Author: ksuchor

Committee Members

Charlie Lowe, Chair
H. Allen Brizee
Mike Edwards
Kim Gainer
Jeff Galin
TyAnna Herrington
Clancy Ratliff
Martine Courant Rife
Kyle Stedman
Annette Vee
Traci Zimmerman

March 2015 Update

The CCCC Committee on Intellectual Property monitors new intellectual property issues that may affect writing teachers, students, and researchers, and it advocates best intellectual property practices.

Committee Charge

This committee is charged with addressing and providing guidance on intellectual property issues that affect CCCC and NCTE and that impact writing instruction generally. More specifically, the committee will:

Charge 1:  Keep the CCCC and NCTE membership informed about intellectual property developments, through reports to the CCCC EC, other forums and new mediums, including the MemberWeb site.

Charge 2:  Maintain a close working relationship with the Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition Studies and related NCTE groups and staff.

Charge 3: Develop and update CCCC position and policy statements to guide writing teachers’ and researchers’ uses of course packs, electronic materials, issues of plagiarism, etc.

Charge 4: Address issues of concern to the organizations, such as interpretations of fair use, copyright debates, and evolving Intellectual Property policies and continue to be a resource to the NCTE DC officer for their work with lawmakers.

CCCC-IP Annuals

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2019–2020

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2018

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2017

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2016

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2015

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2014

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2013

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2012

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2011

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2010

CCCC Letter to United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2009

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2008

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2007 for Scholars of Composition, Rhetoric, and Communication

Major Intellectual Property Developments of 2006 for Scholars of Composition, Rhetoric, and Communication

Major Intellectual Property Developments of 2005 for Scholars of Composition and Communication

Harrison Spenser: Case #5

Characterization of Institution

A private comprehensive University (i.e., we grant 3 Ph.D.s in science, lots of assorted Masters degrees, and M.D./D.D.S./ J.D. and professional doctorates in occupational and physical therapy, and Pharm.D.s).

Characterization of Department

M.A. in literature, composition and rhetoric, teaching of literature, and teaching of writing, and creative writing.
B.A. in English, with tracks in literature, creative writing, English Education., and Irish literature.

How would Harrison Spenser’s case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

First, let me say that this poor guy’s been whipsawed around for 6 years–his problems are the product of bad choices and  bad or nonexistent advising.  If Spencer had been here, he would have had a faculty mentor to hopefully advice him against taking on so much service.  His service seems fine–actually half of this service would be fine–it’s good that he has University committee service, but he has too much of it. His teaching is more difficult to assess–he certainly would have been better to focus on undergraduate teaching–especially at our school–but the scenario given doesn’t give me 6 years of data to look at.  Therefore I do not know if he improved or not.  The graduate teaching is good, but isn’t as important here as undergraduate teaching.  The publication/scholarship–that’s tougher.  As I count it, he has a book, 4 reviews, 7 presentations, the software package, and an online article.  That might get tenure where I am, but I doubt that it would get promotion to Associate Professor as well.  He needs more single-authored stuff.  It’s not a matter of not valuing the software; it’s a matter of him having only 2, maybe 3, significant works in 6 years.  If he were my colleague, I would support his application, but I wouldn’t be sanguine about the prospects.  Here the “general” count is 6-8 articles in juried publications.  Even if he’s had the software package count as an article, it’s still a little weak.

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Spencer?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

It depends, really, on which department head.  The first department head failed in that he or she should have been very specific regarding the expectations for tenure and promotion in the depoartment and more specifically the College.   If there is an expectation –general, mythical, or explicit–the Chair should know it, and tell the junior faculty member of it when s/he walks through the gates.  I feel, too, that s/he did not emphasize enough in the first three years that the weaknesses were indeed weaknesses.  And “defending the use of computers to the literature faculty of the department?”  What is this?  Is this part of his job description?  I hope not.  Spencer’s’s there to promote use of technology, maybe, but it should not be the job of a brand-new junior faculty member to win over tenured faculty with different ideologies.  This is setting Spencer up for failure–the Department Head shouldn’t have let him get into this trap.  S/he’d have been better off getting someone else to help Spencer with the grant.  It’s the head’s job  to help the new faculty member with the existing “power relationships” in the department.

What are the Personnel Committee’s responsibilities toward Spencer?  Which did they fulfill?  Fail?

Our department does not have a personnel committee.  Oddly enough, the departments here don’t vote or decide tenure—it’s a matter of the Chair recommending to the Dean, then a college committee, auUniversity committeee, and then the President, who makes the final decision.

