How to Develop Anti-racist and Inclusive Promotion and Tenure Policies and Procedures

In the wake of the murder of George Floyd in 2020 and the subsequent global protests, Black faculty members in the School of Education at Syracuse University issued a call that the school become more anti-racist. The Promotion and Tenure Committee took up the call in its work. And so began more than three years of extensive, ongoing examination of the experiences had by BIPOC and white women faculty members in their pursuit of promotion and tenure. 

Listening sessions conducted early in the process “revealed a series of specific issues that shed light on this already-known reality,” Theoharis says. 

The sessions identified disparate experiences and outcomes for BIPOC faculty and white women in their pursuit of career advancement.  

Among the disparities noted:  

• Course evaluations reflected bias along racial and gender lines. 

• Peer evaluations left some feeling a lack of agency and the absence of a voice of support in the room. 

• Service work was unnoticed and, particularly, anti-racist and social justice work was not always valued. 

• The promotion and tenure review process lacked clarity around portfolio requirements. 

George Theoharis, professor of educational leadership and inclusive elementary/early childhood education, chaired the promotion and tenure committee that led the multi-year inquiry. “We have spent a lot of time in the last few years thinking about ways we could change our policies and procedures—to be more anti-racist and inclusive, specifically.  

“And we did the listening; we identified the problems,” Theoharis says. “And now we’re doing the policy work.”  

The work is ongoing. Policies are never perfect and even revamped policies will need refinement to age well and stay relevant, Theoharis says. The advent of AI and the implicit bias noted there, for instance, has implications for existing and future policies around anti-racist and inclusive tenure policies.   

For departments and schools doing or embarking on this work, Theoharis offers the following guidance: 

1. Set goals (and a timeline) at the outset. 

Thus far, Theoharis and his colleagues have spent more than three years of work in approaching revisions to the School of Education’s promotion and tenure policies. The first step was to develop a timeline and process which began with a review of existing promotion and tenure documents. Goals included the following: 

• Create documents that explained policy and procedure clearly in a user-friendly manner. 

• Work toward more anti-racist and inclusive promotion and tenure policy and procedures. 

• Update all documents and practices to align with the School of Education’s reorganization into a school without departments.  

2. Invite participation; encourage input. 

Three separate listening sessions conducted early on in the process revealed disparate experiences and outcomes for BIPOC faculty and white women in their pursuit of career advancement. Three key questions were asked: 

• What are the oppressive outcomes of promotion and tenure we need to address? 

• What elements of the promotion and tenure process contribute to these outcomes? 

• What can we put into our promotion and tenure policy and procedures to address those outcomes? 

A caveat: Theoharis and his colleagues continue to welcome input from people across the University who are also wrestling with these issues.  

“Our job has to be to continually try and be more anti-racist and more inclusive. Part of the commitment is to ongoing review and hearing of problems or issues,” Theoharis says. “And when you have a sustained conversation around these issues people are more comfortable talking about them.” 

3. Practice compassion and empathy. 

Asked about feedback on the work to date, Theoharis is visibly overcome for a moment. “It’s been powerful for people to say, ‘This has been an issue for me in my career, and I appreciate that we are doing something about it collectively’—that’s happened around a number of these steps, around the teaching evaluations, around what we’ve put together—what we’re calling an integrated path to full professor.” 

Long-overdue recognition of efforts previously unnoticed, such as work in the diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility space—work that took away from traditional scholarship—has its practitioners feeling appreciated, too, Theoharis notes. “So, if you’re playing a role that is moving the university—and knowledge—forward, then that should be rewarded, right?” Theoharis says. “Faculty have said things about how that feels. They’re feeling seen in ways they hadn’t been before. That is no small thing.” 

Anti-racist and inclusive changes voted into policy thus far include user-friendly formatting and organization of promotion and tenure documents and clarification of the specific responsibilities of each party or group involved in the process. Additional elements: 

• Statement about the evaluation of teaching. 

• The faculty member’s right to accurate materials. 

• Statement of commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. 

• Integrated path to full professor. 

Theoharis feels the work being done today to move toward anti-racist and inclusive promotion and tenure processes may very well determine what kind of a future institution Syracuse will be, culturally and otherwise. Though the present work is contained within the School of Education, policies adopted could be models for the University overall and have ramifications from the classroom to the chancellor’s office. 

“Who we are as an institution is made up by who is here—that becomes our legacy,” Theoharis says. “And who we are as a university is determined by how we hire but also by how we promote and tenure. This is really important work.” 

George Theoharis, Ph.D., is a Professor of Educational Leadership and Inclusive Elementary/Early Childhood Education.