3. MANSFIELD CAMPUS PROMOTION AND TENURE CRITERIA

For a favorable P&T recommendation, the Mansfield Campus requires candidates to demonstrate very good teaching, to have strong records of service appropriate to their rank and discipline, and to have adhered to professional standards of ethical behavior. The summary of a candidate’s case, along with the P&T Committee’s recommendation, will take the form of a letter addressed to the Mansfield-campus Dean. Candidates must also satisfy the research expectations their TIUs have established for regional campus faculty. In rare instances, a decision not to reappoint a probationary faculty member may be based upon fiscal considerations or upon changes in the programmatic needs of the campus.

Teaching: Consistent with its mission, the Mansfield Campus requires very good teaching for promotion and tenure. Teaching quality is assessed in multiple ways (see OSU-M’s Policy on the Evaluation of Teaching in the Faculty Handbook). The assessment of teaching includes more than judging performance before a classroom audience. In addition, course organization, communication of course goals to students, motivation, testing, and help outside of the classroom all contribute to teaching success. Student advising, curriculum development, and faculty involvement in student research may also be included as teaching contributions.

Service: All faculty members are expected to contribute to faculty governance and to render service  to, and beyond, the campus. The campus Faculty Handbook contains a more detailed description of service expectations (see “Service” under Duties and Responsibilities of Faculty). The P&T committee may also consider the quality, in addition to quantity, of service performed. While the P&T committee may examine service to the discipline and profession as well as the campus, it may also flag particular contributions for the TIU to evaluate in cases where the TIU may be the more appropriate judge of service quality and impact.

Research: Research expectations are set by the TIU. Each TIU has a statement of research expectations in its document governing promotion and tenure. TIUs recognize that regional campuses differ from the Columbus campus in mission, teaching workload, and research facilities and take these differences into account when considering P&T cases.

Professional Ethics: All faculty members are expected to observe commonly accepted standards of professional ethics. The attached AAUP statement (Appendix A) on professional ethics, originally passed in 1966 and revised in 1987, serves as a good summary of professional ethical responsibilities of faculty members. Significant departure from these ethical standards inevitably compromises the institution's ability to fulfill its missions. In any case where the faculty P&T Committee determines a candidate has not met the ethical standards of the profession, that determination in itself may be grounds for non-renewal, even if the effects are not visible in the candidate's teaching, research, and service.

Needs of the Campus: Under unusual circumstances it is possible that fiscal problems or changing needs of the campus might render a probationary faculty member's position superfluous. These circumstances would constitute legitimate grounds for non-renewal, even if the faculty member’s performance has been satisfactory. Non-renewal of a probationary appointment for fiscal or programmatic reasons does not entail a performance review, but does require prior approval from the senior vice president and provost.

4. CAMPUS PROMOTION AND TENURE PROCEDURES

            This section consists of overviews of the procedures involved in P&T deliberations. In general these are provided to furnish participants, including candidates, committee members, and the campus Dean, with guidelines intended to promote fairness, timeliness, and professionalism in P&T decisions. While certain procedures in this section are presented as responsibilities, a more detailed cataloging of responsibilities is presented in the following section (5).

Appointment of Committee: Each January, the campus Dean will determine which faculty members are due for a faculty review in the next academic year. A faculty review is routinely scheduled during the fourth and sixth years of service of probationary assistant professors. Subsequent to the above determination, the Dean will consult with the newly elected Executive Committee during a January meeting and appoint a campus P&T Committee consisting of five or more tenured associate or full professors.

Structure of Committee: If three or more faculty reviews are scheduled, the committee will be organized into subcommittees, one for each candidate. Subcommittees generally consist of three members: the subcommittee chair, a Procedures Oversight Designee (POD), and a third member. This document has been written from the perspective of when three or more faculty reviews are scheduled; for years in which this not the case, then “subcommittee chair” and “full committee chair” should be taken as identical positions and the full committee will consist of a total of five individuals: the chair, the POD, and three additional members. The Dean will appoint a chair and a POD for each subcommittee and a chair for the full P&T Committee. These appointments will be reviewed by the Executive Committee. In years when fewer than three formal reviews are scheduled, no subcommittees will be formed and the full P&T Committee will assume all responsibilities herein assigned to subcommittees.