What are the responsibilities of the Dean?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

S/he should have given Spencer a 2/2 load for every year–directing a lab  is worth a course release.  I know this from hard experience.

What are Spenser’s responsibilities?  Which did he fulfill?  Fail?

It’s very flattering to be asked on M.A. and Ph.D. committees—but junior faculty should watch this carefully.  Spencer grievously overcommitted himself.  This would not happen–or at least we’d take great steps not to let this happen—in our department.  I don’t mean to polish our apple, but we assign new faculty mentors from among the tenured faculty—and not just the handiest tenured faculty, but the ones who are on the ball, have good track records themselves, who made tenure and promotion (not always a given here) in good time and with good publication, teaching, and  service records.  If this person were in my department, the mentor would have told him to cut back.  All of the committees, the grant work–without a solid publication record already, worked together to suck up his remaining time. 

What went wrong?  What went right?

Most everything I can see went wrong; little went right in terms of Spencer’s position.

Committee Members

Jennifer Beech, Chair
Jacqueline Gray
William Macauley
Rita Malenczyk
Irvin Peckham
Heidi Rosenberg
Karen Thompson
Howard Tinberg
Jennifer Trainor

Committee Charge

The charge to the committee is to identify institutions that treat adjunct, contingent, and part-time faculty in exemplary fashion by November, 2006.  By March, 2007, the committee should distill a list of best practices by looking at those exemplary institutions.  Then the committee should draft a statement about those best practices for a general higher education audience which should be submitted to the executive committee by November 2007.

Harrison Spenser: Case #5

Characterization of Institution

Research II

Characterization of Department

M.A. granted in Professional Communication
M.A. granted in English

How would Harrison Spenser’s case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

Spenser certainly would have been tenured at this university.

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Spencer?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

Well, I think Harrison Spencer stepped into a trap. Here he is, a run of the mill academic who’s been scraping by with a series of one-night stands, and suddenly he finds himself saddled with responsibilities he has had meager preparation for. That is, he’s a student of medieval rhetoric hired for a new rhetoric and comp program but diverted by his dept chair into a taxing job requiring a combination of administrative and public relations skills. This would have worked out okay had he had more sympathetic overseers and not made the mistake of seeking rapport with the literature teachers by bringing two of them into his project.

This dept sounds like a pretty traditional one with a dept head eager for innovations, a tricky situation for Harrison, and I infer a lack of mutual regard between the comp/technology group and the literature faculty. The literature people have always thought of themselves as writing specialists, too, and they often regard the introduction of computers into freshman English classrooms as a preoccupation with gadgetry resorted to by teachers who deep down have little interest, really, in either reading closely or writing eloquently but who prattle about ‘communication’ and who may–or may not–have social goals in mind (e.g., huddling impressionable freshman together for some covert Gramscian war of positions).  But the fact is that most literature professors should drop their pose of mandarin haughtiness and accept that running through the Harbrace exercises on the comma splice is not the only path to a liberal education. The comp/technology people, on the other hand, should atone for their early arrogance in parading themselves as ‘writing specialists’ (I have been teaching college composition for forty-one years, even winning awards for it, and yet I was told recently that I wasn’t a ‘writing specialist’ because I didn’t belong to CCCC and read College English) by demonstrating that they have a great deal to offer (as they do) and getting on with their work without betraying any defensiveness around the mandarins. Volunteering to teach a sophomore literature course once in a while wouldn’t be a bad idea.

This is not an easy battlefield for a newcomer to prove his mettle on, and Harrison came naked to the fray. He was naïve to hope that he could “engage some of the literature faculty” by bringing them into his software project, where they sucked up resources reprehensibly, enjoyed their release time, and contributed little. Under a just chair, they would have suffered for their selfishness.

The chair bears a lot of blame for Harrison’s tenure defeat; knowing the P&T committee’s undue harassment of Harrison over publications (the committee were probably all literature mandarins devoted to Cardinal Newman’s The Idea of a University), the chair should have given him some breathing space. Even though Harrison was a dud with undergraduates, he seems to have had a real touch with graduate students, and a discerning chair should have capitalized on that, seeing Harrison as someone who if nursed along properly could play an important role in his vision of a technology-expanded program, both as an administrator and as a tutor/advisor to graduate students.

What are the Personnel Committee’s responsibilities toward Spencer?  Which did they fulfill?  Fail?

