Note: Amendments to this document requires approval of the Rhodes Board of Trustees.

(Updated August 8, 2005)

Amended by Faculty action, February 16, 2011

Appropriate sections of the Bylaws of the Board of Trustees of Rhodes College also govern the academic program of the College.

The Statement of Policies and Procedures in Regard to Faculty may be amended at a stated meeting of the Board of Trustees by a majority of its voting members. However, as provided in the by-laws, at least sixty (60) days notice must be given to the Faculty of proposed changes, during which period the Faculty shall have opportunity to express its views to the Board. No action that would rescind the College’s obligations to Faculty under contract can become effective until the end of the Faculty contracts currently in force.

Other Procedures. The Faculty has adopted other more detailed procedures for carrying out its business and formulating its recommendations. These must be consistent with the letter and spirit of this Statement of Policies and Procedures in Regard to Faculty.

A. Membership. The President of the College, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Associate Provosts, and all full-time officers of instruction are members of the Faculty of Rhodes College. A part-time officer of instruction who has been appointed at one-half time or more for at least three years may, at his or her request, be extended the privileges and responsibilities of a member of the Faculty. The service responsibilities of such members of the Faculty will be in rough proportion to the fraction of full-time that they serve.

The designation, officer of instruction, includes all persons within the institution appointed with academic rank except instructors in physical education and certain instructors in applied music. The ranks are: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor and any of these named ranks when modified by the terms—Adjunct, Visiting, Distinguished, or Distinguished Service.

B. Responsibilities. Articles VII and VIII of the College Bylaws describe the responsibilities of the Faculty in academic matters.

The Faculty’s concern extends to areas beyond the strictly academic, as they are concerned with the whole of student and community life. Thus it is proper for Faculty, individually and collectively, to express their views and give advice privately to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the other representatives of Academic Affairs, the President, and other administrative officers on nonacademic matters.

In general the Faculty and the Vice President for Academic Affairs will take care to inform each other of policy discussions in a timely way so that appropriate advice can be given before action is taken.

C. Meetings. The Faculty shall meet monthly during the academic year to carry out its business. Normally these meetings will be held on the first or second Wednesday of the month at 4:15 p.m. Faculty can change or cancel a scheduled meeting by majority vote. Scheduled meetings of the Faculty occur in August (the opening meeting), September, October, November, December, January, February, March, April, and May. The Faculty elects the Presiding Officer in May for the next academic year. Absences from meetings of the Faculty may be excused by the Vice President for Academic Affairs if requests and explanations are presented to the Secretary of the Faculty in advance of the meeting or immediately afterwards if there are extenuating circumstances. 

There are in addition three meetings of the Faculty each year which are designated formal academic occasions. These are:

1. The Opening (Founders) Convocation in the fall semester
2. The Awards Convocation in the spring semester
3. The Commencement Exercises at graduation

Additional Special Convocations may be called by the President. Attendance and academic regalia are required at each of these formal academic occasions. Absences may be excused if requests and explanations are presented to the Vice President for Academic Affairs in advance of the formal academic occasion.

The Faculty may be called into special session by the President or upon the request of one-fourth of the members of the Faculty. Special sessions of the Faculty shall be designated “for discussion” or “for action.” In special sessions for action all of the rules and procedures of this “Statement of Policies and Procedures in Regard to Faculty” apply.

Members of the Faculty are required to attend regular and special meetings of the Faculty and Faculty retreats unless excused by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Classes should not be scheduled to conflict continuously with scheduled meetings of the Faculty.

The Faculty shall elect such officers as it deems necessary to carry out its responsibilities. The Faculty Secretary is elected for a one-year term, and is responsible for keeping the minutes of Faculty meetings and such other records as the Faculty determines. A Faculty Parliamentarian is elected for a one-year term. In addition, four Faculty Marshals are appointed by the President.

More detailed rules and procedures concerning the Faculty meeting are given in Appendix A.

D. Committees. The Faculty shall have the authority to establish any standing committees it deems necessary to meet its responsibilities. Such committees derive their powers and responsibilities from the Faculty and their actions are subject to Faculty review and possible veto.

Though established by the Faculty and subject to it, such standing committees include student and administrative members when appropriate to the committee’s area of concern. The President and the Vice President for Academic Affairs shall be members, ex-officio, of all standing committees, unless the Faculty action in constituting the committee explicitly excludes these members. The The Vice President of Academic Affairs may name a representative from the Office of Academic Affairs as a liaison to the committees of the Faculty.

