Printable/downloadable Policies and Procedures for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure [PDF]

Foreword

 Changes and amendments to this document shall be approved by Faculty Council by majority vote.

This is one of several documents outlining the policies and procedures to be followed in the College of Visual and Performing Arts for contractual renewal, promotion to associate professor with tenure, promotion to full professor, and promotion to associate and full Teaching Professors. In as much as these policies and procedures bear heavily on the outcome of application for or appeal of promotion, tenure, and contractual renewal, it is cautioned that they be carefully observed.

Exact dates for submission of materials and committee action on the department/school and college levels shall be set in the fall semester of each academic year by the dean in compliance with the promotion and tenure schedules set by the vice chancellor for academic affairs; hence, the dates on the following Promotion and Tenure Calendars may vary slightly from year to year. Moreover, the Promotion and Tenure Calendars are a rough sketch of activities and responsibilities.

Each area within the college shall establish its procedures for mentoring tenure-line faculty, in accordance with overall college guidelines. It is the responsibility of each director or chairperson to ensure that each tenure-line faculty member has at least one faculty mentor.

Consideration may be given to identifying a faculty mentor outside the unit as well as inside the unit, particularly when the faculty member’s research is cross-disciplinary in nature. It is the general obligation of the senior faculty to inform tenure-track faculty of their professional responsibilities, assist in their integration into the college and respective departments/school, and advise them of the expectations for promotion, tenure, and contractual renewal.

Candidates for promotion, tenure, and/or contractual renewal are responsible for familiarizing themselves with policies and procedures, and gathering and submitting materials as outlined in these documents as appropriate.

Tenure and Promotion Calendar

College of Visual and Performing Arts

The specific dates on the calendar below may vary slightly from year to year. Please note that this calendar is advisory and does not supersede the body of Policies and Procedures. We recommend that you familiarize yourself with the sections of Policies and Procedures pertaining to your application for tenure and promotion or promotion only.

Unless a candidate is already appointed at the rank of associate professor or above, consideration of promotion to associate professor will occur coincidently with consideration of indefinite appointment with tenure.

 Phase I, Tenure and Promotion activity deadlines during spring semester prior to tenure review year:

  • January 15
    • CVPA Office of Academic Affairs notifies eligible faculty in writing of pending tenure consideration and sixth-year review.
  • February 1 through May 15
    • Department chair/director gathers evidence of faculty member’s teaching and advising, creative/scholarly accomplishment, and service.
  • February 1 through October 1
    • Faculty gathers their own evidence of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly accomplishment, and service. Candidate may find it helpful at this time to begin Senate Form A* and to discuss materials with department chair/director, mentor, and colleagues.
  • March 1
    • No later than this date, candidate must complete the “Candidate’s Request for Tenure Review”** form and submit to the vice chancellor’s office in 503 Crouse-Hinds Hall. CVPA Office of Academic Affairs is available for verification of information pertaining to candidate’s time toward tenure.
  • April 1
    • Candidate submits to department chair/director six to ten names of external reviewers (artist/educators, professionals, or academics outside of Syracuse University, from peer or aspirational peer institutions), and includes rationale for selection of each reviewer for external review requests to be made on candidate’s behalf. Should your external reviewers be professionals, as well as artist/educators, you may find it necessary to complete two types of external review packets that will appeal to the professional expertise of both constituencies.
  • April 1 through April 30
    • Department’s tenure and promotion committee and the department chair/director meet to generate its own list of six to ten names of external reviewers and then select and solicit at least three external reviewers from its list and at least two from the candidate’s list for a total of a minimum of five external reviewers.
  • June 30
    • Faculty submits external review packets to the department chair; department chair/director includes their letter to each reviewer, requesting an October 1 return date for all reviews.
  • Mid-July
    • Department chair/director express mails external review packets to external reviewers.

*Senate Form A is submitted to the Senate Committee on Appointment and Promotions and must be a stand- alone document without plastic sleeves (see attached).