Committee-Member Responsibilities: Faculty members who are asked to serve on the campus P&T committee should consider such service as a professional obligation. However, a faculty member should not participate in the review of a particular candidate when he or she has a conflict of interest, for example, close family or other comparable relationships, or when the outcome of a review could result in professional gain or loss for the committee member (also see “Conflict of Interest”, Volume 3, OAA Policies and Procedures Handbook, http://oaa.osu.edu/OAAP_PHandbook.php). Faculty members who agree to serve on the P&T Committee are expected to serve for the duration of the committee’s existence (generally no longer than 1 year), and to do so even after their subcommittee duties have been completed. If members are unable to attend P&T meetings during a portion of the committee’s existence (e.g., such as if they are traveling during a sabbatical), then they are encouraged to seek a leave of absence from the committee during those periods rather than to resign from the committee. Committee members on leave of absence or who have been designated by the P&T chair as possessing a conflict of interest on a given case, would not be counted, as “active” committee members, toward calculation of quorum.

Initial, Organizational Committee Meeting: The Dean will convene an organizational meeting of the P&T Committee before the end of February. At this meeting, campus procedures will be reviewed, current procedural documents will be made available, and questions will be answered. In addition, the Dean will bring the Winter and Spring teaching schedules of candidates whose dossiers are due in Columbus during or prior to Autumn term; the supplied schedules will serve to both facilitate and emphasize the need for subcommittee members to schedule timely evaluations of candidates’ teaching.

Campus-TIU Interface: The chair of the candidate’s TIU will be contacted to ascertain when the campus recommendation must be received by the TIU and will, in consultation with the P&T committee chair, devise a schedule that will meet TIU scheduling needs (see Appendix B). The Dean will be responsible for making this contact with the candidate’s TIU, though in cases where both the candidate and the subcommittee chair are members of the same TIU, the Dean may delegate responsibility for contacting the TIU chair to the subcommittee chair. The subcommittee chair is responsible for assuring that this schedule is communicated to the candidate, to subcommittee members, and to the P&T Committee chair. The P&T Committee should assume that letters should be submitted to the campus Dean no later than two weeks prior to the case’s due-date to the Columbus TIU.

Subcommittee-Member Responsibilities: P&T Committee members have full access to the personnel files of all candidates. Each member of a candidate’s subcommittee will visit one or more of the candidate’s classes, within two years of the P&T Committee meeting considering a candidate’s  case—in these visits subcommittee members should follow standard peer-evaluation of teaching conventions, including arranging with the candidate prior to attending specific classes. If the candidate submits narrative student teaching evaluations, then the subcommittee will prepare a written report presenting a balanced summary of these evaluations. This written report will be included as part of the candidate’s dossier.

Candidate Responsibilities: Each candidate is responsible for knowing campus and TIU P&T criteria and for preparing a dossier using the current OAA outline. The candidate should feel free to contact the subcommittee chair at any time for advice or information. The candidate will supply the subcommittee with completed versions of their dossier and the subcommittee members will carefully read the supplied dossier. The subcommittee will then meet with the candidate to review the dossier and may make suggestions for revisions. However, responsibility for the dossier rests with the candidate. The subcommittee, at the subcommittee chair’s discretion, may also meet with the candidate either prior to or following the mandatory meeting at which the dossier is reviewed. Any candidate or subcommittee member (including the chair) may request a meeting with the Dean and Associate Dean, if needed, to resolve procedural questions, to discuss aspects of the candidate’s performance, or to follow up on items in the file or dossier.