Appointments to the Rhodes Faculty are made by the Board of Trustees on the recommendation of the President of the College. Responsibility for the formulation of recommendations in these matters is delegated to the Faculty as described in the College By-laws, Article VII, Section 1 and Article VIII, Section 2. Appointments to the Faculty are made to those persons who are expected to combine intellectual excellence with a strong commitment to the liberal arts and to Rhodes’ mission.

The allocation of all full-time Faculty positions among the various departments shall be made by the President after receipt of a recommendation from the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Vice President for Academic Affairs′s recommendations are formulated in consultation with the Faculty Governance Committee, and, with departmental chairs. The recommendations will define the educational qualifications and experience required of candidates for the position, the rank(s) at which the appointment can be made, the anticipated teaching responsibilities, and the approximate level of remuneration.

A. The Search Committee. The search is normally carried out by a search committee. The Vice President for Academic Affairs appoints search committees after consultation with the chair of the department where the appointment is expected to be made.

B. The Search Process. The appointment of excellent candidates to on-going Faculty positions requires that the search be carried out in a timely way with special efforts made to attract a large, well-qualified pool of applicants representing as great a diversity in its composition as possible in support of the recruitment and hiring goals for the College. Announcements describing the position should be written to attract the broadest possible group of applicants whose preparation is consistent with the requirements of the position. When doubts exist about the adequacy of the applicant pool or the excellence of the best candidates, the search will be reopened or continued in the next academic year.

In conducting the search, the following steps will normally be followed:

1. The position will be announced in appropriate disciplinary publications with broad national circulation.
2. Clear expectations about the adequacy of the applicant pool should be defined before the search begins. If the pool is inadequate, the search will be re-opened or continued before narrowing down the pool.
3. Those responsible for the search process must be certain that the search meets the College’s definitions of equal opportunity employment.
4. Promising candidates will be interviewed at national meetings when possible.
5. Normally three candidates are invited to visit the campus.
6. Campus visits will include interviews with department members, students (preferably majors) and appropriate administrators. 
   The candidate will make a public presentation open to any Faculty member or student. When possible the candidate should also make a classroom presentation.
7. Following consultation with those who interviewed the candidates, the Chair of the Search Committee will make the Committee’s recommendations to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
8. The Office of Academic Affairs monitors the recruitment process to ensure that diversity goals for the College are maintained.

C. Faculty Appointments. New officers of instruction holding an earned doctorate will be appointed to the rank of assistant professor unless prior teaching experience and scholarly production justify appointment at a higher level. Confirmation of all new Faculty members’ credentials will be obtained in writing by the Office of Academic Affairs before the beginning of the new Faculty member’s appointment. New officers of instruction who do not hold the doctorate will normally be appointed to the rank, instructor. Promotion to assistant professor is made immediately upon completion of the appropriate terminal degree.

In certain disciplines a terminal degree other than the doctorate is considered appropriate for appointment to a professorial rank. In rare cases, other kinds of professional certification or outstanding accomplishments may provide the rationale for professorial rank.

New full-time appointments to the Faculty are designated tenure track or nontenure track and are given term or probationary contracts as described in Section “IV. Faculty Contracts.” On rare occasions a new appointment of an experienced Faculty member can be made with tenure if approved by the Board of Trustees.

Part-time appointments to the Faculty are always made on term contract and cannot lead to tenure.

Named Chairs: In departments in which special funds provide for named chairs, additional recognition of distinguished professional accomplishment may be given by naming officers of instruction to such chairs. The President, with advice from the Vice President for Academic Affairs, will designate Faculty members to occupy named chairs.

Emeritus/Emerita Professor: The rank emeritus or emerita professor may be granted to Faculty at or after retirement by the President in order to recognize years of distinguished service. A member of the Faculty may, upon retirement from the College, be designated as an emeritus/emerita member of the Rhodes College community if the following criteria are met:

1. The person must have served the College as a full-time member of the Faculty for at least ten consecutive academic years.
2. The person must be honorably retired at the College.
3. The person must be eligible to draw retirement benefits as defined by applicable federal and local (e.g. college) regulations.
4. The person must be recommended to the Faculty Governance Committee, by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President of the College as a member, emeritus or emerita, of the Rhodes College community. If the Faculty Governance Committee approves the recommendation, the recommendation is then forwarded to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees. If the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees approves the recommendation, then the President is authorized to announce the designation.