One suspects that the “fledgling rhetoric and composition program” was not really ready for its maiden flight in a conflicted department and that Harrison got caught with a P & T committee still dubious about the new program and not at all sympathetic to online publications.

What are the responsibilities of the Dean?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

And one wonders where the dean was while Harrison was running this gantlet of slings and arrows.

What are Spencer’s responsibilities?  Which did he fulfill?  Fail?

Harrison seems to have done much good work, only to have been exploited for his “low key affability and willingness to take on what needed to be done.” The two literature professors sabotaged Harrison and left him without the software publication that with any decent collegial support he should have finished early and been credited with. It was all downhill for Harrison from that point on, with his being asked to do more and more while being harassed about research. (Clearly, he should have been given more credit for his book, even though it was complete by the time he accepted his position.) He deserved more recognition for his reviews for Kairos and for his papers for RSA Online and The Journal of Online Instruction, as well as for his presentations; and the contract with Tallman Publishers should have clinched his tenure.

What went wrong?  What went right?

Clearly, Harrison should have been given more credit for his book, even though it was complete by the time he accepted his position.  He deserved more recognition for his reviews for Kairos and for his papers for RSA Online and The Journal of Online Instruction, as well as for his presentations; and the contract with Tallman Publishers should have clinched his tenure.

Addtional Comments

This reviewer has taught over thirty years in a state university, done four years hard time as chair of the university’s largest department, and served on numerous Personnel Committees, often as chair. His department offers master’s degrees in both literature and professional communication (he was the chair who pushed through the latter degree).

Harrison Spenser: Case #5

Characterization of Institution

Research I University

Characterization of Department

We are not an English Department, although we do teach literature courses.

Our undergrad. major is “Science, Technology, and Culture,” and we offer an M.S. in Information, Design, and Technology.

We also supply the composition and Technical Writing courses required by the Institute

How would Harrison Spenser’s case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

Without the book, and with a displeased Chair, it might have turned out the same. However, the candidate in the case study did make a good-faith effort to get at least some writing done, and did finish some important computer-based projects. With a carefully chosen P& T committee (assuming they are appointed by the Chair) and equally carefully chosen referees who could understand the relationship between the various parts of the candidate’s work, a case could definitely be made.

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Spencer? Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

Chair’s role to be mentor and chief for a new faculty member and continually point out what is required for tenure. That book should have been finished, published and NOT considered a project started before the candidate’s work at the University (if it’s published while the candidate is onboard, it gets the University’s name). More important, a Chair, as eager is he or she might be to get technology rolling in the unit, may not balance the load on the shoulder’s of a junior faculty member. My current thinking, for example, is not to assign a junior faculty member any major non-research duties accept those that the person can show fits into his or her agenda and time. In other words, service is voluntary unless it can be counted into research.

What are the Personnel Committee’s responsibilities toward Spencer?  Which  did they fulfill?  Fail?

Failed to take into account the candidate’s effort to start publishing; failed to make the appropriate argument for the candidate.

What are the responsibilities of the Dean?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

Of course he should have finished his book; he should also have tried to explain to his Chair that he needed to balance his research with the service. This is easier said than done, since junior faculty are rarely in a position to countermand their Chair.

What are Spenser’s responsibilities?  Which did he fulfill?  Fail?

Inadequate preparation of the candidate by the Chair. Failure to recognize–on someone’s  part–that the new Chair was antagonistic to the candidate. This might be the job of the Dean.

What went wrong?  What went right?

At the risk of repetion: no matter how anxious a department may be to get itself up to speed technologically, it may not do it by ruining the career of a new faculty member.

Harrison Spenser: Case #5

Characterization of Institution

Research I University

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
Ph.D. in Tech Comm/Rhetoric
M.A.T.C. (M.A. in Technical Communication) undergraduate specialization in Technical Communication
Ph.D. granted in English,
M.A. granted in English
B.A. granted in English

How would Harrison Spenser’s case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

If Spencer were to come up for tenure here with one book (accepted for publication prior to his hire), a couple of articles, a software package, and several reviews, he would have trouble at tenure time.  Our current T&P document specifies that while research published prior to one’s hire is “commendable,” it will not count toward tenure.  The document also specifies that for tenure, a candidate is expected to produce “a published or accepted book, or articles that are equivalent to a book.”  The problem for Spencer would be that faculty couldn’t count his book; without that book, his research profile wouldn’t be equivalent to a book.  Faculty here would have no problems with the fact that much of Spencer’s work is on-line; that’s accepted.  They would have trouble, however, with the fact that most of his work is in the form of book reviews.  He needs more articles.