Letters: After the subcommittee has examined and discussed the case, the subcommittee chair will write a letter addressed to the Dean; this letter will give a thorough and objective evaluation of the case. It will evaluate the candidate’s teaching and service contributions, but not the candidate’s research expectations or research accomplishments. In addition to providing a balanced and objective summary of the candidate’s case, the letter may include: a positive recommendation for continuation, promotion, or tenure; a negative recommendation; or no stated recommendation. The letter will be distributed to all subcommittee members for substantive or editorial comment. If necessary, the subcommittee will meet to discuss constructive suggestions for improving the letter. The subcommittee chair will then forward the letter to the P&T Committee chair who may also supply comments and who will otherwise determine whether the letter is ready to be forwarded to the full P&T Committee. Only once the letter has been approved by the P&T Committee chair should it be made available to the full committee.  Since the letter will serve as the primary means of conveying the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate’s case to the full committee, as distributed it should be highly polished.

Document Distribution to Committee: The subcommittee letter should be distributed to each full-committee member, either electronically or as hard copy, depending upon the subcommittee chair’s preference. The dossier (excluding external evaluative letters of research) and supporting materials should be provided in triplicate; two copies to the faculty secretary and one copy to the administration-office secretary. Additional copies of the dossier should be made available to committee members who wish to receive such a copy, and the P&T Committee chair should query committee members to determine who would or would not prefer to receive a personal copy of each candidate’s dossier. All distributed dossier copies and reports should be collected and destroyed, preferably by the P&T Committee chair, following completion of a decision. However, documents generated for P&T reviews are public records, thus 1 or more copies of documents must be filed with the Dean should requests for access be received.

Full Committee Meetings, Preliminary Considerations: The P&T Committee chair will convene one or more meetings of the full committee, as needed, for discussion and voting. One week prior to the first meeting (i.e., at least five business days), the subcommittee chair will distribute the letter and dossier for inspection.  Comments on the letter, or on the dossier as a whole, may be supplied by P&T committee members to the subcommittee chair (at the P&T Committee member’s discretion) prior to the meeting of the full P&T Committee to consider the candidate’s case. Discussion of the letter among committee members, especially electronic or public discussion that takes place prior to the formal P&T Committee meeting, should be avoided.

Clarification of committee responsibilities, especially those to be accomplished prior to the submission of the letter to the Dean, is provided here to supply guidance:

It is the expectation of the full committee that each subcommittee member will have fully read and vetted the candidate’s dossier prior to the submission of the dossier to the full committee, drafting of the letter, and the letter’s distribution to the full committee. Indeed, it is the expectation of the full committee that the subcommittee will have provided the bulk of the effort with regard to preparation of the letter and dossier plus will guide subsequent deliberations.

The full committee’s responsibilities are to read the letter and dossier prior to meeting on the candidate’s case, and then to participate, in person if at all possible, in subsequent deliberations on that case especially during that meeting. Members of the full committee can also provide guidance to the candidate with regard to dossier editorial suggestions, though these should be communicated to the candidate through the subcommittee chair. Committee members also are expected to inform the P&T Committee chair, in a timely manner, if they are unable to make either a scheduled or proposed P&T meeting.

The responsibilities of the chair of the full committee are to schedule meetings, approve letters before their distribution to the full committee, ascertain that only P&T committee members are present at meetings, determine whether a quorum—defined as 2/3 of the actively serving members of the full P&T committee—has been reached during meetings, and otherwise productively chair meetings. Especially with larger committees, it is not always possible to schedule meetings when all committee members are able to attend. However, if possible, the full-committee chair should schedule meetings when all members of the candidate’s subcommittee can attend.

Full Committee Meetings, Attendance: At least two-thirds of the P&T Committee members (i.e., active members, including the P&T chair) must be present in person or via teleconference at deliberation meetings on a candidate’s case. Efforts will be made during the scheduling of these meetings to ensure that all subcommittee members involved with a given case will be present at the meeting during the deliberation. Roll will be taken by the full committee chair to ensure that only faculty appointed to the current P&T Committee are present. Deliberation meetings will be chaired by the full committee chair (or appropriate replacement if necessary).

