Promotion and Tenure Procedures

Departmental Reviews

Prior to the Review
 
By the last working day of January each dean must submit for the Provost's approval his/her Department/School and College promotion and tenure policies and procedures, including all printed statements about guidelines, standards, and criteria.

The candidate is responsible for assembling the portfolio. See Applicant's Portfolio in Appendix D, pages 164-167.

The department chair is responsible for requesting external review letters for the promotion and tenure candidates. Each application must have a minimum of three and no more than six letters from external "arm's length" referees who have achieved senior status and national recognition. Letters requested from thesis advisors, co-authors, former colleagues during graduate or post-doctoral work, or former students or professors are not considered "arm's length."

In requesting evaluations, the chair should ask the referees:

What is your assessment of the significance and quality of the candidate's scholarly and/or creative contributions?

Is the candidate likely to emerge as a scholar whose work is known and respected by leaders in the field?

At what types (e.g. research, comprehensive, or other) of institutions do you believe this faculty member would be a credible candidate for promotion/tenure?

What is the nature of your professional contact with and knowledge of the candidate?

Letters to referees should include a brief description of the candidate's department and its mission. Letters should also specify a date for return of the evaluation. Candidates will not be shown external letters as part of the promotion and tenure process.

During the Review
 
Departmental review committees are responsible for reviewing all persons eligible for tenure and promotion and for writing a justification of their votes. Department chairs are responsible for conducting an independent review that corrects any errors in the evaluation that were caused by procedural problems within the committee. Chairs write separate letters stating their own evaluations of the candidate. The letter from the department chair should address the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate. Negative letters should explain reasons and specify areas of weakness which justify the negative recommendation. Justification for each recommendation should be clearly and fully stated. Moreover, justifications should address the merits of each individual case and should not be mere summaries or restatements of external or committee assessments.

In the event of a negative recommendation, candidates may ask for a rehearing of the committee's and/or chair's decisions to rebut assertions made or to offer new evidence for the review. The rehearing may not question the professional judgment of the review body. After a rehearing, the review body shall respond in writing.

The chair is responsible for forwarding to the dean the committees' votes and their justification, the chair's decisions, and any rehearing letters. University policy mandates that no extraneous materials be included.

 

Prior to the Review
 
Each college must have written policy statements that govern the promotion and tenure process at the college level. These policies state criteria for tenure and promotion and should give examples of evidence of criteria having been met; college procedures take precedence over departmental policies. In the case of clinical or research faculty, which are non-tenure track positions, differential criteria should be used to distinguish their work from that of other faculty. These differences should be conveyed to the candidates, and their portfolios should set out these distinctions. The policies must be submitted to the Provost for approval by the last working day in January. Once approved, they should be made available to every non-tenured faculty member.

During the Review
 

College review committees are responsible for reviewing all persons eligible for promotion and tenure whose files have been forwarded to the deans. The deans, in consultation with college faculty committees, are responsible for evaluating each application, correcting any procedural problems during previous reviews, and writing independent recommendations. Letters from the committee and the dean should address the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate. Negative letters should explain reasons and specify areas of weakness which justify the negative recommendation. Justification for each recommendation should be clearly and fully stated. Moreover, justifications should address the merits of each individual case and should not be mere summaries or restatements of earlier assessments. Those evaluations, along with the vote of the college committee and its written justification for the recommendation, are included in the portfolios.

In the event of a negative recommendation, candidates may ask for a rehearing of the committee's and/or dean's decisions. This process is designed for faculty members to rebut assertions made or to offer new evidence for the review. The rehearing may not question the professional judgment of the review body. After the rehearing, the review body shall respond in writing.

At the completion of the college review, the candidates must select from their portfolio the appropriate research, teaching, and service documentation that best reflects their highest achievements. These items are placed in a three-inch (maximum) three-ring binder in the order specified in the university procedures. University policy mandates that no extraneous materials be included. Examples of extraneous materials include letters of support solicited by the candidate, information in the candidate's personnel file, letters from committee members expressing individual or minority opinions, etc. The dean then adds the internal and external review and appeals letters and sends three copies of each portfolio to the Provost's Office by the last class day of the fall semester.

University Reviews

The University Promotion and Tenure Committee advises the Provost on all promotion and tenure candidates. The committee reviews each application in accordance with the departmental and college policies on file. The committee then provides the vote and justification to the Provost, who conducts an independent review. The Provost may seek additional advice from members of his/her staff, the dean, or other appropriate bodies. The Provost informs each candidate of his/her decision, which the candidates may appeal.

In the event of a negative recommendation, candidates may ask for a rehearing of the committee's and/or the Provost's decisions to rebut assertions made or to offer new evidence for the review. The rehearing may not question the professional judgment of the review body. After the rehearing, the review body shall respond in writing.

After any appeals, the Provost makes final recommendations and provides justifications to the Chancellor/President. The Chancellor/President reviews those recommendations and makes tenure decisions and recommends promotion actions to the Board of Regents, who makes the final promotion decisions. The promotion and tenure actions take effect at the beginning of the following academic year.

Procedures for Non-Mandatory Reviews

Faculty who would like to be considered for a non-mandatory promotion such as from associate to full professor should contact the dean's Office to obtain a copy of the University Guidelines. The timelines and procedures are generally the same as for Mandatory Reviews.

The review of the portfolio will be conducted as with applications for promotion to Associate Professor, with the exception of the external reviewers. The university recognizes that for promotions from Associate Professor to Full Professor the external reviewers may know the candidate. However, the department should assure that the reviewers are as objective as possible, in spite of possible professional relationships. Letters to the external reviewers should inquire about the nature of any collaboration. External reviewers should also be asked to evaluate the quality and significance of the candidate's contributions and whether the candidate is known and respected by leaders in the field.

Faculty members undergoing non-mandatory reviews who are unsuccessful may withdraw their applications without penalty at any time during the College-level review process.