**”Candidate’s Request for Tenure Review” form is available on the provost’s website.

Phase II, Tenure and Promotion activity deadlines during fall semester of tenure review year:

  • October 1
    • Candidate submits their completed materials in binders to department chair/director.
  • October 2 through October 30
    • Department chair/director assembles all confidential materials, and department’s tenure and promotion committee reviews candidate’s application for tenure and promotion according to appropriate procedures and votes. Chair/director assembles a document with “Department Committee Votes” (for and against and date). Department’s tenure and promotion committee creates additional materials in support of its work, which includes:
      • Department chair/director writes letter (recommendation for promotion or reason for denial), including the committee’s assessment as well as the chair’s own evaluation, a description of tenure and promotion procedures, criteria, standards, and composition of department’s tenure and promotion committee, and completed document showing committee votes for and against.
  • October 30
    • Department chair/director informs candidate of department tenure and promotion committee’s recommendations.
  • November 1
    • Department chair/director makes an appointment with the senior administrator in CVPA Office of Academic Affairs to formally check-in all of candidate’s material binders.
  • November 15 through December
    • The college’s tenure and promotion committee meets to review all applications. If needed the committee may call on department chairs/directors or program coordinators to answer specific questions. Aside from third-year reviews, the college’s committee strives to complete its deliberations in December.

Part One

Overview of Procedures and Criteria for Promotion

I.  Probationary Period

The normal probationary period for tenure-track faculty is six years. The specific College procedures for annual contractual renewal and review of tenure-track faculty are found in the document “Policies and Procedures: Contractual Renewal: Full-Time Faculty.” All tenure-track faculty should be familiar with those sections of the Syracuse University Faculty Manual that pertain to tenure and tenure review (see Sections 2.3, 2.31, 2,32, 2.34, 2.35, 2.36, 2.37, 2.38,

2.39, 2.40, 2.41, and 2.42).

A.  Yearly Progress Reviews and Contractual Renewals during the Probationary Period

During the six-year probationary period, the candidate’s progress toward tenure will be reviewed each year in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service. Teaching and advising will be given at least equal weight with creative/scholarly activities. Appropriateness of progress affects judgments of merit.

B.  Expectations

As a research university, Syracuse University expects that faculty members will be actively engaged in an intellectual and creative life that enhances the knowledge base or otherwise extends the boundaries in their chosen areas of concentration. The University also has a tradition of permitting various allocations of effort across research and teaching. Schools and Colleges are expected to provide guidelines to all faculty regarding allocations of effort. In particular, Schools and Colleges must provide guidelines for those individuals whose teaching, research, and service do not sharply divide into distinct categories so that they can present integrated dossiers and accounts of activities. In VPA, the unit’s document on evidences for tenure and promotion should be provided to faculty members at the time of hire by the chair or director.

II.  Considerations for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure

  1. The college and University understands the awarding of tenure to normally be simultaneously linked to promotion to associate professor, unless the candidate already holds that rank. Tenure is a future-oriented decision for both the college and the faculty member being considered. Tenure reflects clear and relevant evidence of future excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service. It is obvious that judgments about future excellence are, in part, based on past accomplishments. The college also acknowledges that tenure is ultimately granted by the provost and the Board of Trustees.

The college recognizes that the evidence produced for a case for tenure will be similar to the evidence produced for a case for promotion. Given the connection of tenure and promotion, the college takes the position that a candidate deemed worthy of tenure is also worthy of promotion to the rank of associate professor. Procedurally, tenure and promotion to associate professor is a linked process. There are exceptions, such as when a candidate already holds the rank of associate professor:

