THE PROMOTION AND TENURE PROCESS New Academic Administrators Workshop August 8, 20123

Promotion and Tenure The most important thing we do. Provide a thorough and objective review of the substance and merits of each faculty members case. Of sufficient depth and character to support decisions in the best interest of the University. Independent review at multiple levels. Recommendations at each level reflect the professional judgment of those involved.

General Guidelines All parties involved in the process should familiarize themselves with the guidelines:

Awarding Tenure The granting of tenure has consequences of great magnitude and long life and must be considered especially carefully. The record must be examined for: Evidence that contributions of appropriate magnitude and distinction in teaching, research and service have been made, AND Evidence that such contributions can be sustained through an extended career with the University.

Preparing Tenure-Track Faculty Mentoring Assistant Professors are a significant investment. Establish and maintain a structure and environment that will help ensure their success. Third-year comprehensive reviews Provide clear, productive and informative guidance to candidate as to their progress toward tenure. Research/Scholarship support Funding opportunities provided by VP Research and Graduate School. Unbalanced teaching load. College fellowships and course relief.

Areas of Contribution Teaching at both undergraduate and graduate level. Research, creative activities and other scholarly effort. Academic advising, counseling and other student services. Administrative and committee service to the department, college, and university, and professional service to the nation, state, and society. Other evidence of merit or recognition, such as fellowships, grants, and special honors.

Areas of Contribution by Rank Tenured and Tenure-track faculty Evaluated on ALL areas of contribution. Lecturer, Clinical and Adjunct series Review focuses on teaching excellence and a record of accomplishment in least one other area. Research Professor series Review focuses on record of research excellence and other ways in which the candidate contributes to the academic enterprise.

Promotion Timetable Tenure-Track Assistant Professors Reviewed no later than the sixth year of probationary period. Cases considered before the sixth year in rank are considered early and should be explained. If probationary period extended under university family and medical leave policies, evaluate as if the work were done in the normal period of service.

Promotion Timetable Associate Professor with tenure May be considered at any time deemed appropriate by the budget council. Promotion before six years in rank is considered early and must be explained. Right of Consideration May be invoked by those with ten years or more in rank. The case will be considered at all levels unless withdrawn by the candidate before the budget council vote.

Promotion Timetable Non-tenure Track May be considered after serving six years in rank. Cumulative service may be full or part time. Early promotion recommendation should be explained.

Promotion Roster Timeline Late-March Provosts Office will provide to the dean a list of candidates that must be reviewed as up-or-out. Mid-May Deadline for submitting all candidate names to provost. Mid-July Deadline for submitting updates to candidate list.

Elements of Dossier

Peer Teaching Observations Conduct frequently. Include suggestions for improvement; anyone can improve. Organization and mastery of the material is expected; key question is whether the teacher is helping students to learn. Provide prompt feedback to faculty member observed.

External Reviewers Select reviewers who understand expectations of research university. Letters from peer institutions are important. Balance the number of referees selected by the candidate and by the BC/EC. Avoid conflict of interest. Letters are subject to open records – reviewers must be informed.

Recommendations Dean and department chair letters are important. Evaluate not advocate. Provide own assessment, but also describe fairly the rationale for Budget Council or College Committee recommendations. Explain negative votes, if possible. Explain abstentions, if possible. Unexplained abstentions will be interpreted as negative votes. Explain early cases. Acknowledge weaknesses and provide context, if applicable.

Review Process

Department Chair Responsibility Meet with candidate to explain process. Develop list of outside reviewers with input from candidate. Allow candidate to review list BEFORE solicitation letters are sent. Department chair should consider candidate objections or concerns, but has final say over selection. Candidate may place statement in the file. Ask candidate to check materials in the file before BC review (excluding BC statements and external review letters). Candidate may see the other materials if explicitly requested.

Candidates Access to File Candidate may inspect anything in the dossier at any time during the process. Requests for access should be directed to department chair, dean, or provost, as applicable. Inspection should be supervised. Copying of materials is not permitted. If a candidate wishes to obtain copies, a written request must be submitted to Provosts Office.

Addition of Information to the File All factual information relied upon in the process will be included in written form. When written information other than required statements is added after the candidate has checked the materials: the candidate must be informed and given an opportunity to place a statement in the file addressing the addition. all other administrative parties having already reviewed the file shall also be notified.

Dossier Levels of Review Departmental Budget Council or Executive Committee Department Chair College Advisory Committee Dean Presidents Committee Each case discussed with respective dean

Outcomes Conferences with Presidents Committee occur mid- November – December. Announcement of decisions ~ December 20. Terminal Appointment decisions are pending. Candidate has 6 weeks to submit written Final Arguments. Presidents Committee reconvenes in February to deliberate Final Arguments. Final decisions are communicated unless a CCAFR review has been requested.

Committee of Counsel for Academic Freedom and Responsibility - CCAFR The president or the candidate may request a review of the case by CCAFR. Scope of the review includes: Procedural irregularities Violations of academic freedom Do not review disputes about professional judgments on the merits of the case. Candidate has 6 weeks to request review. CCAFR report is due to president by February 28.

Reconsideration in Terminal Year There is no obligation by the department or University to reconsider a terminal case. The department must determine whether new evidence presented by the candidate is substantial in nature and sufficiently compelling to merit reconsideration. Reconsideration does not entitle candidate to an additional terminal year.