From Outrageous Malevolence to Creative Humbuggery: The Problem Of "Fairness" In the Tenure Decision

Authors

Robert J. Doolittle, University of Tulsa

Abstract

This article interrogates fairness in tenure deliberations within American higher education, portraying the process as a rhetorical contract between institutions and their publics. Through conceptual analysis it contrasts two disruptive forces. Outrageous malice describes politically motivated denials rooted in enrollment rivalry, personal vendetta, and malicious committee orientation. Creative humbuggery denotes rule bending in service of rapid hiring or favoritism, eroding objective standards while claiming noble intent. The discussion details institutional obligations to establish transparent criteria, communicate expectations, and apply evaluations consistently, then diagnoses how secrecy, inconsistent documentation, and ad hoc negotiations undermine credibility. Concluding recommendations advocate early clarification of standards, rigorous hiring practices, biennial performance reviews, and meticulous record keeping to protect faculty rights and reinforce academic governance. By integrating communication ethics, organizational politics, and leadership studies, this article supplies a pragmatic framework for sustaining equitable tenure evaluation.

Recommended Citation

Doolittle, Robert J. (1991) "From Outrageous Malevolence to Creative Humbuggery: The Problem Of "Fairness" In the Tenure Decision," Association for Communication Administration Bulletin: Vol. 75, Article 5.
Available at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/aca/vol75/iss1/5