Changing Yale tenure

To the Editor:

The reconsideration and subsequent rejection of Diane Kunz's tenure appointment by the department of history has raised a lively and welcome debate regarding Yale's assignment of permament faculty positions. The case is only the latest in a recent series of departures by notable scholars, including several Yale-educated post-doctoral fellows in history. Despite the recent recruitment of first-rate senior faculty, we must seriously ponder the ongoing exodus of young historians, and their intellectual contributions, from our community.

The central question concerns the criteria utilized by the Tenure Appointments Committee for the Humanities in its appraisal of candidates for appointment to full faculty positions. Of great significance is the fact that the discussion on the Kunz case is completely devoid of comments by the Committee members, as noted by Robert Huelin [Kunz denied tenure after reconsideration, 10/24/97, YH]. The absence of such insight behind the Committee's decision serves the sole purpose of perpetuating misdirected musings on the outcome of the deliberations and ambiguous, contrived criticisms regarding the quality of Ms. Kunz's scholarship, neither of which facilitate an accurate assessment of her qualifications.

The substitution of a more efficient and constructive system for the evaluation of a junior faculty member's qualifications in their bid for tenure is long overdue at Yale. Such a revamped procedure, if it included a decidedly democratic scheme which properly weighted individual Committee votes, could engender increased constructive criticism and consequently, a more veritable determination of a tenure candidate's merit. Until the implementation of such reforms, the department of history will continually be subject to the departures of some of its brightest and most promising products.

--Aiyaz Hussain, TD '99

Back to Opinion...