Full Committee Meetings, Deliberations: Deliberations of a candidate’s case center on the “teaching” and “service” sections of the dossier. The subcommittee chair for a given case will lead discussions. Deliberations may begin by considering the subcommittee’s letter. Following deliberation of the letter, the subcommittee chair will also relate any additional information or comments which have been received from other committee members. Deliberations may lead to recommended changes in the wording of the subcommittee’s letter or even revision of the dossier itself. During deliberations, Robert’s rules of order will be followed. Several candidates may be considered at the same meeting.

Full Committee Meetings, Voting: Voting on a case may occur only after a motion has been made, seconded, and passed (with approval of two-thirds of those present) to end discussion. Voting shall be conducted via secret ballot indicating three choices: I support continuation of the fourth-year review (or sixth-year review) of [candidate’s name]; I do not support continuation of the fourth-year review (or sixth-year review) of [candidate’s name]; I abstain from supporting continuation of the fourth-year review (or sixth-year review) of [candidate’s name]. Before a vote is taken, the full committee chair will remind those present that abstentions indicate a lack of support of continuation of a candidate’s review (i.e., they are not considered supporting votes for continuation). The votes will be counted immediately by both the full committee chair and subcommittee chair (or alternative if no subcommittees are constituted) and the results announced to those present.

    A recommendation for continuation of a case will require a simple majority supporting continuation. By way of example, if 15 committee members are present and voting, then at least 8 members must vote “I support continuation...” for recommendation of continuation to occur. If only 7 members had supported continuation, and 4 did not support continuation, and 4 abstained, then the candidate would not be recommended for continuation.

    The remainder of the meeting may involve discussion of additional changes in the committee's letter in order to reflect the judgment of the full committee. The full committee's final letter may or may not conclude with a specific recommendation for the positive or negative disposition of the review. This letter will contain the number of votes supporting and not supporting this candidate’s case, and number of abstentions.

    It is important to remind committee members, including both full-committee and subcommittee chairs, that discussion of the case with non-committee members should not take place either prior to or subsequent to committee deliberations. This includes private discussions, which could become inadvertently public, i.e., such as those taking place in public locations, as well as discussion with the candidate. Indeed, it is simply not acceptable for committee members to inform candidates of the committee discussions or conclusions except in consultation with the campus Dean.

Post-Meeting Procedures: After the P&T Committee has voted, and the meeting completed, the subcommittee chair will amend the letter to reflect the full-committee’s input on the candidate's accomplishments, strengths and weaknesses, and final evaluation. The P&T Committee chair will review this letter to ensure that it reflects committee judgment. Additional committee members may also review this letter at either their, the full committee chair’s, or the subcommittee chair’s request or discretion. Both the subcommittee chair and the P&T Committee chair will sign the completed letter. The P&T committee chair will then deliver the signed letter, along with the procedures oversight checklist to the campus Dean.

Dean-Director Responsibilities: The Dean will examine the candidate’s file and dossier. Informed by this examination, by the letter, and by the P&T Committee vote, the Dean will prepare a separate letter of evaluation. The Dean will send this letter to the TIU chair along with the P&T committee’s peer-review letter, and these become permanent parts of the case. If the Dean’s recommendation differs from the majority vote of the P&T committee, the Dean will request a meeting with the P&T committee to present reasons.

When the campus review is complete, the Dean will promptly inform the candidate of the outcome and will offer the candidate the opportunity to view the campus recommendation. The Dean will notify all members of the P&T committee of the eventual disposition of each case.

5. OVERVIEW OF RESPONSIBILITIES

Candidate

General: The candidate is responsible for knowing the applicable P&T criteria, for meeting these criteria, for gathering evidence of performance, for presenting evidence in the prescribed form of a dossier, and for supplying documents to their subcommittee chair on a timely basis.

Specifically, the candidate:

1. Arranges for student evaluations of every course taught (not just the online-available summary but photocopies of the actual Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) sheets received following completion of each course, since these provide additional information not available in the online summaries) and supplies these evaluations, both narratives and SEIs, on schedule to the subcommittee chair;
2. Collects documentation that speaks to the amount and quality of professional achievements;
3. Prepares a dossier in accordance with the Office of Academic Affair’s currently prescribed format and submits either three paper copies or an electronic version, on schedule and complete, to the subcommittee chair;
4. Meets with the subcommittee to review the dossier.

