I should like to respond to the March 10 message from Prof.
Richard Rice.  At the outset let me say that I think the concept of tenure
generally has served the university well, it isn't broke, and therefore it
doesn't need fixing.  I also think that statements from the Trustees were
contradictory, and some probably dishonest. Therefore, I am strongly
opposed to the new policy they have promulgated.  I am also on the
Handbook Committee that worked on the draft proposal for the
implementation of the new sections to the Handbook drafted by the Helms
committee.

        In spite of my opposition to the over-all policy I voted for the
adoption of the non-bold sections of the changes to the Faculty Handbook
in Chapters 3 and 4 in both the Faculty Council and the General Faculty
Meeting.  I did so because I believe those c hanges are a reasonable
implementation of the edict the Trustees have forced on us.  If the vote
had been to determine whether we at UTC accepted the new policy, I would
have voted against it.  I signed the petition opposing it last year.  But
the vote wa s only on the details of implementation of the new policy
handed down, unfortunately, by the Trustees.  I believe we are better off
adopting our own implementation policy than having one forced upon us.
Unless we come up with an alternative, I fear that will happen.  I
understand that one challenged to a duel had the right to choose the
weapon.  Having been challenged by the Trustees I prefer the
implementation policy developed at UTC.

        Prof. Rice's document mixes apples, oranges, and pears.  The vote
in the General Faculty Meeting March 1 was specifically on UTC-developed
changes to our Faculty Handbook.  It did not deal with money at all.  On
the other hand, the Knoxville document dis cussed both money and policy
but it was merely a resolution stating faculty opinion.  It was not a
binding statement on governance.  It was more like a party election
platform.  The Handbook changes were legislation.

        In Rice's 5th paragraph he states the UTK resolution "ignore the
wording of the June 18 Trustee statement."  How can it?  I suggest that we
investigate the feasibility of this.  Specifically, we should ask the
Trustees to put in writing that the "bold" a dditions to our Handbook are
mandatory on all UT campuses.  If they fail to do this, we should not be
under obligation to incorporate this text into our Handbook.  Furthermore,
detailed procedures to be followed in the event someone with tenure is
facing termination are described in Section 3.8 of the Handbook.  These
include a "Hearing under the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures
Act."  This sounds like due process to me.

        In the 6th paragraph I believe that "five years retroactive"
should be "two years retroactive" and refers to the consequences of two
consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations.

        First full paragraph, p. 2 If we are worried about the possible
interpretation of our vote on the implementation changes to the Handbook
as an endorsement of the whole policy of post-tenure review, we should,
like Knoxville, issue a disclaiming resoluti on.  In my opinion adoption
and protest are not contradictory.

        Second paragraph, p. 2 Do we have any departments at UTC whose
major function is research?  If not, the UTK statement is irrelevant.
Third paragraph, The UTC document says similar things in Section 3.7.4,
line 3

        Eighth paragraph I don't think we have a choice on the Trustee
Plan.  Our campus leaders (I don't think quotes were appropriate here) did
not buy ownership of the plan.  I believe few would have voted for it if
we had been given that choice.

        Fifth paragraph, p. 3.  The Helms document was a proposal for
changes to the Handbook.  I don't think they would fit well into a
resolution.  Again, we should consider a separate resolution, perhaps
including a list of suggestions and questions about the
 "bold" material, which we on the Handbook Committee already have prepared.  However, it was suggested this was not the opportune time to present these to the Trustees.  Previously, I yielded this point to those I deemed to have better political antennas
than I do.  Perhaps we should bring these up now.

        Seventh paragraph, p. 3 The document presented for consideration
at the General Faculty Meeting was not a Prof. Prevost document.  It was
the product of two faculty committees, the first of which held open
sessions seeking input from all the faculty.  P rof. Prevost believes, I
think, that the document that resulted is a good one and better for us
than one the UT System might produce.  She (and I) are worried about
serious consequences of the negative vote.  We are not trying to
"hornswoggle" anyone.

        Certainly there is room for spirited and honest disagreement.  But
the Rice document seems to view the enemy as being at UTC.  The enemy is
not at UTC.  It is the System and perhaps UT, Knoxville if they continue
to be better funded under any reasonable comparison and/or held to a lower
standard than are we.

        Thank you, Prof. Rice, for offering us some ideas and arranging
for us to meet to consider them.  I intend to be at the meeting, following
my 2 o'clock class.

        Thank you for your attention.

James W. Hiestand
Engineering

(423) 755 4355 work
(423) 755 5229 FAX