Section III.A.4: Procedures for Tenure Reviews - College of Arts and Sciences

The president of the college is responsible for tenure decisions, and the decision is based on the recommendations of the dean of the college, the Committee on Promotion and Tenure, and the department of the tenure candidate. At each level, a recommendation is based on the candidate’s accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and/or creative activity, and on the candidate’s service to the college and their profession. The sequence of steps in the evaluation is as follows:

1. The associate dean, in consultation with the department chair and the faculty member under review, solicits external reviews of the candidate’s scholarly and/or creative activity. The reviewers are recognized experts in the candidate’s discipline.
   
   1. The identities of the reviewers and the contents of their letters are confidential with respect to the candidate, unless the College is compelled by legal action to breach confidentiality.
   2. Normally, the tenure file will contain no fewer than four external reviews. For a candidate who engages in multi-disciplinary work, it may be appropriate to have more than four reviewers. When possible, there should be at least one external reviewer from peer or aspirant liberal arts colleges. Normally, external reviewers will be tenured faculty members at other institutions.
   3. In the letter of solicitation for external reviewers, the associate dean will provide guidance for the external reviewers by explaining in detail the College’s criteria for evaluating scholarship and creative work.
   4. The following individuals should not normally be chosen to serve as reviewers: (i) the candidate’s doctoral and postdoctoral mentors; (ii) individuals who have served as coauthors, collaborators, or co-investigators on scholarly or artistic projects; and (iii) individuals with whom the candidate has had an intimate personal relationship.
2. The candidate prepares a file containing the following:
   1. current curriculum vitae,
   2. list of all courses taught since hiring, their enrollments, and student teaching evaluations for those courses (faculty may exclude evaluations for one course section from each of the two developmental review periods),
   3. materials that allow an evaluation of the candidate’s pedagogical approach, such as course syllabi, assignments and exams,
   4. statement of teaching philosophy, which includes responses to any issues revealed in teaching evaluations, new strategies implemented as a result of attendance at teaching workshops and/or mini-courses, and future plans,
   5. description of advising activity,
   6. statement of scholarship and/or creative activity that provides an overview of the candidate’s past scholarly and/or creative work, and of their future plans. The overview should also explain the place of the work in the candidate’s discipline. The statement should be accessible to non-specialists such as faculty members in other disciplines, the dean, and the president. It should also explain how their ongoing work differs from that pursued for their dissertation.
   7. statement of service contributions to the College and to the candidate’s profession,
   8. copies of all publications, papers, abstracts, and performance and exhibit programs, including the candidate’s dissertation,
   9. other material that may be relevant to an assessment of teaching and scholarship and/or creative activity, such as (i) evaluations of teaching by peers, former students, or alumni; (ii) published reviews of the candidate’s work; (iii) research grants and research proposals that have been peer-reviewed; (iv) works in progress; (v) letters from chairs of interdisciplinary programs in which the candidate has participated.
3. The department chair or surrogate convenes a meeting of the tenured members of the department (who are not on leave) to assess the candidate’s teaching, scholarship and/or creative activity, and service. The assessment is based on the candidate’s review file and the external review letters. The department chair or surrogate writes a letter that will be submitted to the dean. The letter must include a summary of the departmental discussion and a specific recommendation about tenure.
   
   1. All tenured department members are asked to affirm, by their signature, that they have read the letter and that it accurately summarizes the departmental discussion. For this purpose, emeriti faculty are not considered to be tenured department members. If a tenured department member believes that the letter does not accurately summarize the department discussion, they must submit an individual letter. Any such letters become part of the candidate’s file and are seen by the candidate, who is entitled to submit a response.
   2. The candidate has an opportunity to read the department letter and within one week must acknowledge in writing the receipt of the letter. This acknowledgement is also an opportunity for the candidate to correct any factual errors contained in the letter. This response becomes a part of the review file.
4. The associate dean prepares a full tenure review file that includes the following.
   1. the candidate’s review file
   2. the department recommendation letter and any response from the candidate
   3. past developmental reviews of the candidate
   4. the external review letters

   No other material, such as unsolicited letters from interested individuals, may be added to the file at this point.

5. The Committee on Promotion and Tenure (CPT) makes a tenure recommendation to the dean, based exclusively on the material in the tenure review file. The dean of the College is present, as a non-voting observer, for the deliberations of the CPT.
   
   1. The assessment of a candidate’s scholarly and/or creative activity is based on work that has been published, submitted for publication, displayed, and/or performed at the time the file is submitted to the dean. However, a candidate may add relevant material to the file that becomes available after this date, including letters of acceptance from publishers, published critical reviews of exhibitions or performances, reviews of submitted articles, books, or grant proposals, and notifications of honors and awards.
   2. At its discretion, the CPT may ask the department chair or surrogate to meet with the committee to answer clarifying questions. If the recommendation of the CPT differs from that of the department, the CPT letter will clearly explain the rationale for the differing recommendation, and a copy of this letter will be sent to the department chair or surrogate.
   3. The candidate will receive a copy of the CPT letter to the dean at the same time as the dean.
6. The dean of the College makes a tenure recommendation to the President, based on the full tenure review file and the recommendation of the CPT.
   
   1. If the recommendation of the dean differs from the recommendation of the CPT, the dean will discuss with the CPT the rationale for the differing recommendation, and this discussion will occur prior to submitting the letter to the president.
   2. The candidate and the members of the CPT will receive a copy of the dean’s letter to the president.
   3. If the dean recommends against tenure, the candidate has 10 days from the receipt of the dean’s letter to submit a written request to the dean for a grievance procedure. Any grievance must be based on (a) discrimination, (b) specific violations of academic freedom, or (c) the failure of the review process to follow the stated procedures. The dean will refer the grievance to a committee composed of three recent past chairs of the CPT who are not directly involved in the case. The Grievance Committee will assess the merits of the grievance and submit a recommendation to the president, and will provide copies of their report to the dean and to the members of the CPT.

Back to Section III.A home