Campus Dean and Director

General: The Dean is responsible for evaluating each candidate fairly and, informed by the P&T Committee’s conclusions, writing a recommendation. The Dean shares responsibility with the P&T Committee for ensuring that campus review procedures are properly followed and that deliberations are free of prejudice.

Specifically, the Dean:

1. Ensures that all probationary faculty have their teaching reviewed, at least annually, by the campus Peer Evaluation of Teaching Committee;
2. Ascertains, in consultation with department chairs and OAA, which faculty members are candidates for formal review;
3. Appoints the campus P&T Committee and its subcommittees early in January with the advice of the Executive Committee;
4. Schedules and attends the initial organizational meeting with the newly formed P&T committee.
5. Monitors campus review procedures, investigates any evidence of bias, and corrects procedural lapses;
6. Upon receipt of the peer-review letter and the vote of the P&T Committee, reviews the entire case and writes a recommendation to the department;
7. Notifies each candidate of the campus review outcome and offers the opportunity to see the campus letters;
8. Notifies the P&T committee members of the eventual disposition of each case.

Subcommittee Chair

General: The subcommittee chair is responsible for providing, in a timely manner, a letter giving a thorough and objective evaluation of a candidate’s case to the full P&T Committee.

Specifically, the subcommittee chair:

1. Ascertains the time schedule of the department from the Dean;
2. Informs the candidate of the membership of their P&T subcommittee;
3. In consultation with the P&T Committee chair, devises a time schedule for the campus review and communicates this schedule to the candidate and the P&T Committee chair;
4. Arranges for a committee report containing a representative sample of narrative student course evaluations;
5. Convenes a meeting of the subcommittee and of the candidate;
6. Arranges a meeting with the Dean and Associate Dean, if either the Dean or the subcommittee consider such a meeting to be needed;
7. Responds to requests by the candidate for information and advice, as appropriate;
8. Distributes the dossier with a balanced sample of student written comments to the full committee one week (i.e., including at least five working days) prior to meeting, making sure that supporting materials are also available;
9. Writes a thorough and objective evaluation (letter) of the case, in consultation with the subcommittee and P&T Committee chair, and transmits that letter to P&T Committee members one week (i.e., including at least five working days) prior to meeting;
10. After the case has been discussed and voted on by the P&T Committee, modifies the P&T Committee letter so that it contains a fair summary of the P&T Committee's judgment, along with the vote;
11. Signs the peer review letter (as does the P&T Committee chair).

Subcommittee Members

General: Each subcommittee is responsible for reviewing in detail the case of one candidate and preparing a thorough and objective evaluation of that case for presentation to the P&T Committee.

Specifically, each subcommittee member:

1. Examines the candidate’s dossier and other available material in detail;
2. Participates in producing a written summary of the narrative student evaluations of teaching;
3. Visits one or more of the candidate's classes (over a period that ideally is no greater than two years prior to the voting on the candidate’s case);
4. Participates in drafting a report that objectively evaluates the candidate’s performance in teaching and service;
5. Destroys, by electronic deletion or hardcopy shredding, extra copies of P&T documents used by the full P&T committee after the review.

P&T Committee Chair

General: The P&T Committee chair is responsible for monitoring all subcommittee schedules, ensuring that campus procedures are adhered to, and for assembling the P&T Committee to vote on each candidate.

Specifically, the P&T Committee chair:

1. Confers with each subcommittee chair to produce realistic time schedules;
2. Monitors subcommittees’ adherence to schedules;

3. Acts with the Dean to ensure a fair review in case there is evidence of bias or of procedural lapses;
4. Convenes and chairs meetings of the P&T Committee for the purpose of discussing each case, voting on each candidate, and giving direction to the peer-review letter;
5. Collects reports, dossiers, and other materials from committee members for shredding;
6. Signs each peer-review letter (as does also the subcommittee chair);
7. Transmits each peer-review letter and procedure oversight checklist to the Dean;
8. In case a candidate files an objection to the campus recommendation, confers with the Dean concerning whether to make a campus response to the objection.

