Dear Editor,

I thank Professor Ugarte for his comments and reflections and am glad that my essay, published in a political science journal, has elicited scholarly interest far beyond the confines of our discipline, in a department of Spanish literature. While it would take too much space to respond to all comments (for instance, concerning a “turf battle”), I want to clarify a few important points.

First and foremost, I do believe that academics can conduct the tenure process in a pretty objective fashion—which is a crucial precondition for the principle of in dubio contra “reum” advocated in my essay. My proposal to base tenure decisions on predefined criteria of scholarly productivity is designed precisely to make this process more objective. Such a precommitment strategy sets transparent standards for assistant professors. By limiting the discretion of the judges in each specific tenure decision, it also protects tenure candidates against arbitrariness. As Professor Ugarte mentions, there are some cases in which a department is unfairly predisposed against an assistant professor. In these situations, my recommendation to base tenure decisions on clear criteria of productivity serves as a safeguard: when an assistant professor has achieved a good deal of success at the publication front, there is no room for doubt, and intradepartmental colleagues will have difficulty justifying a negative vote inspired by problematic motives.

Therefore, it is crucial to base tenure decisions on documentable accomplishments, especially scholarly publications in prestigious outlets. That is what I had in mind with my emphasis on academic productivity, which had nothing to do with “see[ing] the university as a diploma mill.” Basing tenure decisions on a candidate's record depersonalizes them and makes them more objective than judgments about scholarly caliber and potential alone would be. The focus on productivity keeps at bay considerations derived from personal friendships, collegial networks, or subfield self-interests—which is what I meant by “misconceived notions of solidarity” (aka “old-boy networks,” “letter-writing combines,” “niche coalitions,” etc.).

Professor Ugarte regards my principle of in dubio contra “reum” as too rigorous and strict. But in his concern to “avoid the destruction of a human being for an arbitrary reason”—maybe a somewhat melodramatic formulation—he does not seem to appreciate that a “false-positive” tenure decision prevents another human being from getting a good job. Given the scarcity of faculty lines, there is a human cost to excessive leniency in our professional judgments, but it is often overlooked because it is not directly visible. This cost is borne by the most vulnerable members of the academic community, namely freshly minted Ph.D.s who are trying hard to get a faculty line in the first place. Academics need to move beyond a one-sided focus on the current tenure candidate and consider all sides of this decision-making process.

One last clarification: when I advocated “universalistic” standards, I meant impersonal criteria that are clearly defined, equivalent, and applied consistently across the board. Certainly, different disciplines, and even various subfields within disciplines, may have somewhat different standards—for instance, in the relative weight attached to academic books or journal articles, or in the number of articles that qualify as sufficient. But all disciplines I know have prestigious journals, and therefore all professors, especially tenure candidates, should place some of their work in such outlets. The occasional claim that history and the humanities are “book disciplines” cannot mean that journal articles do not matter, despite Professor Ugarte's totally unsupported “broadsides” against journal articles at the end of his letter. In the specious debate over books “vs.” journal articles, I take inspiration from Marie Antoinette: “Let them write both!” Contrary to the French queen, I do know from my own experience how difficult that is—but it is our main professional task, and therefore it should be the principal base for judging academic success and for awarding tenure.