Received and posted 12/22/99
Report of the
Academic Senate Task Force
on Medical School Contracts
The offer of contracts in March, 1999 to tenured
and tenure-track faculty in the Medical School, after a hiatus of some
years, brought to a head serious issues that had been latent for a long
time and with which medical schools across the country have been grappling
in recent years. Those questions concern the purpose and value of tenure,
its relation to compensation, and the protection of academic freedom in
the face of fiscal pressures on medical schools created by changes in the
economics of the practice of medicine. Out of concern for faculty in the
Medical School and for the preservation of basic academic principles, the
Academic Senate appointed a task force to ascertain facts pertaining to
the recently issued contracts and to the responsibilities and sources of
compensation of tenured and tenure-track faculty in that school. The report
of that task force, which is accessible at
http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/task_force_on_contracts.html
was intended to serve as the basis for further discussion by the Academic
Senate, leading to its adoption of a position on the issues and advice
to the university administration. In July, 1999, the task force was reconstituted,
with some overlapping membership with the original one, and asked to recommend
a position to the Academic Senate by the following December. It was also
asked to make particular recommendations about policies proposed for USC
faculty at Children’s Hospital, which also involve questions about principles
underlying the tenure system. This report comprises the task force’s recommendations
on both guiding principles and specific policies.
Principles of Tenure and Compensation
The tenure system vitally supports the academic mission of the faculty
in research, teaching, and service, by ensuring academic freedom, by maintaining
faculty quality through requiring rigorous reviews as its precondition,
and by making it possible for faculty to expand the boundaries of what
is thinkable without fear of consequences and in an environment that is
conducive to creative enterprise. Tenure and academic freedom have been
indispensable in making the American university system arguably the best
and most successful in the world.
Traditionally, tenured faculty members have preserved
old knowledge, created new knowledge and disseminated it through peer-reviewed
publication and other media, transmitted their knowledge to succeeding
generations through teaching, and used their expertise in service to the
university and to the community at large. We reaffirm this traditional
understanding of tenure. The Medical School and the university as a whole
should continue to maintain it by ensuring that only those faculty are
hired on the tenure track or awarded tenure who fit this profile. Not all
faculty at a university should be tenured. Some make significant contributions
in teaching, research, or clinical practice, and the Faculty Handbook recognizes
various titles for non-tenure-track faculty; but they do not fit the profile
of tenured faculty. When tenure is not appropriate, these other titles
should be used.
Tenure and compensation are significantly linked. Tenure and the values
it upholds would mean little if faculty members could not afford to hold
their positions or had to fear financial consequences because of the nature
of their ideas and the content of their research and teaching. Protection
against reprisals, though of course important, is not all that is at stake.
A scholar wholly dependent on external funding for salary and under pressure
to get new grants for economic survival might well feel pressure to stick
with safe subjects and be reluctant to pursue imaginative ideas that could
lead to new breakthroughs in the discipline. Therefore, although we recognize
that some within the academy hold that tenure and economic security are
not necessarily mutually implicated, we reject the notion that the right
to retain a position indefinitely can be separated from the right to work
and the right to be paid for that work. Tenured faculty have a right to
economic security less for its own sake than for the purpose of giving
pragmatic support to academic freedom and other academic values. In the
absence of reasonable economic security, tenure becomes only symbolic.
need not
require a guarantee of full salary in every case, but the guarantee should
be for more than a token amount. It should ensure sufficient income for
the faculty member to support a family if other sources of support should
disappear. We do not, however, advocate that universities provide a sinecure
to tenured faculty. Tenure carries responsibilities along with rights,
foremost among them the obligation for tenured faculty to remain active
contributors to their disciplines and to the university. At present, the
university is instituting a system of periodic review of faculty members
by their peers, and the recommendations laid out below for tenured and
tenure-track faculty in the Medical School include the expectation that
those whose performance falls below reasonable standards will be expected
by their colleagues and by the institution to take steps to meet those
standards once again.
Although a salary guarantee is an essential component of tenure, it
is also important that the university not make guarantees that it is unable
to meet. As faculty, we have to be concerned with the financial health
of the university, and principles of tenure are at stake in ensuring that
guarantees are financially realistic. An empty guarantee drains tenure
of meaning just as surely as does the lack of any guarantee. Or, if salary
guarantees in one school can be met only by draining money from the rest
of the university, faculty salaries and therefore tenure and academic quality
in other schools are jeopardized. The threat to tenure in that case is
not eliminated, only shifted elsewhere.
We believe strongly that tenure must mean the same thing for all faculty
who hold it, all across the university. Given the economics of academic
medicine, however--particularly the fact that medical schools typically
employ more tenured faculty than can be paid from the unrestricted budget
and their reliance, which has grown over some decades, on income from clinical
practice--the question that confronts us is whether tenure can mean the
same in the Medical School as it does elsewhere, and in particular whether
the link between tenure and compensation can be maintained. There is a
further danger that practices might evolve in the Medical School that would
set precedents dangerous to the meaning of tenure in the rest of the university.