P&T Committee Members

General: The P&T Committee is responsible for reviewing each case fairly, for discussing the achievements, strengths, and weaknesses of each candidate, and for voting on each candidate.

Specifically, each member of the P&T Committee should:

1. Provide the P&T Committee chair with schedules of availability as requested;
2. Examine each dossier and evaluate each candidate fairly;
3. Attend P&T meetings, if possible;
4. Participate in the discussion of each case;
5. Vote on the proposed action;
6. If any member detects any sign of bias or procedural lapse, this should be immediately reported to the P&T Committee chair and to the Dean, or to the Vice Provost for Academic Policy and Human Resources in case of bias by the Dean.

Procedures Oversight Designee (formerly Affirmative Action Designee)

General: The Procedures Oversight Designee (POD) is responsible for ensuring that the review follows proper procedures and is free of bias. There is generally one POD per subcommittee and the POD is a member of that subcommittee.

Specifically, the Procedures Oversight Designee,

1. Checks the dossier to ensure it is correctly presented and asks candidate to make changes as needed;
2. Monitors the entire campus process for a given candidate, watching for any evidence of bias or failure to observe campus procedures;
3. Reports immediately any sign of bias or procedural lapses to the P&T Committee chair and the Dean;
4. Fills-out a check-list, certifying points 2 and 3 (see Appendix C);
5. Submits checklist to P&T Committee chair at the time the P&T Committee votes on the candidate.

Although a single committee member is assigned oversight responsibility, all members of review bodies must accept personal responsibility for assuring that reviews are procedurally correct, fair, & free of bias for all faculty members. Review bodies, not the POD, are ultimately responsible for the integrity of the review process. 

 

6. PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR

According to University Rule 3335-6-02(C), “promotion to the rank of professor must be based on convincing evidence that the faculty member has a sustained record of excellence in teaching; has produced a significant body of scholarship that is recognized nationally or internationally; and has demonstrated leadership in service.”

When informed that a tenure-initiating unit (hereafter “department”) wishes to consider an OSU Mansfield faculty member for promotion to professor, the campus Dean will organize an ad hoc promotion committee consisting of three professors from the Mansfield campus. The Dean may ask professors from other OSU regional campuses to serve on the committee if an insufficient number of professors from the Mansfield campus are available.

The committee will review the teaching and service portions of the candidate’s dossier and prepare a letter of evaluation based on their review. The committee will present the letter at a meeting of all full professors on campus. This group will discuss the case and vote on a recommendation. Informed by the letter and recommendation, the Dean will review the dossier and write a recommendation letter to the department chair.

Campus Procedures

As early in the process as possible, the campus Dean will notify the promotion committee and the candidate about when the committee’s letter and recommendation must be received by the Dean as well as when the Dean’s letter and recommendation must be received by the department. The committee should complete its letter to the Dean at least two weeks before the Dean’s letter to the department is due.

Throughout the process, the candidate or the committee chair may request a meeting with the Dean to resolve procedural questions, to discuss aspects of the candidate’s performance, or to seek clarification concerning items in the candidate’s file or dossier. Similarly, the candidate or the committee chair may request a meeting between the candidate and the committee for clarification of procedural questions or items in the promotion materials.

Overview Of Responsibilities

Candidate

 

The candidate is responsible for knowing the departmental criteria for promotion to full professor and for understanding and following the campus, department, and university procedures associated with the promotion process. The candidate must prepare a dossier in accord with the OAA’s currently prescribed format and submit three copies (or equivalent electronic copies, at the candidate’s or committee’s discretion), on schedule, to the chair of the campus promotion committee. The candidate must communicate with the department chair as well as the chair of the department’s promotion committee to be certain that all materials, procedures, and deadlines meet department and university guidelines.

The candidate also must be ready to provide the campus promotion committee with materials or information that may help to clarify or strengthen the dossier. Faculty members who anticipate candidacy will need to arrange for peer evaluation of teaching during the academic year prior to the start of the campus promotion process. A letter summarizing that evaluation will need to be on file in the candidate's personnel file. Potential candidates should be aware that some departments call for peer evaluation over a three to five year period prior to evaluation for promotion and specify what kinds of courses are to be observed. Here again, the candidate is responsible for knowing and fulfilling departmental requirements.