I would hope, however, that this case would have proceeded differently here, because I would hope Spencer would receive more practical advice and mentoring than he did at his university.  I see that advice/mentoring as being the responsibility of the chair and of members of the T&P committee.  I also see the candidate as bearing some responsibility for making him/herself as well-informed as possible about departmental and university policies.

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Spencer? Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

1st: Who assigned administrative duties to Spencer (there’s a passive verb in the description above that hides responsibility; I’m assuming the chair made this assignment)?  As chair, I make every attempt possible to protect untenured faculty from administrative service.  As far as I know, most departments will NOT count administrative work toward tenure.  The candidate assigned such duties is caught in a terrible bind; as an untenured person, s/he has little power to enforce administrative decisions AND s/he is not getting credit for all this administrative work.  It’s simply not fair to put an untenured person in this bind.  The chair should have found someone else to assume primary responsibility for the lab, perhaps with Spencer as an associate to this person.

2nd: The chair should have notified Spencer that the department wasn’t going to count his book–and should have asked Spencer if Spencer wanted that chair to see if the department might be willing to make an exception to its policy.  Routinely, when I hire candidates who bring a strong research record to this institution, I encourage faculty to vote in favor of counting at least some of that pre-employment record when it comes time for tenure.  Faculty generally vote positively; we then have this vote on record.

3rd: Spencer has a 2/2 load.  What load do other new faculty carry?  Is Spencer carrying more than others because he has the computer lab administrative duties?

4th: The scenario notes that in Spencer’s first year review, the chair conveys his concerns about Spencer’s lack of publication but focuses on the benefits of Spencer’s grant-writing, etc.  Are these concerns on paper?   Are the benefits on paper?  I would hope the chair, and Spencer, put these comments on paper.  It’s important for both parties that they have a paper-trail, establishing what Spencer was told to expect.  How does the departmental policy statement on T&P value grantwriting?  Is this component important in tenure cases?

5th: During Spencer’s second year, the chair asks for volunteers to serve on Spencer’s committee, rather than appointing members.  While the call for volunteers may entice interested parties, it does not lend administrative strength to Spencer or to his committee.  Spencer has little public clout.

What are the Personnel Committee’s responsibilities toward Spencer?  Which  did they fulfill?  Fail?

The Personnel Committee Chair should take a more active role in clarifying, for Spencer, what the department’s expectations are.  The committee chair and the department chair can work together to inform the candidate about the specifics of his candidacy.

What are the responsibilities of the Dean?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

Here, the Dean of the College reads the Chair’s Annual Assessment of each faculty member and meets with the Chair to discuss each faculty person (the assessment are in January; the Dean and Chair meet in February).  Assuming that the Chair reported Spencer’s slow progress toward publication to the Dean, she most likely would have urged the Chair to carry back her concerns to Spencer.  The Chair then would meet with Spencer and convey to him what the Dean had said.  The Dean might query the Chair about the department’s willingness to accept on-line and software publication and probably would encourage the chair to include guidelines about such publication in the department’s T& P policy statement.

What are Spenser’s responsibilities?  Which did he fulfill?  Fail?

Spencer takes on too much–but can’t be expected to know that he is taking on too much.  Spencer should have clarified the status of his book before accepting the position; he should have clarified administrative duties; he should have gotten, in writing, some statement about how his admin. work would count toward tenure.  He should have focused more on developing his conference presentations into articles.  He should have left the book reviews until after tenure (at least here, book reviews count for next to nothing).

What went wrong?  What went right?

What went right: Spencer tries to figure out the situation, tries to adjust demands on his time (that is, he suggests a committee to help him in his work; publishes in the area of his teaching; completes his grant work).  Unfortunately, every time he tries to make adjustments, the system undermines him (the committee is volunteer rather than appointed; to publish in his teaching area requires development of new courses; to complete the grant he alienates the faculty member who becomes chair).   This case COULD have come out differently if Spencer had more support and attention from his chair and from members of the T&P committee.

Maricela Guzman: Case #3

Characterization of Institution

Regional Comprehensive, State University

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in English
Ph.D. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
M.A. granted in English
M.A. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
B.A. granted in English
B.A. granted in Composition/Rhetoric

(Department Head with a PhD in Composition/Rhetoric)

How would this case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

Guzman would receive yearly positive reviews and would have been granted tenure without question.