We believe that tenure as traditionally understood plays an important role
in the Medical School and will continue to do so, although it should be
restricted to faculty with significant responsibilities in teaching, research,
and service (as it is, out of some 1100 faculty in the Medical School,
only around 380 are tenured or on tenure track). Below, we recommend policies
and practices intended to reconcile the principles stated here with the
financial realities.
Those recommendations concern only faculty to be hired with tenure or
on the tenure track in the future. None of the recommendations involves
any changes in the way salaries are actually paid; the distinction between
guarantees and actual practice as long as funds from external sources continue
to be available should be borne in mind throughout. In this report, the
term “clinical faculty” applies to those tenured and tenure-track faculty
for whom patient care is a major responsibility, and not to those on the
Clinical Track (i.e., non-tenure-track) in the Medical School.
Recommendations
1. Basic Science Faculty in Basic
Science Departments (Including Preventive Medicine) and in the Department
of Pathology
-
These faculty should have nine-month (academic year) contracts, with their
salary for this period guaranteed. The nine-month salary (minus whatever
part of it is brought in through grants: see below) would be paid from
the unrestricted budget and other fiscally prudent sources. This amount
is equal to 75% of the salary that a faculty member would currently be
offered on a twelve-month contract.
They should have the opportunity to earn an additional three months
of salary, up to 3/9 of their academic year salary, through grants and
contracts.Extra teaching (for example, during the summer) should also be
compensated.
Discussion: These two recommendations put Basic Science
faculty in the Medical School on the same footing as tenured and tenure-track
faculty in Natural Science departments in the College. They are not intended
to suppress salaries artificially. Currently, contracts and grants account
for approximately 20% of the twelve-month salaries in Basic Science departments,
so that these recommendations do little more than formalize the present
situation and create no additional financial exposure for the university
through salary guarantees.
-
Faculty should be encouraged to bring in a further 25% of their salary
(or one-third of their academic year salary) through contracts and grants.This
should be understood as a goal and not as a requirement that would diminish
the salary guarantee. Success in meeting this goal, or any part of it,
should be recognized in merit reviews and rewarded. Savings to the unrestricted
budget achieved in this way should be used for other faculty members’ salaries
or used to increase the number of faculty.
-
Those faculty whose performance is shown through merit reviews to fall
short of their responsibilities as outlined in the Faculty Handbook will
be expected to participate in professional development, avail themselves
of peer mentoring, and participate in new scientific collaborations to
maintain a level of scholarly activity appropriate for faculty at a major
research university. Additionally, but not to the detriment of their scholarly
development, they may be expected to accept extra teaching or administrative
responsibilities.
2. Faculty in Clinical
Departments Whose Primary Responsibilities Are Research and Teaching
-
This group of faculty should have the same arrangement as faculty in Basic
Science departments: a nine-month academic year contract with a salary
guaranteed for that period on a scale comparable to that of basic scientists,
with the opportunity to earn an additional 3/9 of their academic year salary
from grants.
-
They would be expected to continue to earn all or most of their salary
from grants, as they do now
-
In the event of the loss of grant support, the faculty member’s department
would, in the first instance, be expected to make up the shortfall in salary.
When that is demonstrably impossible, the Medical School and the University
would back the guarantee.
-
For these faculty, as with Basic Science faculty, the continued ability
to obtain grants should figure prominently in merit reviews. For those
who are not successful the same remedies as for basic scientists should
be available.
-
Clinical departments and the Medical School administration should consider
carefully the advisability of continuing to hire faculty with tenure or
on the tenure track whose salary must be paid wholly or mostly from grants.
Such appointments should be made only when the prospective faculty member’s
profile is clearly that of tenured faculty, and in such cases the department
and the administration should be willing to accept the financial responsibility
involved in guaranteeing his or her salary
Discussion: As the unrestricted budget is currently allocated,
no funds are available to back salary guarantees for faculty in this category.
The financial exposure of the university under these recommendations would,
however, be small. There are not many faculty in this category as far as
we can tell, so that even in the worst case, in which every one of them
lost all grants at once, the result would be not a catastrophe but a problem
that could be managed. The chances of this worst case occurring are negligible.
What is far more likely to happen is that a few faculty from time to time
would lose part of their grant support and would need a bit of bridge funding.
This situation would be temporary, since it would be the responsibility
of these faculty members to seek new grants (surely it would indicate a
problem to be dealt with through the faculty review process if a faculty
member could not get renewed funding within a year or two).Providing the
interim salary would not be an excessive burden.
3. Tenured
and Tenure-Track Clinical Faculty
-
This committee believes that tenured and tenure-track faculty in this category
should be given a salary guarantee approximately equal to the average nine-month
salary guarantee given to faculty of equivalent rank in basic science departments.
They would continue to have twelve-month contracts and would be expected
to generate most or all of their salaries from clinical practice and grants
as they do now.