The person will be listed in the official record of the College – The Rhodes College Catalogue – by name, title of appointment with the emeritus/emerita designation, the date of the designation, and the appropriate academic credentials. This listing will continue as an official part of the College’s record as long as the person lives.

Certain Faculty appointments may be designated visiting, adjunct, distinguished, or distinguished service as appropriate. In each case the appointment is made on a term contract:

• Visiting — a full-time but temporary appointment of an academic officer who plans to return to a position elsewhere.
• Adjunct — usually a part-time appointment of a professional who is maintaining another professional career while teaching at Rhodes. There is no expectation of tenure.
• Distinguished — usually applied to a particularly accomplished senior visiting professor.
• Distinguished Adjunct — usually applied to a particularly accomplished adjunct professor.
• Distinguished Service — a non-tenure track appointment usually made in recognition of long service and outstanding accomplishments.

Distinguished Service: In exceptional cases, full-time, non-tenure-track members of the Rhodes Faculty are eligible to be nominated to assume the title of Distinguished Service Professor provided they have served with unusual distinction at Rhodes and/or elsewhere for at least fifteen years and have achieved widespread recognition in their designated area(s) of service. The title of Distinguished Service Professor is unique within the system of faculty positions at Rhodes, lying outside the sequence of promotions available to both tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty. It is intended to recognize extraordinary work to advance the mission of Rhodes College, or work done during extended service at another institution of learning, or in a career outside of education which has prepared the holder in a unique way to join a Department or Program at Rhodes. The conferring of this title would recognize achievement outside of or well beyond the standard of Excellence in the area of Service to the College which the Handbook describes. Regular Service to the College at that level over the course of fifteen years would typically not qualify faculty for nomination. Rather, the title would honor a nominee who has undertaken a truly extraordinary pattern of activity, at Rhodes or in some other setting. Rhodes faculty who have committed many years to service in an area that extends beyond typical patterns might be recognized with this title for their long-term achievement. Persons joining the Rhodes faculty might be recognized with this title for career achievement in, for example, research, government, the arts, or community service.

Nominations for the title of Distinguished Service Professor should be directed to the Faculty Governance Committee, with a copy to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. In order to be considered, nominees will need a minimum of three letters of support from senior members of the Rhodes faculty, one from a member outside the home department or program, and to submit a portfolio documenting relevant achievements over the course of their career. The Faculty Governance Committee will make a recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, who will undertake an independent evaluation and confer with the President on the matter before arriving at a decision as to the awarding of title.

A. Types of Contracts. At the time of initial appointment, and, for continuing Faculty on or about March 15 of each year, each officer of instruction will be provided with a written contract of employment for the following academic session. The service year for Faculty is normally defined as the period from the first Faculty meeting before the opening of the fall semester through the Monday following commencement in the subsequent spring semester. However, in programs with required summer enrollment, faculty may be hired on 12-month contracts. This contract will specify rank and salary, the nature of the contract and any special terms and conditions of employment. Rhodes has three types of contracts with officers of instruction. They are:

1. Term Contract. This type of contract is made on an annual basis, or on an academic term basis, or on a contingent basis (for example, contingent upon a sufficient number of students enrolling for a proposed course). Beyond the limits set in the document, there is no assumption of further employment. All part-time and nontenure track officers of instruction receive term contracts. Officers of instruction on term contracts and Distinguished Service professors may serve for more than seven years without the granting of tenure.

2. Probationary Contract. This type of contract is made on an annual basis and is a tenure-track appointment in a particular department. An officer of instruction may not work more than seven years under such contracts unless by mutual agreement between the College and the Faculty member the normal progress towards a review for tenure is interrupted. Those full-time officers of instruction who do not have the Ph.D. or appropriate terminal degree may not work for more than two years under such contracts. (Exceptions can be made in rare cases, which the President must be prepared to defend before the Board of Trustees.) The College is under no obligation to renew probationary appointments nor does it guarantee that a tenurable position will be available at the time a probationary Faculty member is considered for tenure. (See Section X, Non-Reappointment.)

3. Contract With Tenure. Appointments with tenure are made in a particular department. Faculty holding tenure receive a contract each year which reflects changes in rank, salary, special terms, or in the provisions of “The Statement of Policies and Procedures in Regard to Faculty.” Tenure contracts can be abrogated in circumstances described in Section XII.

B. Faculty Salary. Rhodes does not follow a binding formula either in negotiating initial salaries or in granting increments.

