The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center is considering the addition of a new layer to its faculty tenure-renewal process, but it also plans to keep its current system of renewing faculty appointments every seven years, a senior institution official said.
A controversy ignited two years ago when two university professors did not have their appointments renewed for another seven years, even though they had received unanimous endorsements from the faculty promotion and tenure committee. The reasons remain under dispute, but angry faculty said it illustrated the institution's lack of shared governance. A report issued April 8 (PDF) by the American Association of University Professors supported their claim.
Dan Fontaine, MD Anderson's executive chief of staff, said the controversy may be overblown. He noted that MD Anderson President Dr. Ronald DePinho has agreed with about 97% of the faculty advisory board's unanimous recommendations. The previous administration had a 99% renewal rate for unanimous recommendations.
Fontaine said the university still plans to consult with previous faculty committee chairs, as well as the University of Texas System's executive vice chancellor for health affairs before issuing a ruling that goes against a unanimous faculty recommendation. The new process will be reviewed after three years to measure its impact.
However, MD Anderson is not likely to change its seven-year faculty appointment system, which the institution refers to as “term tenure.”
Greg Scholtz, associate secretary and director of academic freedom, tenure and governance with the university professors' association, described that term as an oxymoron. “Tenure, by definition, is an indefinite appointment," he said.
Fontaine described the policy as a simple difference in philosophy that won't be bridged. “I don't see a lot of changes going forward with a system that has worked well for decades and everyone knows what they signed up for,” he said.
Fontaine also pointed out that the association's report stated that patient care had not been compromised as a result of the dispute, which he expects will die down soon. “Every once in a while, family members get into a feud and sometimes it spills out into the public,” he said.
One reason for optimism has been the involvement of the new UT System Chancellor, Admiral William McRaven, who has vowed to restore the broken trust between faculty and administration without taking sides.
“He said we are the 'crown jewel' of the UT system and we had a very important job to do,” Fontaine said. “I also think it's important that he followed up his visits with correspondence to reiterate how important he thinks it is for us to move forward, and get back to the job of taking care of patients and doing research which, in my opinion, is the very best research in the world.”
The problems at MD Anderson also exist at other academic medical centers, where clinicians are under pressure to do more with fewer resources.
The Cancer Letter, an industry publication, noted recently that MD Anderson's 64% faculty satisfaction rate tracks closely with a 65% satisfaction rate from a 2011 survey of 14 institutions conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges.
Similarly, the latest AAMC Faculty Forward Engagement Survey, conducted at 17 medical schools between November 2012 and December 2014, found that 65% of faculty members are satisfied, 23% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 13% are dissatisfied.
Still, faculty dissatisfaction can carry heavy consequences. Another AAMC study, conducted at the University of Arizona College of Medicine between 1999 and 2004, found that the annual costs of clinical faculty turnover—which included recruiting, hiring and lost clinical income—exceeded $400,000 for its departments of medicine and surgery.
The university professors' association attributed some of MD Anderson's problems to early missteps by DiPinho, who took over in September 2011.
Valerie Dandar, manager of the AAMC Faculty Forward survey, emphasized the importance of a good start for a new academic medical center leader, which should include an early assessment of faculty attitude, she said.
“We would encourage all new leaders to measure the satisfaction and engagement of their faculty and staff within the first year of their placement,” Dandar said. “Gathering this feedback early in a leader's tenure can assist them in better understanding the needs of faculty and staff as they design and implement new strategic initiatives.”
