 other BYU faculty members