Salary recommendations are formulated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with department chairs and made to the President. Salary increments awarded by the President are reflected in each year’s contract letters. Salary adjustments may be made to recognize merit, as part of a general salary increase, to remove inequities, or to recognize promotion in rank. The Vice President for Academic Affairs shall offer any Faculty member who requests it an explanation of the basis on which his or her salary increment, or lack of it, was determined.

Remuneration of part-time Faculty will generally be determined based on the number of four-credit courses or equivalents being taught and the academic qualifications of the faculty member. As full-time Faculty remuneration rises, the normal rate for teaching a four-credit course on a part-time basis may be adjusted.

Ordinarily, salary levels of tenured Faculty members will not be individually reduced, except for cases described elsewhere herein. However, in the event of financial exigency, general reduction of salaries or the reduction of some but not all salaries may be necessary.

C. Merit Salary Increments. Annual evaluation of each continuing Faculty member may lead to a salary increment that recognizes teaching, research and/or creative activities, and/or service. The evaluation system described in Section VIII recognizes five levels of performance. In general, consideration for a merit increase will require a minimum ranking of “excellent” in all these areas. (A discussion of these ratings is given in Section VIII.)

The relative weight assigned each area for purposes of merit salary adjustment is 40% for teaching, 35% for research and/or creative activities, and 25% for service.

D. Fringe Benefits. The College provides a retirement plan to which the College contributes. A Faculty member’s equity in this plan is fully vested in the Faculty member. Other benefits such as medical, life and disability insurance, and tuition benefits are established by the Board of Trustees on the recommendation of the President. (See the College Handbook for a description of current benefits.)

E. Salary Retrenchment. If there is a significant unfavorable deviation from the annual budget of the College in any given year, as determined by the President, the President may announce a state of retrenchment and initiate a new budgeting process to produce a balanced budget. The new budget will go through all the steps of the regular annual budget building process to allow adequate opportunity for input from all segments of the College community. Under such circumstances, a general reduction of salaries or the reduction of some but not all salaries may be necessary.

Every officer of instruction shall support the integrity, good reputation, general welfare, and stated purpose and mission of the College. Every officer of instruction is expected to maintain the highest personal standards of character and conduct.

Faculty members must abide by the highest standards of integrity in their own duties and responsibilities. Though members of the Faculty are not subject to the procedures identified and administered within the Honor Code for students at the College, it is expected that members of the Faculty will abide by the provisions of that code of ethics in their dealings with persons at the College.

In addition, Faculty members must support the Honor Code by reporting to the Honor Council cases of student plagiarism, cheating, and lying in official matters, and report to the Honor Council cases of failure by other students to report such matters. If a Faculty member is unsure whether a situation needs to be reported, they are to consult with either the Honor Council President or the College’s Judicial Officer for the Honor Council.

Faculty members have the responsibility to communicate the Honor Code to students and to make clear the Code’s application to class assignments. Where appropriate, a clear definition of plagiarism should be presented and the extent of allowable collaboration among students in fulfilling academic requirements should be carefully explained. Faculty members are to make clear what materials may and may not be used in preparing graded work. Faculty members require each student to “pledge” all work expected to be governed by the provisions of the Honor Code.

In reporting a suspected violation of the Honor Code it is appropriate to consult with the chair of the department. It is also appropriate to inform the student of your concern about irregularities in the work submitted, on the assumption that the student may be able to explain them and therefore remove suspicions about the nature of the work.

The service year for Faculty is defined as the period from the first Faculty meeting before the opening of the fall semester through the Monday following commencement in the following spring semester. During the period of their contract, members of the Faculty must be on campus for a substantial part of each class day. When professional or personal affairs require that a Faculty member be away from campus for 1-5 class days, the department chair must be notified and must approve the absence. For longer absences the approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President must also be obtained. Normally, full time Faculty members in tenured or tenure-track positions teach five four-credit courses or their equivalent, and supervise a number of independent projects, or their equivalent, and participate in departmentally-sponsored academic programs such as senior seminars in each year. Full time Faculty members on term appointments normally teach six four-credit courses or their equivalent.

Officers of instruction contribute in many other ways to the education of their students, to the welfare of their department and programs, and to the general welfare of the College. Some of these are:

1. Leading directed inquiries, conducting tutorials and independent study projects, and supervising honors projects.
2. Keeping adequate office hours at times reasonably accessible to students.
3. Advising students—both general academic advising and the advising of majors.
4. Helping to maintain a vital curriculum by revision of existing courses and inauguration of new courses.
5. Aiding students who seek admission to professional and graduate schools through advice and preparation of letters of reference.
6. Carrying a fair share of the administrative work of departments, the Faculty, and the College.
7. Attending all Faculty meetings and convocations.
8. Maintaining and building library and other academic resources.
9. Maintaining an active, involved professional life including scholarly work or artistic production.