  1. Projected merit should be one of the underlying considerations for tenure, and not a reward for past accomplishments; past performance, however, is an important basis for foretelling future performance. The college must also consider the projected contribution of the candidate to the department/school, the college, and the University.
    1. It is the obligation of the college review committees to ask and answer:
      1. Does relevant evidence clearly point to an expectation of future excellence of accomplishment in the appropriate categories of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service?
      2. Given the present expectations for the future of programs in the department/area, the college, and the University, is there good reason to expect that the projected contributions of the candidate will be needed components of such programs?
      3. Will granting of tenure to the candidate strengthen the program(s) of the department/school, and the college sufficiently to offset the reduction in academic flexibility entailed by losing a junior (i.e., non-tenured) position?
    2. It is the responsibility of the department chair/director to inform the candidate of their upcoming tenure review. Except where stated otherwise, it is the responsibility of the candidate to gather, assemble, and submit materials justifying tenure. These materials are to be submitted to the department chair/director. Candidates are encouraged to consult with their department about the process. Materials should be organized in a sequence consistent with Senate Form A. (Senate Form A is a form maintained by the Provost’s Office that assists with the organization of a candidate’s application file for promotion and/or tenure.) Visit the Provost’s website to access related documents such as the Candidate’s Request for Tenure Form, Senate Form A, and the Tenure Summary Dossier Checklist.
    3. The candidate must be proven to have met the prerequisites set down in the Faculty Manual (2.3).

III.  Criteria for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

  1. A.  Standards

Tenure must be viewed as future-oriented as opposed to promotion, which is awarded in recognition of past achievements. Tenure involves the difficult projection of both the candidate and the institution many years into the future. Hence, a tenure decision must be made out of a sense of responsibility for the future of the institution.

Tenure is not granted as a normal event. There exists no eventual “right to tenure,” nor inevitability to it. Faculty members seeking tenure must prove their merit as it relates to the best interest of the University, college, and department/school. In short, the administration

of the University, college, and department/school must be convinced that a career-long commitment to a faculty member will serve the present and future goals of the institution.

Because tenure is a matter that is future-oriented, the criteria for deliberation encompass and extend those followed for promotion. Information about the categories of Teaching, Creative/Professional Accomplishments, and Service follows.

1. Teaching

“Syracuse University recognizes success in teaching among its tenured faculty to be of vital importance and values innovation and intellectual pursuit embedded within teaching. Teaching involves the arts and skills required for the diffusion of knowledge and guidance toward its effective and independent use. The successful teacher, among other things, instructs in consonance with the School/College mission, has knowledge of subject matter, skillfully communicates and contributes to student learning and development, acts professionally and ethically, and strives continuously to improve” (Faculty Manual 2.24). The education of students is a primary responsibility of a faculty member. Evidence should be clear that the faculty member is an effective teacher and advisor. Additional evidence, and equally important, is the candidate’s contribution to the education of students through course and curriculum development, graduate teaching and direction of thesis or dissertation work, portfolio reviews, and supervision of internships, independent studies, and other forms of student learning.

Faculty members are expected to work in concert with their colleagues to define and implement the teaching mission of their specific department/school and degree program, including identification of program and course learning outcomes, forms of assessing student learning, and periodic review of objectives and outcomes. In addition, faculty members should be able to demonstrate how the courses they teach contribute to collective program outcomes and otherwise assist students in accomplishing the overall objectives of the degree program.

2. Creative/Professional Accomplishments

“Faculty members belong to scholarly and professional communities and are expected to advance these communities by contributing to knowledge through research or other forms of creative work. The Syracuse University faculty is strong in part because it engages in scholarship

that comprises a spectrum of excellence from disciplinary to cross-disciplinary, from theoretical to applied, and from critical to interpretive. Scholarship means in-depth study, learning, inquiry or experimentation designed to make contributions to knowledge as appropriate in specific fields or relevant disciplines.” Scholarship is “measured by peer recognition of its originality, impact on, and importance to the development of the field(s) or relevant disciplines….For promotion to the rank of professor, accomplishments in research, scholarship, and creative work should have impact that is broad and deep, whether in a single discipline or across disciplines, among the significant audiences inside and outside of the academy.” (Faculty Manual 2.24)

Furthermore, the faculty in each department or school are expected to provide in ongoing discussion and in their written evidences for promotion a more detailed understanding of what is meant by local, regional, national, and/or international recognition of creative and scholarly accomplishment in their specific disciplines. The goal in this endeavor is not to proscribe research accomplishment too narrowly but to provide enough clarity that faculty members seeking tenure and promotion can engage in their work with sufficient confidence that they understand the unit’s expectations.

