Underrepresented minority faculty in the USA face a double standard in promotion and tenure decisions

Underrepresented minority (URM) faculty face challenges in many domains of academia, from university admissions to grant applications. We examine whether this translates to promotion and tenure (P&T) decisions. Data from five US universities on 1,571 faculty members' P&T decisions show that URM faculty received 7% more negative votes and were 44% less likely to receive unanimous votes from P&T committees. A double standard in how scholarly productivity is rewarded is also observed, with below-average h-indexes being judged more harshly for URM faculty than for non-URM faculty. This relationship is amplified for faculty with intersectional backgrounds, especially URM women. The differential treatment of URM women was mitigated when external reviewers highlighted candidates' scholarship more in their review letters. In sum, the results support the double standard hypothesis and provide evidence that different outcomes in P&T decision-making processes contribute to the sustained underrepresentation of URM faculty in tenured faculty positions. Masters-Waage et al. report that underrepresented minority (URM) faculty in the USA face barriers in the promotion and tenure process, receiving more negative votes and fewer unanimous positive decisions at the college level. This is partly due to a double standard: URM faculty are held to a higher standard than non-URM faculty in terms of scholarly productivity.