What Counts: Service, Tenure, and the Work Universities Choose to Value

Introduction

Tenure is often framed as the benchmark of academic success, a system that is designed to reward excellence in research, teaching, and service while protecting academic freedom. In theory, the process is structured and fair. Faculty meet clearly defined expectations, move through multiple levels of review, and are evaluated based on the quality of their work. That is the version of tenure universities promote: It suggests a system rooted in merit and consistency.

However, that version does not fully reflect how tenure operates in practice.

At the University of Mississippi, the issue is not simply that tenure is difficult to achieve, but that the system lacks clarity and shared accountability in how faculty are evaluated. Departments hold significant authority in defining expectations, yet those expectations are not always clearly communicated or consistently applied. Faculty are told that research, teaching, and service all matter, but the reality of how those categories are weighed is often left unstated. What counts is not always written down. It is learned through observation, mentorship, and, at times, trial and error.

This creates a system where success is not just about performance: It is about access. Faculty who have strong mentorship, who understand departmental expectations early, and who are positioned within supportive networks are better able to navigate the process. Others are left trying to figure out expectations that should have been made clear from the start.

One of the clearest consequences of this structure is the way service is treated. Universities rely on faculty to mentor students, advise organizations, serve on committees, and engage with their communities. That work is necessary for institutions to function. Yet when it comes time for tenure decisions, service is often treated as secondary to research. It is recognized, but not rewarded in the same way.

That imbalance is not neutral. It has real consequences for who advances and who does not. Research shows that Black faculty are more likely to take on service responsibilities, particularly in mentorship and student support roles (Powell 2024; Raynor 2025). When that work is undervalued in tenure decisions, it creates a system where the people doing the work that sustains the institution are not always the ones being rewarded by it.

This brief argues two connected points. First, that service is systematically undervalued in tenure decisions, despite being essential to how universities function. Second, and more fundamentally, that tenure is governed by unclear expectations and limited accountability, which allows that undervaluation to persist unevenly across departments and faculty. When evaluation standards are not transparent or consistently applied, what institutions claim to value and what they actually reward begin to diverge. Addressing inequities in tenure therefore requires more than elevating service in theory. It requires restructuring how tenure expectations are defined, communicated, and enforced.

Background and Context

The challenges surrounding tenure and faculty equity did not emerge overnight. They are part of a longer pattern in higher education, particularly in the American South, where access to institutions has expanded without a corresponding shift in who holds power within them. While universities have made progress in diversifying student populations, these changes have not been reflected in faculty ranks. Black faculty remain underrepresented in tenured positions and leadership roles, pointing to structural barriers that extend beyond hiring (Perna et al. 2007).

For years, institutions have attempted to address this gap through recruitment-focused strategies. The assumption has been that increasing the number of faculty of color entering the academy would lead to more equitable outcomes over time. What this approach misses is that hiring is only one part of the process. Advancement is governed by tenure systems that were not designed with equity in mind and have not been meaningfully restructured to reflect changing institutional priorities.

Tenure systems continue to prioritize research output as the primary measure of success. Teaching and service are included, but they are not weighted equally. This hierarchy reflects long-standing academic norms that position research as the most valuable form of faculty labor (Griffin 2020). The result is a system that recognizes a narrow definition of contribution, even as universities publicly emphasize broader commitments to student success, community engagement, and institutional service.

At the University of Mississippi, the tenure process follows a multilevel structure. Faculty are reviewed at the departmental level, then by chairs, deans, and central administration. On paper, this creates a system of checks and balances. In practice, the most influential decisions are made at the departmental level. As Castel V. Sweet (2025) explains, while university policies provide a general framework, “the detailed processes occur within departments.” That means expectations are shaped by local norms rather than a consistent institutional standard.

This decentralization creates variation across departments. Faculty in one department may be evaluated under a different set of expectations than faculty in another, even within the same institution. In many cases, those expectations are not fully formalized. Faculty are told what categories matter, but not always how those categories are interpreted in practice. As a result, understanding how to meet tenure expectations often depends on informal guidance and departmental context.

