Although the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that colleges and universities must disclose confidential peer review records in discrimination cases, University officials believe the ruling will not affect the promotion and tenure process here.

Since 1988, the University has allowed faculty members to see administrative reports concerning their consideration for promotion or tenure. Prior to two years ago, no peer review records were open to faculty members.

"A request for access to review files (completed by peers) should be made in writing in advance by the faculty member to his/her personnel representative, or campus director, or supervisor," Vice Provost Grace Hampton said.

Because of this policy, Hampton said she believes the University is further along than most in the process of disclosing confidential peer review records to faculty members. Thus, the court ruling may not be as detrimental to current University policy.

Faculty members are not able to view tenure evaluations written by colleagues outside the University system because only University peer evaluations may be disclosed, Hampton said.

The Jan. 9 Supreme Court ruling in University of Pennsylvania vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decided in favor of Rosalie Tung, a former associate professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania.

When Tung was denied tenure at the university's Wharton School of Business, she filed a discrimination claim with the EEOC against Penn.

The court ruling upheld the right of the EEOC to subpoena a university's tenure files for its investigation into cases of discrimination.

"If there is a 'smoking gun' to be found that demonstrates discrimination in tenure decisions, it is likely to be tucked away in peer review files," said Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in writing for the court.

Yet Penn argued that colleagues may be less candid in their tenure reviews of faculty members if they are aware that their reports could be disclosed.

However, Penn State officials are unsure whether or not the court ruling will harm future evaluations in the peer review process.

"I can't say if this ruling will hurt honesty and accuracy in reports. I can't make this statement just yet. However, it's certainly a variable," said George Bugyi, executive secretary of the Faculty Senate.

Hampton said no change in University policy is expected until the court ruling is carefully reviewed by administrators here.

"Any change in the promotion and tenure policy would have to be carefully reviewed by the administration, the faculty and the Faculty Senate before being implemented," she said.

Yet Robert Hendrickson, associate professor of educational policy studies, said he believes the court decision will be beneficial to the University.

"It is a good ruling. It will open up the tenure review process to some level of scrutiny," Hendrickson said.

"I believe that the individuals have become more thoughtful about their evaluations of individuals under review. I think the openness of records brings a credibility and fairness to entire system for both the individual under review and those doing the reviewing," Hampton said.

The court ruling has caused concern that faculty members who are women or members of a minority group may not be considered as readily for tenure because of the confidential evaluations now being subject to court disclosure.

Yet with the increase in credibility of the tenure review process, Hendrickson said he believes the effects of the ruling will not discriminate against women and minority professors.

"Court reviews will assist in improving the efforts of acquiring women and minority professors," Hendrickson said. "If we are evaluating faculty for tenure based on valid reasons (their research and records), then it will be free of sex bias. The records will stand up in court."

Hampton said when any individual is hired as a tenure track professor they are reviewed in the second, fourth and sixth year of their career for possible promotion or tenure. This practice allows for honesty in the reviewing process and does not discriminate against any individual, she added.