Faculty members are also expected to demonstrate how their research informs and impacts their teaching.

3. Service

“Syracuse University asserts the importance of faculty service for the vitality of its academic community, for the professions it represents, and for society at large….Service activities should be of high quality.” (Faculty Manual 2.24)

Examples include:

a. To the College of Visual and Performing Arts and the University, such as:

  • administrative service on department/area, school, college, or University committees.

b. To the community-at-large, such as:

  • participation in a community organization in which social service or professional expertise is acknowledged.

c. To the profession, such as:

  • invitations to address professional groups,
  • consultations with professional groups, and
  • membership and effective participation in regional or national professional organizations.

B.  College-Wide Criteria for Promotion and Tenure

  1. 1.     Is there evidence that the candidate has demonstrated recognized contribution in their teaching and research/practice?
  2. 2.     Is there evidence that the candidate will make important contributions through teaching and research/ practice in the future? It is also relevant to ask whether there is evidence that the candidate will make significant service contributions.
  3. 3.     Is there evidence that the candidate will continue to grow and develop in positive ways in the three areas: teaching, research/practice, and service?
  4. 4.     Is there evidence that the future contributions of the candidate will sufficiently strengthen the program/department/college to offset the loss in flexibility caused by tenure?
  5. 5.     Faculty members are also expected to demonstrate how their research informs and impacts their teaching.
  1. C.  Department/School Criteria for Promotion and Tenure

Each department/school will provide to candidates its own written evidences for promotion to associate professor with tenure. These evidences will be submitted to Faculty Council for review and approval prior to implementation.

D.  Denial of Tenure

Based upon these college-wide criteria and the unit-specific evidences for tenure and promotion, the denial of tenure would rest on one or more of the reasons stated below.

  1. Unsatisfactory performance or progress causing doubt as to the level of future performance in terms of teaching, research/practice, and service.
  2. Performance and qualifications predictive of future contributions that are not appropriate to the institution’s expected programmatic needs.
    1. Projected future financial situations that necessitate reduction in staff and resources.

IV.  Specific Procedures: Sixth-Year Review

  1. Normally, the sixth-year review marks the last year of the candidate’s tenure-line appointment and probationary period. However, candidates may request to be considered

for tenure any time before March 1st of their fifth credited year; it is important to note that they are considered only once for tenure. The assessment of the candidate’s progress at this point will result either in the granting of tenure with promotion to associate professor and renewal of the candidate’s contract, or the denial of tenure and non-renewal of the candidate’s contract beyond the seventh and final year.

  1. Candidates are responsible for collecting and submitting personal and professional data for review by the college tenure and promotion committee and the department’s/school’s tenure committee.
  2. Such data may include the following as appropriate to the candidate’s position within the college (to be checked against current information on the Provost’s website):
BINDER I:

The following materials are required to be included in binder one, assembled in the order as listed:

  1. Outline of Professional Experience (Senate Form A)—includes attached curriculum vitae

  2. Candidate’s Professional Statement (Senate Form A)
  3. Committee and department/school recommendations, votes, and analysis, including:
    1. Departmental evaluative summary about the quality and quantity of (1) the candidate’s scholarly production, including specific comments about refereed publications that include (for monographs) the suitability of the press, how well known in the field and (for journals) rating in the field and acceptance rate; and the work’s impact on the field; and/or (2) creative work produced and the quality and suitability of the venues in which the work is presented and the impact on the audience and genre of production; and/or (3) public scholarship and engagement projects, including comments on the project’s significance, and its impact on the publics, communities, industries, or other partners or audiences.
    2.   Departmental evaluative summary about the quality and quantity of teaching and other instructional contributions, including effectiveness of classroom teaching, course/curriculum development, and advising.
    3. Departmental evaluative summary about the quality and quantity of service to the department, school/college, the University, the profession, or the public.
    4. The yearly departmental contract renewal summary narratives. There should be a total of five summary narratives for each candidate, one narrative per each of the five preceding years.
  4. Copies of 5–6 external letters of review on official letterhead solicited, with the following information:
    1. List of all names solicited with information that describes the person, their rank, and the qualifications that make them especially appropriate as a reference. Include the reason(s) given for a solicited reviewer declining.
    2. Copies of solicitation letter(s).
  5. School/College evaluative recommendations, votes and analysis (see above)
  6. Dean’s analysis and recommendation
BINDER II:

The following materials are included in binder two as applicable:

  1. Scholarship/Research: (e.g., publications, grants, awards)
    1. a. For publications: sample (e.g., publications sent to reviewers)
    2. b. For public scholarship projects (e.g., evaluation reports, white papers, curricula or other products)
    3. c. For creative work: (e.g., photographs, musical scores, videos of performances, CDs, or other projects)
    4. d. Reviews of publications, creative works, other scholarly products, or teaching
    5. e. Reviews or other evidence of impact/success (citations, media, etc.).
  2. Teaching:
    1. Courses taught (over five-year period):
      1. · required courses
      2. · elected courses
    2. New courses introduced and taught
    3. Evidence of teaching effectiveness:
      1. course evaluations, syllabi, course materials, and letters from matriculated students, graduated students, and colleagues.
        1. material to be requested by department chair/director in consultation with candidate
        2. material and data to be collated by department chair’s/director’s office
        3. material and data to be representative of work for the last five years
    4. Evidence of advising effectiveness:
      1. advisement loads
      2. advisement activities, advising materials, advising assessments, and letters from matriculated students and graduated students.
        1. material to be requested by department chair/director in consultation with candidate
        2. material and data to be collated by department chair’s/director’s office
        3. material and data to be representative of work for the last five years
    5. Programs and/or projects developed:
      1. personal statement justifying present and future value to department/area and college
      2. statement on plans for development of future courses, projects, and programs with explanation of value to department/area and college
  3. Exhibition, performance, or publication record. Material representative of the body of work may also be submitted by the candidate.
  4.  Involvement in professional organizations
  5. Evidence of Service Activities
    1. No material may be added to a candidate’s credentials after material has been submitted to the department tenure committee by the assigned due date. Once Senate Form A has been received, a supplemental statement with updated information is permitted, but it is up to the reviewers how much weight it will be given.
    2. Regarding letters of evaluation from peers in the profession, the number of external peers, the nature of their credentials, and the rationale for their selection should be consistent with criteria specified by the vice chancellor for academic affairs:
      1. unless a detailed rationale is provided to the contrary, external peer reviewers should be full professors from institutions or programs better than Syracuse University. Reviewers should not be selected if they have had a significant prior relationship with the candidate (e.g., worked together at a previous institution, were cohorts in the same graduate program, had a prior teacher-student relationship, co- authored articles, books, or collaborated in producing creative work, etc.). Where appropriate in judging creative work, reviewers may be highly regarded professionals whose credentials would place them on a par with those having achieved excellence in the best academic institutions. In such cases, the number of professional reviewers should not be greater than the number of academic reviewers. Under normal circumstances, professional reviewers should be limited to reviewing creative work and service to the profession. They should not be asked to judge the quality of the candidate’s teaching or university service.
      2.  the procedure for selecting external peer reviewers is as follows:
        1. the candidate provides a list of 6-10 potential reviewers;
        2.  the tenure committee generates a list of 6-10 reviewers; then
        3.  the tenure committee selects two or three names from each list and an equal number of alternates from each list. Reviewers are solicited from this final list until at least five reviewers have agreed to participate. According to University guidelines, a majority of the final roster of outside evaluators must come from the committee’s list.
    3. in emerging fields of scholarship/creative work, when a department does not have in-house expertise among its senior faculty, solicitation of external peer reviewers may require consulting with one or more recognized experts in that field in order to generate a list of potential reviewers.
    4.  outside letters of recommendation shall be solicited by the chair/director of the candidate’s department/school. Great care should be taken in writing a detailed cover letter to external reviewers, explaining specifically what they are being asked to evaluate and by what criteria. Reviewers should be given a copy of the relevant sections of this document to guide their review of the candidate’s credentials. Reviewers should also be guaranteed that their letters of evaluation will be treated with the utmost confidentiality. Reviewers should provide their letters on official letterhead.
    5. letters are to be collated by the department/school and included in the candidate’s review data.