Service is where these tensions become most visible. Faculty are expected to mentor students, advise organizations, serve on departmental and university committees, and contribute to initiatives related to retention and campus climate. Much of this work is relational and time-intensive, particularly when it involves supporting students who rely on faculty for guidance and representation. Universities depend on this labor to sustain student success and institutional functioning. Yet when it comes to tenure decisions, service is often treated as secondary to research output. Marvin King (2025) describes this clearly, noting that invisible labor is “ignored, discounted, and devalued,” even when it is necessary for the institution to function. This creates a tension between what universities rely on in practice and what they reward in evaluation.

That labor is not evenly distributed. Charles Ross (2025) points out that Black faculty are often called upon to mentor students who seek guidance and representation, placing additional demands on their time. This work is rarely captured in formal evaluations, even though it plays a critical role in student retention and institutional culture.

Retention itself reflects how these systems operate. Ethel Scurlock (2025) explains that many Black faculty leave institutions before reaching tenure due to limited support and more competitive opportunities elsewhere. Rather than undermining concerns about tenure, this pattern highlights how barriers appear earlier in the process. When faculty do not receive clear guidance, equitable workloads, or institutional support, they are less likely to remain long enough to be evaluated for tenure at all. The issue, then, is not only who earns tenure, but how institutional conditions shape who stays in the pipeline.

These patterns are supported by broader research. Studies show that faculty of color are more likely to carry disproportionate service loads, particularly in mentorship and institutional support roles (Masters-Waage et al. 2024). At the same time, research points to bias in teaching evaluations, which are typically assessed separately within tenure review processes. While these areas are evaluated independently, together they shape how faculty are perceived and assessed over time. Hiring and promotion processes continue to reproduce existing institutional norms, even when diversity is framed as a priority (Sensoy and DiAngelo 2017). Reports from Inside Higher Ed (2021) and Kathryn Palmer (2024) reinforce these findings, highlighting ongoing disparities in tenure outcomes.

What is striking is not the lack of evidence, but the limited nature of institutional responses. Efforts have focused on surface-level changes rather than addressing how tenure systems are structured and governed. Without that shift, the same patterns continue to repeat.

Policy Analysis

The tenure system at the University of Mississippi does not lack structure. It lacks clarity in how that structure is applied. That distinction matters. Policies exist, review processes are in place, and expectations are outlined in broad terms. The issue is how those expectations are interpreted and enforced in practice.

This analysis makes two arguments. First, that tenure expectations are governed in ways that lack clarity and consistent accountability, leading to uneven evaluation across departments. Second, that service is systematically undervalued within those evaluation processes, despite being essential to how universities function. Together, these dynamics create a system where what institutions claim to value and what they reward do not align.

The first issue is with governance and clarity. Faculty are expected to understand what counts toward tenure without always being explicitly told. Much of this understanding is developed informally through mentorship, observation, and inconsistent feedback. As Ross (2025) explains, navigating tenure often depends on recognizing expectations that are not written down. Departments are given significant authority to define evaluation standards, but there is limited accountability for how those standards are communicated or applied. While this allows for flexibility, it also produces variation across departments. Faculty doing similar work may be evaluated differently depending on where they are located within the institution. Research supports this pattern, showing that unclear criteria and decentralized decision-making contribute to inequitable tenure outcomes (Masters-Waage et al. 2024). Governance structures that lack transparency tend to reproduce disparities rather than resolve them (Aghdai 2025, 113–118).

The second issue is how service is valued within that system. Faculty are expected to mentor students, advise organizations, serve on committees, and contribute to institutional initiatives that support retention and campus climate. This work is time-intensive and often relational, particularly when it involves supporting students who rely on faculty for guidance and representation. Universities depend on this labor to sustain student success and institutional functioning. Yet when tenure decisions are made, service is typically treated as secondary to research output. Ross (2025) notes that service is recognized, but does not carry the same weight in evaluation. King (2025) further explains that invisible labor is often discounted and, in some cases, interpreted as detracting from research productivity. This creates a system where faculty are asked to contribute in ways that are necessary, but not fully rewarded.