-
If it should be necessary, a faculty member’s department would be expected
to provide the guaranteed salary. If that is demonstrably impossible, responsibility
would fall next to the Medical School and then to the university.
-
Those tenured faculty unable to generate their salaries through clinical
practice and grants because of deficiencies in performance would be expected
to participate in faculty development activities and would be reviewed
annually until their performance again became satisfactory.
-
Tenure should be limited to those faculty who make distinguished contributions
in research and instruction as the major part of their responsibilities,
although most would also devote a portion of their effort to patient care
as well. Therefore, a department should not hire a prospective faculty
member on the tenure track or with tenure unless:
-
The person’s profile will clearly fit that of tenured faculty. In this
case, the profile should be approximately 40% of effort for research, 40%
of effort for teaching, and 20% of effort for patient care or other service.
-
The department and the Medical School can undertake to provide the faculty
member with the time and facilities needed to establish a distinguished
research program within a reasonable period of time (in the case of probationary
faculty, in time to meet the criteria in research for tenure).
-
The department is confident that it can make and back a salary guarantee
of the magnitude described above.
-
There may be a financial risk to the university in providing the salary
guarantees described in this section. We recommend that an assessment of
the risk and of ways to manage it be carried out by a joint Provost/Academic
Senate committee in conjunction with an external consultant.
Discussion: We anticipate that the number of appointments of
clinical faculty on the tenure track or with tenure in the future would
be reduced under these recommendations. We emphasize that extreme care
should be taken to make such appointments only when they are clearly appropriate,
and we note that school and university committees have been recommending
against promotions to tenure in cases where the profile is not that of
a tenured faculty member. A further consideration for keeping the university’s
financial exposure in perspective is that a faculty member who had to avail
himself or herself of the salary guarantee would usually be accepting a
huge reduction in income and would have every incentive to restore his
or her clinical practice, either at USC or, if necessary, elsewhere.
4. Distinguished Physicians
Who Do Not Fit the Traditional Profile of Tenured Faculty
-
There are physicians who have gained distinction in their fields without
fitting the traditional profile of tenure. They perform valuable and important
service to the university, but because most of their effort is centered
on clinical practice, they do not meet the criteria for tenure. One way
in which their achievement could be formally recognized is through a modification
of our current procedures for promotion to the rank of Professor on the
Clinical Track. In order to attain this rank, faculty would undergo a rigorous
review similar to the tenure review but according to criteria to be developed
by the Medical School for faculty whose work fits the clinical profile.
Their dossiers would be reviewed by the University Committee on Appointments,
Promotions, and Tenure, and the appointment or promotion to this rank would
be approved by the Provost. The title “Professor of Clinical [Subject]”
would thus signify excellent achievement in ways other than those by which
tenure is attained. An alternative would be to define a new category and
appropriate title within the Clinical Track. Whatever method of recognition
is adopted, this status should be clearly distinguished from a position
with tenure, and terms such as “Medical Tenure” and “Tenure for Title”
should be avoided.
-
The Faculty Handbook should be amended so as to specify that this rank
signifies outstanding achievement and to define the process of appointment
and promotion to it.
-
The Medical School should try to pay each holder of this title at least
a nominal sum (perhaps $18-20,000 per year) in recognition of his or her
academic contributions and achievements.
5. Children’s Hospital
Basic Science faculty hired on the tenure track or given tenure and serving
at Children's Hospital should be treated as recommended for Basic Science
faculty generally in section 1 above. Appointments with tenure and
on the tenure track, however, should be made only when this is clearly
appropriate. Faculty whose primary responsibility is research should
be appointed on the research track.
Faculty whose responsibilities include significant amounts of patient care
should be appointed on the Clinical (i.e., non-tenure) Track. Those who
achieve distinction should hold the title “Professor of Clinical [Subject],”
as described above.
The x-y-z salary plan being considered for clinical faculty at Children’s
Hospital is consistent with the recommendations outlined under (4) above
(it is understood that tenured faculty would have a salary guarantee as
described there).
The system of rolling contracts also being considered for clinical faculty
is a fair one but should be recognized as defining the relation of these
faculty to Children’s Hospital as distinct from USC. They hold tenure at
the university, and their tenure is unaffected by their contracts with
Children’s Hospital.
-
Contracts and appointment letters,
for the Medical School as for other schools, from now on should be written
clearly so that faculty are informed precisely about the terms of their
employment and so that both the faculty member and the university have
the same understanding of these terms. These documents should always be
in accordance with the principles stated in the Faculty Handbook. Any changes
made in the contracts of faculty while they are affiliated with the university
must be the result of negotiation and mutual agreement between the faculty
member and the university.
Roberta Diaz Brinton, School of Pharmacy
Austin Mircheff, Keck
School of Medicine
John Slaughter, School
of Education
William Thalmann, College
of Letters, Arts and Sciences (Chair)
Received 12/22/99 from William Thalmann. Chair
Senate Taskforce on the Medical School; posted by Peter Heseltine, Secretary
MFA