A more accurate description of current practices?

A number of people have asked me if this proposal is nothing more than a more accurate description of current practices. Some comments to other posts suggest that others feel this to be the case. So perhaps this question deserves a separate post.

One clue that this proposal is at least substantially if not dramatically different is the fact that the P&T Committee felt compelled to delay full implementation of the policy for five years, to “grandfather” out faculty currently on campus, at least for the initial decisions of tenure and promotion. Were the proposal merely a more accurate description of what we already do, it could have been implemented immediately. The committee could have taken a more modest approach to simply improve descriptions of what is currently expected.

Second, the proposal must be setting a different standard because it shifts from a three point scale in evaluating scholarship and service (unacceptable and two levels of acceptable accomplishments) to a two point scale (unacceptable and acceptable or pass/fail). The new single level of what is acceptable simply cannot be the same as the old two levels. It can be higher or lower than either of the old levels. It can be the same as one or the other. Or it can be somewhere between the two. That is clearly a different standard.