V.  Workflow for Deliberations

  1. The department chair/director distributes the candidate’s data to the department tenure committee.
  2. The department chair/director writes an executive summary consistent with the process described in Section III-B of this document.
    1. The information that forms the basis for the department chair’s/director’s and the department tenure committee’s assessments and recommendations should include the data submitted under “C” above.
    2. The department chair’s/director’s and the department tenure committee’s assessments and recommendations should make explicit references to the data submitted under “C” above and the standards by which the data are evaluated.
    3. The assessments and recommendations contain specific references to accomplishments, reservations and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations: “Recommend to grant tenure with promotion to associate professor” (unless the candidate already holds that rank); or, “Not recommended for tenure with promotion.”
  3. The department chair/director submits the executive summary containing the assessments and recommendations to the dean.
  4. The dean forwards the assessment and recommendation and all supporting data to the college tenure committee.
  5. The department chair/director may make a report to, and answer questions of, the college tenure committee at a designated meeting.
  6. The college tenure committee makes a written assessment and recommendation on each candidate to the dean. This document will be reviewed by the committee.
    1. The information that forms the basis for the college tenure committee’s assessment recommendation should include the department chair’s/director’s and the department tenure committee’s assessments and recommendations, and the data submitted under “C” above. The college tenure committee’s assessments and recommendations should make explicit reference to the department chair’s/director’s executive summary and the data supplied under “C” above. In addition, it should make explicit reference to the standards by which the aforementioned assessments and recommendations, and the aforementioned data supplied by the candidate, are evaluated.
    2. The assessments and recommendations contain specific references to accomplishments, reservations and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations: “Recommend to grant tenure with promotion to associate professor” (unless the candidate already holds that rank) or “Not recommended for tenure with promotion.”
  7. The dean makes the recommendation on tenure and promotion for each candidate to the vice chancellor for academic affairs.
    1. The information that forms the basis for the dean’s recommendation should include the department chair’s/director’s executive summary, the college tenure committee’s assessment, and the data submitted under “C” above.
    2. The dean’s recommendation should include a rationale for the dean’s decision.
    3. The dean’s recommendation contains specific references to accomplishments, reservations, and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations: “Recommend to grant tenure with promotion to associate professor” (unless the candidate already holds that rank) or “Not recommended for tenure with promotion.”
  8. The dean forwards the recommendation to the vice chancellor for academic affairs.
  9. The dean communicates in writing to the appropriate chair/director and the candidate of the dean’s recommendation being sent to the vice chancellor for academic affairs and the recommendation of the college tenure committee.
  10. Should the provost deny the candidate’s application for tenure, the dean will notify the candidate the week prior to commencement. Those candidates whose applications are approved for tenure will be notified by the vice chancellor in writing with an official letter sent after the Board of Trustees’ meeting on the Saturday morning prior to commencement.
  11. The dean informs the appropriate department chair/director and the college tenure committee of the vice chancellor’s decision within ten working days of the decision.

Part Two

General Guidelines for Committee Deliberations

I.  General Guidelines for Committees

The committee structure for reviewing candidates for promotion to associate professor with tenure must conform to University guidelines and should be as consistent as possible across the areas of the college while still retaining some flexibility at the departmental level to accommodate local traditions and practices.

According to University guidelines, deliberative bodies should be independent across levels (i.e., no individual should actively participate or vote in two levels of the process, such as at both the department/school and College level).

Committees for promotion and tenure should exclude individuals with potential conflicts of interest. In these committees, potential conflicts of interest occur when individuals who may directly or indirectly derive a personal benefit are in a position to influence a decision (e.g., promotion of a spouse or partner). Individuals may also recuse themselves from cases in which participation or voting might pose a substantial conflict with the performance of their primary duties in the University.