Promotion Committee

Promotion to full professor is largely a departmental matter. Therefore, the campus committee’s evaluation of the candidate’s teaching and service should be guided by the expectations for promotion to full professor as stated in the P&T document of the candidate’s department, including the department’s statement concerning regional campus faculty members. Because, according to OAA guidelines, the committee’s letter must make clear “the expectations of the unit against which the candidate is being assessed,” the letter should refer directly to the stated departmental expectations wherever appropriate. The work of the promotion committee should also be guided by relevant university rules (e.g., University Rule 3335-6-02) as well as OAA guidelines (e.g., OAA Policies and Procedures Handbook, see (http://oaa.osu.edu/OAAP_PHandbook.php).

The promotion committee will have access to all documents related to the candidate’s teaching for the previous five years. One member of the committee will prepare a written report presenting either a balanced sample or a detailed summary of students’ written evaluations. This summary is also included in the candidate’s core dossier. Whenever possible, each member of the promotion committee will visit one or more of the candidate’s classes.

A second member of the committee will prepare a summary of the candidate’s record of service, focusing primarily on service completed after promotion to associate professor. This committee member should request clarification, or documentation of, reported service from the candidate as necessary. Occasionally, the committee member responsible for preparing the summary of service may need to seek clarification from the department chair as to the standing of an activity listed in the dossier (e.g., does the department regard the activity as service or scholarship?). The preparation of teaching and service summaries does not excuse any member of the committee from conducting a thorough examination of all materials submitted for promotion.

One member of the committee other than the chair will serve as the procedures oversight designee. The designee will be responsible for monitoring all aspects of the campus review process, for reporting any sign of bias or procedural lapses immediately to the promotion committee chair and the Dean, and for completing the procedures oversight checklist (Appendix C).

After the committee has examined and discussed the case, the committee chair will write a report that presents a thorough and objective evaluation of the case. The draft of the report will be distributed to all committee members for substantive and editorial comments. If necessary, the committee will meet to discuss suggestions for improving the report. When committee members have reached agreement concerning the report, the chair will call a meeting of all full professors on the Mansfield campus. At this meeting, the entire group will review and discuss the case and the letter prepared by the committee. Substantive changes in the letter may be made at this time with approval of a simple majority. The entire group will then vote on a recommendation which will be recorded in the revised letter. Following this meeting, the chair of the promotion committee will transmit the letter of evaluation, the teaching and service summaries, and the procedures oversight checklist to the campus Dean.

Campus Dean

The Dean is responsible for evaluating each candidate fairly and shares responsibility with the procedures oversight designee for ensuring that campus procedures are properly followed and that deliberations are free of bias.

Upon receipt of the promotion committee’s letter and recommendation, the Dean will examine the candidate’s file and dossier. Informed by this examination, and by the promotion committee’s letter and recommendation, the Dean will prepare a separate letter of evaluation. The Dean will send this letter to the department chair along with promotion committee’s letter. The Dean will meet with the promotion committee to discuss the case as well as her or his recommendation to the department prior to submitting the letter.

When the campus review is complete, the Dean will promptly inform the candidate of the outcome and will offer the candidate the opportunity to view the letters prepared by the promotion committee and by the Dean. The Dean will notify all members of the promotion committee of the eventual disposition of each case.

(Approved by Faculty Assembly on June 8, 2009.)

 

Appendix A

Statement on Professional Ethics

The statement that follows, a revision of a statement originally adopted in 1966, was approved by the Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics, adopted by the Association’s Council in June 1987, and endorsed by the Seventy-third Annual Meeting.

Introduction

From its inception, the American Association of University Professors has recognized that membership in the academic profession carries with it special responsibilities. The Association has consistently affirmed these responsibilities in major policy statements, providing guidance to professors in such matters as their utterances as citizens, the exercise of their responsibilities to students and colleagues, and their conduct when resigning from an institution or when undertaking sponsored research. The Statement on Professional Ethics that follows sets forth those general standards that serve as a reminder of the variety of responsibilities assumed by all members of the profession.