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Guzman?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

The Depaartment Chair’s responsibilities are to counsel Guzman and to present Guzman’s case to upper-level administration in a positive light. She seems to have done some of this, but I would question why she did not direct Guzman to publish in a different venue if the ones she was publishing in were problematic to the department.  Perhaps, she should also have informally discussed Guzman’s research more with members of the department before the committee meeting, but since the chair/head gives a separate decision on tenure and promotion, I think there is good reason to avoid informal influence. 

What are the Personnel Committee’s responsibilities toward Guzman?  Which did they fulfill?  Fail?

The Personnel Committee Chair should run the meeting, try to keep tempers cool, and write a report that reflects the spirit of the department.  I don’t think the Chair should influence the voting or discussion, except to keep discussion professional and polite.

What are the responsibilities of the Dean?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

I’m afraid I don’t see the Dean discussed in this case.

What are Guzman’s responsibilities?  Which did she fulfill?  Fail?

Guzman seems to have done what she was hired to do, publish in her field of expertise.

What went wrong?  What went right?

This problem developed from the absolute start.  The department didn’t respect the work Guzman was doing.  They wanted a more conservative member, and they shouldn’t have hired someone whose work they could not support.  There needed to be a re-education early on if this situation were to have “corrected.”  What went right is the chair of the department showed Guzman that she supported her work and would support her candidacy. 

Maricela Guzman: Case #3

Characterization of Institution

Research II

Characterization of Department

M.A. granted in English literature, teaching of writing and literature, and professional writing and editing;
B.A.  granted in English, with writing tracks;

(Also note, that we have a heavy involvement in Ph.D.in Cultural Studies and D.A. in Community College Education)

How would this case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

I can’t imagine that a productive scholar of this proficiency would have reached this point in her career at my school and not have been fully confident of how to proceed. From the outset, she would have known what was expected and we would have taken pains to make clear to ourselves and her the nature of her work and our approval of her agenda. First, given her educational background and interests, we would have made sure that she was the person we wanted in that position, then each year the Chair would have reviewed her progress and suggested any modifications.
    
Let me say that I don’t think we would have hired for WC director a person who could not make those fertile connections between technology and the work of the Center, but had we made such a choice we would have stuck by our decision and not have expected her to become a new person.
    
The technological nature of her work, by the way, does not appear to be the problem here, but its scientific subject matter. On our campus, more and more work by more and more faculty is being done onlind and in multimedia; given her background and interests we would probably have been excited by her potential.

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Guzman?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

The Chair is an independent voice in these decisions not a mouthpiece for the rest of the faculty.  Sure, the Chair should mention and reflect on the committee vote in her letter, but the Chair primarily should exercise her own judgment. Otherwise, why have a separate letter from the Chair? In this case, I find it appalling that the Chair did not take responsibility for defending a scholarly agenda that she had either openly or tacitly approved earlier on.

What are the Personnel Committee’s responsibilities toward Guzman?  Which did they fulfill?  Fail?

The Chair of the Re-appointment, Promotion, and Tenure (RPT) Committee here expressed dismay and surprise at the vote, since it did not reflect the discussion. That disjunct should not have occurred, and it’s the RPT chair’s fault that it did. We caution faculty during meetings that they must bring out in discussion anything that might lead to their negative vote. Whenever there has been the hint of a breach of confidentiality of meeting proceedings we have held meetings to reinforce the rules, because we know that the discussion must be secure if faculty are to be forthright.

What are the responsibilities of the Dean?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

The Dean obviously had a different agenda from that of the Department in hiring this person.  If the Dean approved the hire of a WC director, that’s what he/she had the responsibility to support.  The release time agreement should have been honored. At this point, the Dept. chair should consult with Guzman about her career goals, and, if she wants to become primarily associated with the new culture/technology program, then the Dept. should argue for a new hire to direct the WC.

What are Guzman’s responsibilities?  Which did she fulfill?  Fail?

Like it or not, the candidate needs to be sure that her goals and accomplishments are meeting with Department approval; this means regualr, at least annual, review and consultation.  If the Chair doesn’t require this, the candidate must. When it comes right down to it, lack of mutual assurance hurts the candidate the most, so the candidate must take the initiative. In her favor, of course, she did what she assumed she was supposed to be doing and did it well. But she still left too much to blind faith.

What went wrong?  What went right?