II.  Department/School Committee

The criteria for membership and voting privileges on all departmental/area committees shall be specified in that unit’s written policies and procedures regarding evidences for tenure, promotion, and annual contractual renewal. Those policies and procedures may differ from, but may not be inconsistent with college and university guidelines. More specifically:

  1. In cases where tenure alone is the consideration (because the candidate already holds associate professor rank) the department/school review shall be conducted by a voting committee consisting of all tenured faculty members in the department.
  2. In cases where tenure and promotion to associate professor are being reviewed, the department/school shall have a single review committee and that committee shall apply in its deliberations the specific criteria and expectations, as articulated in the unit’s written evidences for promotion to associate professor with tenure. The voting membership of this committee shall consist of all tenured faculty members in the department.
  3. In the event that the department/school has fewer than five tenured faculty members available to serve on its review committee, the dean shall appoint additional tenured faculty member(s) whose area(s) of study are appropriate to that of the candidate. The minimum number of faculty members sitting on a tenure committee shall be five voting members.

D. The department/school’s representative to the College Tenure & Promotion Committee must vote only at the College level, and may not actively participate in the department/school review. They should attend the review, but remain strictly in a “listener” role in order to be fully informed about the decision of the committee.

III.  Department/School Committee Deliberations

Each department/school bears the responsibility for the initial screening and review of the candidate(s).

  1. Students in a department/area shall be represented by one undergraduate or graduate non-voting student. The student must be matriculated and currently enrolled in an undergraduate or a graduate program of the College. The student member shall present a report to the committee, but the student member shall not be present during deliberations.
  2. The department/school must clearly determine its procedures for the initial screening and review of the candidates. A written description of such procedures must be given to each candidate, and to the college promotion and tenure committee, during the first part of the academic year.
    1. The department/area committee shall maintain a record of the following activities:
      1. Time and location of all meetings.
      2. List of attendees at all meetings.
        1. Duration of each meeting.
        2. Significant action taken at each meeting.
    2. The department/school votes whether to recommend tenure with promotion to associate professor (unless the candidate already holds that rank). A summary brief may be written by the faculty chair of the tenure and promotion committee and reviewed by the committee and is then forwarded to the chairperson/director, who is responsible for writing a comprehensive executive summary that includes:
      1. Whether the applicant is recommended for tenure with promotion to associate professor.
        1. a summary narrative of the committee’s deliberations in each area of evaluation: teaching/advising, scholarship/creative work, and service (drawn from the committee chair’s summary brief, if provided)
          1. the committee’s reasons for denial, if appropriate
          2. the department chair/director’s narrative recommendation of the candidate’s accomplishments in each area of evaluation: teaching/advising, scholarship/creative work, and service
            1. the department chair/director’s reasons for denial, if appropriate
            2. A detailed description and evaluation of promotion procedures, including:
              1. criteria for evaluation
              2. composition of department/area promotion committee
              3. record of votes, for and against
                1. other procedures used by the department/area promotion committee
    3. The department chair/director’s executive summary is shared with all members of the committee.
    4. The department chair/director completes a document with “Department Committee Votes” (for and against and date), which becomes part of the candidate’s application.
    5. The department chair/director forwards the candidate’s application to the college promotion and tenure committee.
    6. The procedures used by the department are subject to review by the college promotion and tenure committee.
    7. A majority vote of the department/school promotion committee is required for faculty’s endorsement of a candidate’s application.

IV.  College Committee

There shall be a standing committee of the college named the tenure and promotion committee, which shall deliberate upon the matter of faculty tenure and promotion. The faculty of the college elects committee members according to the procedures below. In terms of tenure and promotion, the committee shall act as advisor to the dean.

V.  Membership of College Committee

The committee shall have one full-time tenured full professor from each of the departments and schools of the college. The only exception to full professor status occurs when an academic unit does not have an eligible full professor available to serve. In such cases, a tenured associate professor may serve, as long as at least 2/3 of the committee are full professors.

