Post-tenure review is the new hammer . . . as well as threats to cut overall programs, which is the only acceptable way to eliminate tenured positions in the state system, anyway.
In a budget-starved environment, those with low post-tenure review ratings (either by their admins or spiteful, competitive peers on the RPT committee) are denied raises, given the worst courses, given the worst committee assignments, etc. And I've seen a dean and a department head target faculty members with these little "annual compact" devices that are touted as helping faculty be more fairly evaluated but are secretly used to control their research. One person had to re-do his 13 times because the dept head didn't approve of the journals to which he was submitting his work. She wanted letters by people in his field (for a simple annual "plan" for a tenured faculty member) explaining the relevance of the journals and of his research. She was looking for ways to set him up so she could claim he was "failing" and then put him on academic probation.
I can't believe how little people did in the 60s and 70s to get tenure. It was so much harder by the 90s, and those folks were evaluated by the 3-articles-for-tenure deadwood at the time who never had to live up to the standards they inflicted on others. In 2013, at some places, KEEPING tenure and any semblance of resources is an ongoing bloodbath. Obtaining external resources is the big push. Since there are so few TT faculty relative to admins and adjuncts, the former have a lot less leverage against admin abuses.
It's pretty ugly and unsustainable. Good thing you found a more fulfilling career.
= new reply since forum marked as read
