ERIC Number: ED341336
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1990-Aug
Reference Count: 0
Peer Review Confidentiality: Is It Still Possible?
Lee, Barbara A.
This pamphlet analyzes the clash between higher education institutions' concerns for preserving the confidentiality of peer faculty review and the need for relevant evidence when a disappointed faculty member suspects that a negative tenure decision is infected with illegal bias. Until recently many institutions decided whether to give tenure to a candidate using the judgments of disciplinary colleagues with many institutions insisting on preserving the confidentiality of the documents as critical to encouraging their candor. First the pamphlet summarizes how federal courts approached confidentiality issues prior to 1989 including early and key cases, federal policy, and civil rights law. In a section on the 1989 Supreme Court ruling on confidentiality in "University of Pennsylvania versus the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission," the pamphlet examines the arguments of the parties and the rationale behind the Court's opinion. The implications of the ruling are then spelled out with detailed discussion of using external experts and internal peer reviewers. Also examined are the practices of some institutions who have not used peer review from before the Supreme Court ruling. These approaches include complete openness with full disclosure of all documentation; access to evaluations if a decision is appealed, or maintaining peer evaluation confidentiality except where challenged as discriminatory. Included are 40 notes. (JB)
Descriptors: Civil Rights, Civil Rights Legislation, College Faculty, Colleges, Confidential Records, Confidentiality, Court Litigation, Ethnic Bias, Faculty Promotion, Federal Courts, Higher Education, Legal Responsibility, Peer Evaluation, Racial Bias, Sex Bias, Social Bias, Teacher Evaluation, Tenure, Universities
National Association of College and University Attorneys, One Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 620, Washington, DC 20036 ($6.50).
Publication Type: Opinion Papers; Information Analyses
Education Level: N/A
Audience: Administrators; Practitioners
Authoring Institution: National Association of Coll. and Univ. Attorneys, Washington, DC.
Identifiers: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; University of Pennsylvania