But things have become especially rough here. In mid-March, faculty members at a campus forum on proposed changes in the tenure code demanded to see specifics. A week later, they were given a list of 13 proposed changes. Critics say that some of the items were faculty ideas, but that most came from administrators. Angered by the proposals, the Faculty Senate last month voted overwhelmingly to dismantle an ad hoc panel that had been working on revising the code.
Critics say it was dominated by administration allies.
Now some members of the senate are crafting their own version of tenure-code revisions that are to go to the full senate and on to the regents, possibly by June. The entire process of generating proposals was very devious. Nobody's been straight with the faculty about it. John S. Adams, a professor of geography who was in charge of the disbanded panel, disagrees. Last month's senate vote was the faculty's attempt to take control of a debate that it felt left out of, says Daniel A. Feeney, a professor of veterinary medicine, who has now become the point man on the tenure review.