The Faculty Senate voted 18-4 on April 14 to allow non-tenure track faculty to apply for sabbatical leave and removes a stipulation that 100% of sabbatical leave must be dedicated to research.
These changes came from a Faculty Senate non-tenure track task force that has been exploring different ways that the university could support non-tenure track faculty members. More recently, the Idaho State Board of Education changed its policy to allow non-tenure track faculty to apply for sabbaticals, which was one of the items the task force had previously discussed.
“If ISBoE [Idaho State Board of Education] allowed non-tenure track sabbatical, I believe we should implement this,” said Stefan Tohaneanu, a professor in the department of mathematics and statistical science.
According to Dan Hickman, chair of the sabbatical committee, and Barb Kirchmeier, member of ad hoc committee on non-tenure track faculty, there would be no direct fiscal impact on the university as these changes would only widen the applicant pool for sabbatical. Due to budget limitations more than a decade ago, the current university process for approving sabbatical starts at the college level, operating differently in each school, and then is approved at the university level.
“I support everything that’s in these changes except the addition of non-tenure track [sabbatical], which may sound very harsh,” University of Idaho Provost Torrey Lawerence said. “I am very concerned by changing our process to do it in this way, it will actually disadvantage non-tenure track faculty.”
Lawrence explained that in meeting with the deans that a few were neutral towards the expansion, while most were against the change. The increased workload resulting from this bill would be placed on deans, which includes deciding who will teach the professors’ classes while they are on sabbatical.
Among the concerns was the fact that non-tenure track faculty would be in competition with tenure track faculty for professional development opportunities such as sabbatical. Under the current system, non-tenure track faculty have access to professional leave, which is rarely used.
“A lot of the things you characterize thereas negatives are precisely what we pay deans three times more than the rest of us to figure out,” aid Jerry Long from the College of Law.“I just don’t see how all of those negatives even come close to outweighing the positives of treating the folks that do a lot of the heavy lifting in this university the way they deserve to be treated.”
Kristin Haltinner said that when she spoke to deans, some were in favor and needed to sort out how it would work in their college, while others were neutral in their response. Only one had concerns about the expansion.
Kirchmeier shared a response from a non-tenure track faculty member that they had consulted while developing this expansion. That faculty member said they were hired specifically because of their experience in the field, but on a non-tenure track contract, they would not be able to take sabbatical and go back out into the field to develop more of the skills which made them an attractive hiring choice.
While the fiscal impact was stated as zero, senate expressed that sabbatical came at a price as the university had to pay for additional faculty to teach the classes in the professors one or two semester-long absence.
“I think this is an issue of equality on our campus. I think it’s a slap in the face to not provide the same opportunities to our colleagues who are non-tenure track,” said Deborah Thorne from the College of Letters, Arts and Social Sciences. “It just feels like it’s a real unnecessary ranking, very hierarchical, and to make that process different for two different classes, It’s just classist to me. I will support that everyone has access to sabbatical.”
Joshua Reisenfeld can be reached at [email protected].