What went right was the candidate’s work; what went wrong was the process. Let me add that this case assumes continuity in college and departmental leadership during these five years; but most chairs don’t serve the full probationary period for any candidate; RPT committee chairs serve much less. Hence, all the more need for the candidate to by reassured each year that she is on the right track. As a case in point, in my first semester as chair I was blindsided by a surprisingly weak vote from one candidate’s subcommittee; everyone vilified the subcommittee for not bringing their dissatisfaction with the candidate to anyone’s attention earlier, but clearly the candidate had assumed too much for too long without consultation, and the resulting confusion led to the candidate’s leaving the university.

Workshop Reports of the 1952 Conference on College Composition and Communication Meeting, March 28, 29, The Carter Hotel, Cleveland, Ohio.

Maricela Guzman: Case #3

Characterization of Institution

Research I

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in English
Ph.D. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
M.A .granted in English
M.A. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
B.A. granted in English

How would this case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

I don’t think Dr. Guzman would have received tenure here. As a Research I University; the expectations are higher than 6 published articles and conference presentations and a CD-Rom that isn’t clearly connected to her institutional position. Much would depend on the reputation of the journals in which she published, the length and substance of the articles, and the other aspects of her profile—particularly how well the writing center and the program in technology and culture are doing..

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Guzman?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

If Guzman is in her fifth year, her Head’s responsibilities towards her are clear: to do what she has indicated she would do—support her tenure case. But the unknown here is what happened after the third-year review. Was Guzman told that she needed to publish in areas that are more clearly recognized as English Studies (whatever that might mean—since the scenario doesn’t indicate the kinds of places she published, it’s not clear if the problem is with where she’s publishing or how people interpret where she’s publishing)? Was her teaching load protected? It should have been, since running a writing center is significant work. 

Which did the Chair fulfill? Hard to say, given the lack of information about the Head’s response to the third year review in years four and five.  Fail? Again, hard to say. If Guzman were publishing in Computers and Composition, The Writing Lab Newsletter, and other comp/rhetoric journals, then the Head should have dismissed the criticisms of the Tenure and Promotion Committee and in fact worked to educate them.

What are the Personnel Committee’s responsibilities toward Guzman?  Which did they fulfill?  Fail?

This is a pretty institutionally specific question, depending on the role of the committee, the frequency of reviews, etc. Do untenured faculty get annual reviews? (They do here.) If so, Guzman should have been advised about what she needed to do to improve her chances for tenure, and her next two reviews should have told her how well she was doing. If there are not annual reviews, the chair of the Tenure and Promotion Committee should have certainly advised Guzman about the concerns raised by the Head.  If the committee conversation was only praise, we have to assume the Head’s information about faculty’s dissatisfaction with Guzman’s scholarship must have come from elsewhere than the T&P committee,  so then it would be the Head’s responsibility to advise Guzman. 

Which did they fulfill?  Fail?  There’s inadequate information in the scenario to answer these questions. We don’t know what the chair of the committee did or didn’t do. .

What are the responsibilities of the Dean?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

The Dean isn’t mentioned in this scenario, so I won’t offer a reply to these questions.

What are Guzman’s responsibilities?  Which did she fulfill?  Fail?

Her responsibilities were to do the job for which she was hired, which it seems she has done. In addition, she has some responsibility for finding out what the tenure expectations are and how the work she’s doing in her first few years fits, though I think most of that responsibility lies with the Head and Tenure and Promotion Committee, which should be particularly attentive to the work of untenured faculty working in relatively new and interdisciplinary areas like technology and writing. 

Which did she fulfill? She’s certainly publishing and she’s presenting at appropriate conferences.  I would assume that at an institution like hers, her profile looks pretty strong, so I’m not surprised she’s likely to get tenure.   Fail?  Well, it depends on what kind of advice she’s been given. From the brief description given in the scenario, the CD-Rom project sounds like a mistake. Not because it’s a CD-Rom, but because it’s about Mars, not writing and technology or writing centers.

What went wrong?  What went right?

What appears to have gone wrong is that Guzman wasn’t given enough information and guidance about what would be valued and what wouldn’t at tenure time. It’s very hard to persuade tenure committees that someone whose profile looks unusual is doing what he or she should be. Unfortunately, untenured faculty have to do work that fits expectations, at least to some extent.

Again, if Guzman’s publications were in composition or composition and technology journals, then the problem isn’t hers; it’s the department’s, and the Head and T&P chair should be doing what they can to educate people. And Guzman’s being dispirited is something that went wrong. The work she wants to do in racism and gender and technology is consistent both with her connection to the technology and culture program and to work being done in composition studies. If she feels it’s not going to be valued, then something is definitely wrong with the place she’s working. 

What went right? Guzman’s likely to get tenure, and her Head is going to support her.