I've often wondered about norms within academia about appropriate uses for tenure letters, particularly in appointments processes involving other schools. I'm thinking particularly about two situations.
1. If Professor X writes a tenure letter in support of Candidate Y's application for tenure, and in the process of reviewing Candidate Y's work and writing the letter, realizes that Candidate Y might be a good fit for an open position at Professor X's school, is there anything unethical about Professor X encouraging her school to pursue Candidate Y as a possible lateral hire? Is there any potential conflict here?
2. What if Professor X writes a tenure letter for Candidate Y for ABC Law School, and then the appointments chair at DEF Law School contacts Professor X and says that she understands that Professor X has written the letter for the ABC tenure process, and would they mind forwarding a copy to DEF for their appointments process. Is there any conflict there? Should Professor X ask ABC School if they mind the letter being forwarded elsewhere? That would potentially give away the fact that Candidate Y is on the lateral hiring market (which ABC law school may not know).
Can anyone identify clear norms that apply in either of these situations?
No problem on #1; in fact, that is how a lot of lateral hiring happens. A different version is Prof. Z asks Prof. X to recommend a lateral for Prof. Z's school and suggests Prof. Y. This is partly why post-promotion and post-tenure are such good lateral times.
Number 2 is a problem because the tenure letter should be confidential among writer, candidate, and candidate's school. The letter writer should not share it, at least without permission. That does not stop Prof. X from sharing the gist of the letter with the interested lateraling school.
I agree with Howard.