These two issues are not separate. They reinforce each other. When expectations are unclear, the value of service becomes even more difficult to assess and consistently apply. What counts as meaningful service, how much is too much, and how it should be weighed against research are often left to informal interpretation. That ambiguity allows existing norms to shape outcomes, often to the disadvantage of faculty who take on significant service responsibilities. The result is a misalignment between institutional priorities and evaluation practices. Universities emphasize mentorship, student success, and community engagement, but those contributions are not consistently reflected in tenure decisions.

The audience for change is clear. University leadership, department chairs, and faculty governance bodies all play a role in shaping how tenure operates. The challenge is not whether the system exists, but whether institutions are willing to align their evaluation practices with the values they publicly promote.

Policy Proposals

If the goal is to create a tenure system that is both rigorous and fair, then the focus has to shift from maintaining structure to improving how that structure operates.

First, tenure expectations need to be clearly defined at the departmental level and consistently communicated across the institution. Faculty should not have to rely on informal conversations to understand what is required of them. Expectations around research, teaching, and service should be written, accessible, and revisited throughout the tenure process.

Second, service needs to be taken seriously as part of faculty evaluation. That does not mean treating it as equal in every case, but it does mean clearly defining how it is assessed and ensuring that it is not dismissed as secondary. Mentorship, advising, and community engagement are not optional contributions. They are central to the work universities claim to value.

Third, mentorship should be structured rather than informal. As Sweet (2025) points out, mentorship plays a critical role in helping faculty navigate the tenure process. Making it a formal part of the system ensures that all faculty have access to the guidance they need, not just those who happen to be well-connected.

Fourth, feedback needs to be more transparent and consistent. Faculty should receive clear, written evaluations at each stage of the tenure process that explain how their work is being assessed. This reduces ambiguity and allows faculty to make informed decisions about how to allocate their time and effort.

Fifth, institutions need to track and analyze tenure outcomes across departments. Without data, it is difficult to identify patterns or hold systems accountable. Tracking outcomes by race, gender, and discipline allows institutions to move beyond assumptions and address disparities directly.

Finally, faculty voice needs to be strengthened in how tenure systems are governed. While traditional unions may face limitations in Mississippi, there are still opportunities to create structures that allow faculty to participate more directly in shaping evaluation processes. A system that affects faculty careers should not operate without their input.

These proposals are not about lowering standards. They are about making standards clear, consistent, and aligned with the work that universities depend on every day.

Conclusion

The tenure system at the University of Mississippi is often described as structured and comprehensive, but structure alone does not guarantee fairness. What matters is how that structure is experienced by the people moving through it. Right now, faculty are navigating a system where expectations are not always clear, where evaluation depends heavily on departmental interpretation, and where access to information shapes outcomes as much as performance.

That raises a straightforward question: If the path to tenure is not equally visible to everyone, can the process really be called equitable?

This brief has shown that the issue is not a lack of policy, but a lack of alignment. Universities say they value research, teaching, and service, yet their evaluation systems continue to prioritize some forms of work over others without clearly communicating how those decisions are made. Service, in particular, sits at the center of this gap. It is necessary for institutions to function, yet it is not consistently recognized in ways that reflect its importance.

The consequences are not abstract. They show up in who advances, who leaves, and who is asked to carry the work that keeps institutions running. Black faculty are more likely to take on mentorship and service responsibilities, and when that work is undervalued, it shapes their experience within the institution in ways that are both professional and personal.

The solutions outlined in this brief are not complicated, but they do require intention. Clear expectations, stronger mentorship, transparent feedback, and better data are all within reach. What has been missing is not the ability to make these changes, but the willingness to address how the system actually operates.

What this comes down to is a question of priorities. Universities have to decide whether they are willing to align their evaluation systems with the work they say they value. If mentorship, teaching, and community engagement matter, then they have to show up in how faculty are evaluated. If transparency and fairness matter, then expectations have to be clearly defined and consistently applied.

Tenure is not just about rewarding past performance. It shapes the future of the institution. The people who receive tenure go on to mentor students, influence hiring decisions, and define what the next generation of faculty looks like. If the system used to evaluate them is unclear or inconsistent, those patterns will continue.

So the question is not just who earns tenure. The real question is what kind of institution is being built through the choices universities make about what counts.