  1. Faculty members shall be elected for two-year terms. Elections will be held during the spring semester for the following academic year.
    1. Alternates shall be elected by these areas in the same proportions.
    2. Half of the area representatives and alternates shall be elected in even-numbered years. Representatives and alternates from the remaining areas shall be elected in odd- numbered years.
    3. Alternates shall serve in the case of an extended absence of a committee member, or because of their ineligibility to serve.
    4. An alternate will not serve as a temporary replacement if a member is unable to attend a called meeting.
    5. A candidate for tenure or promotion or member of a candidate’s family will not serve on the tenure and promotion committee.

VI.  Convening the College Committee

  1. The dean formally notifies each area no later than October 1 of the membership of the committee for that academic year.
  2. The dean shall convene the committee after the fall meeting of the Faculty Council.
  3. Written notice of meetings should be given to committee members by the chairperson at least one week prior to the scheduled meeting.
  4. The committee begins formal deliberations early enough to meet deadlines set by the University for tenure and promotion.
  5. The committee shall maintain a record of the following activities:
    1. Time and location of all meetings
    2. List of attendees at all meetings
      1. Duration of each meeting
      2. Significant action taken at each meeting
      3. Initiations of recommendations.

VII.  College Committee Deliberations

Because timelines for various types of cases may differ, the committee shall develop a calendar for reviewing a) cases seeking promotion to associate professor with tenure, b) cases seeking promotion to full professor, c) cases seeking promotion of Teaching Professors, and d) third- year portfolio reviews in accordance with the demands of the University calendar for submitting recommendations to the dean, vice chancellor, and any appropriate University or University Senate committees

  1. The standing college tenure and promotion committee shall deliberate on all tenure and promotion cases. The committee shall act as advisor to the dean.
    1. Recommendations
      1. The committee deliberates on all applications and makes a recommendation.
      2. A quorum shall consist of two-thirds (2/3) of the committee membership. The committee may not act without a quorum.
      3. An affirmative vote requires a majority of the committee membership present at the time the candidate’s application is being reviewed. In order to vote on the candidate, a committee member must have been present for the discussion of the candidate’s credentials.
        1. Voting shall be by secret ballot and completed in two steps:
          1. each committee member votes “yes” or “no” on the question of whether the candidate should be recommended for tenure with promotion to associate professor and returns their folded ballot to the committee chairperson.
          2. after the ballots are collected, the chairperson receives from each committee member a clear and objective anonymous written statement of the reason(s) for their vote. The written statements are sealed and forwarded to the dean via the committee’s secretary, to be used at the dean’s discretion.
          3. after the written statements are collected, the ballots are reviewed by the chairperson and the results of the committee vote are announced. The written statements are then used by the chair of the committee to draft the committee’s recommendation.
          4. The committee shall maintain a record of the following activities:
            1. Time and location of all meetings.
            2. List of attendees at all meetings.
            3. Duration of each meeting.
              1. Significant action taken at each meeting.
          5. The committee makes a written assessment and recommendation on each candidate to the dean. This document will be reviewed by the committee prior to the letter being forwarded to the dean.

Part Three

I.  Dual Appointments

Faculty candidates for promotion to associate professor with tenure holding dual appointment with another college are required to fulfill requirements stated above and are reviewed and recommended by representatives from both colleges serving as a “dual” promotion and tenure committee.

  1. The dean in consultation with the chair(s) of the appropriate college tenure committee will appoint members to serve on the dual committee.
  2. The dean of the College of Visual and Performing Arts and the dean of the other college select chairpersons for the dual committee and decide where the committee shall meet for the first time.
  3. Dual committees shall consist of equal numbers of faculty members from each college.

Part Four

I. Appeals

Faculty members denied tenure may appeal the decision to the appropriate standing committees of the University Senate (See Faculty Manual: 2.26; and Bylaws of the Senate of Syracuse University: Article V: Secs. 9-10).