In the enforcement of ethical standards, the academic profession differs from those of law and medicine, whose associations act to ensure the integrity of members engaged in private practice. In the academic profession the individual institution of higher learning provides this assurance and so should normally handle questions concerning propriety of conduct within its own framework by reference to a faculty group. The Association supports such local action and stands ready, through the general secretary and the Committee on Professional Ethics, to counsel with members of the academic community concerning questions of professional ethics and to inquire into complaints when local consideration is impossible or inappropriate. If the alleged offense is deemed sufficiently serious to raise the possibility of adverse action, the procedures should be in accordance with the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, or the applicable provisions of the Association’s Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

The Statement

• Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although professors may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.

 

• As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to ensure that their evaluations of students reflect each student’s true merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from them. They protect their academic freedom.

• As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas professors show due respect for the opinions of others. Professors acknowledge academic debt and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution.

 

• As members of an academic institution, professors seek above all to be effective teachers and scholars. Although professors observe the stated regulations of the institution, provided the regulations do not contravene academic freedom, they maintain their right to criticize and seek revision. Professors give due regard to their paramount responsibilities within their institution in determining the amount and character of work done outside it. When considering the interruption or termination of their service, professors recognize the effect of their decision upon the program of the institution and give due notice of their intentions.

• As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of other citizens. Professors measure the urgency of these obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their subject, to their students, to their profession, and to their institution. When they speak or act as private persons, they avoid creating the impression of speaking or acting for their college or university. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom.

Appendix B

Schedule of Faculty Review Process

The schedule for each campus faculty review will be set by the subcommittee chair, after learning departmental scheduling requirements, in consultation with the P&T Committee chair and Dean. Each schedule must include the following elements; it may also include additional subcommittee meetings.
_____ Subcommittee members attend one or more of the candidate’s classes (within two years of the candidate’s review by the full P&T committee).
_____ Candidate submits to subcommittee chair three copies of the dossier (or equivalent electron version) and one copy of supportive documents. Recommendation: Do this at least two months prior to due date of Dean’s letter to TIU chair.
_____ Subcommittee meets with candidate to review the dossier.
_____ Subcommittee meets to discuss elements of the evaluation.
_____ Subcommittee chair distributes the draft letter of the case to subcommittee members.
_____ Subcommittee meets to agree on evaluation.
_____ Subcommittee chair distributes the letter to the full-committee Chair. Recommendation: Do this approximately one week prior to distributing the letter to the full committee.
_____ Subcommittee chair distributes letter plus makes the dossier and other materials available to full-committee members. Do this one week or five business days prior to meeting of full committee.
_____ P&T Committee (“full committee”) meets and votes. Do this approximately one month prior to due date of Dean’s letter to Columbus.
_____ P&T Committee chair submits results of vote, peer-review letter (signed by committee chair and subcommittee chair), and procedure oversight checklist to Dean. Allow two weeks or 10 business days before it is due to TIU chair for Dean to review case and write recommendation.
_____ Dean forwards recommendation to TIU chair.
Complications can arise in the deliberation of cases if time constraints are not fully appreciated by candidates, by subcommittee chairs, or by the full-committee chair. Toward that end, committee chairs should be encouraged to become fully versed with scheduling constraints and then to unambiguously express scheduling concerns to subcommittee chairs. Subcommittee chairs, in turn, should unambiguously express scheduling concerns to candidates. Candidates should be encouraged to complete dossiers in a timely manner, one which allows thorough consideration of dossiers by subcommittees and which also provides sufficient time for meeting scheduling. Meeting scheduling of the full committee can take weeks of advanced notice or, in the case of summer meetings, even more than a month of advanced notice. Thus, as candidates, subcommittee chairs, and the full-committee chair should all duly note, sufficient lead time in meeting scheduling can be essential toward providing timely submission of letters to the Dean.