A more detailed narrative description of the work of the Faculty comprises Section VII of this document.

Part-time officers of instruction are appointed for the teaching of a designated number of courses. Except for such contact with students outside of class time as needed for effective teaching, a part-time position does not carry the other obligations that are normal to full time positions. However, part-time Faculty who are extended Faculty membership assume these duties in proportion to the fraction of full time that they teach. (See Section II A.)

An officer of instruction shall not substitute nor appoint anyone to perform his or her College duties without the approval, in each case, of the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

An officer of instruction, in accepting an appointment from the College, thereby agrees to conform to all regulations adopted by the Faculty, by the President, and by the Board of Trustees.

As an important corollary to the evaluation system, Faculty members each year make plans for professional growth as teachers and scholars. These plans, formulated with the department chair and, where appropriate, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, should make use of both College supported and outside professional development activities.

When, as the result of annual evaluation, a Faculty member is found to have serious deficiencies, a more formal plan for improvement will be developed with the help of the department chair and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The plan shall list the improvements to be made, and over what time period. It will indicate how improvements are to be assessed and the consequences of failure to improve. If a plan cannot be agreed upon, the views of the Faculty member, the department chair and the Vice President for Academic Affairs will be forwarded to the President for final decision.

At the end of each calendar year Faculty members make a formal report to the Office of Academic Affairs concerning scholarly publications and other professional activities. This report includes an updated curriculum vitae.

Sections VII and VIII of this document contain important information about the work of the Faculty in scholarship and the standards that are applied.

Faculty who wish to accept outside employment during the academic year must make a written request to the Provost for approval. The Provost will grant permission for outside employment only when it will not interfere with College duties, will not create a conflict of interest for the Faculty member’s primary obligations to the College, and when it is consistent with Rhodes values and goals. If outside employment involves the use of College materials or facilities this must be made clear in the request for approval, and reasonable compensation must be made for this use. Faculty granted permission for such employment must make an annual report to the Provost concerning its nature and extent.

Faculty requesting approval for continuing outside employment, or for outside employment that is expected to be more frequent than once a year, shall submit a formal, written request for remunerative employment, giving the name(s) of outside employer(s), the amount of time involved and schedule, and a statement that all outside employment will meet the requirements of these policies.  

A Remunerative Employment Request may be made by faculty and approved by the Provost in Workday. Depending upon the timing of the request, approved employment may also be included in faculty contracts. If the request is approved by the Provost, it will be made a part of the employment contract for contract employees. All approved requests are retained in the employee’s personnel file. Occasional honoraria for speaking and leadership in academic consortia or associations are not considered as outside employment. 

As an educational institution Rhodes College is committed to maintaining an environment in which its Faculty members, students, administrators, and staff members are safe, can be trusted and count on others to be trustworthy, and receive and extend to others respect as human persons. Indeed, mutual respect among Faculty members, students and administrators is an essential ingredient in the educational process and the greatest care must be taken that it not in any way be eroded.

Virtually all Faculty members, administrators, and staff members are, or can appear to be, in a position to exercise power or authority, directly or indirectly, over students, whether or not an individual student is enrolled in their classes, are subject to their direct supervision, or have some form of business to transact with offices at the College. Many students are at a stage in their development when they may be particularly vulnerable to the influence of Faculty members, administrators, and staff members who are in positions where they can affect the terms and conditions of a student’s standing at the College.

If a student consents to a romantic relationship with a Faculty member, administrator, or staff member, the existence of such a relationship could have unintended adverse effects on the educational environment of the College. In some cases such a relationship can end unhappily or become problematic, resulting in charges of sexual harassment, and even physical or psychological abuse.

Some circumstances in which Faculty members, administrators, staff members work with students can have the potential for the exploitation of students. For example, a work-study student might be asked to perform services that go beyond the terms and conditions of the work-study assignment, e.g. child care, personal business transactions. In such cases, it must be clear that the student may decline such personal invitations without any adverse consequences. It may be that a work-study student will respond to an invitation to provide personal assistance, but this relationship must be one in which the student volunteers, is offered and accepts a fair wage for services, and one which bears no relationship to the continuation of or the evaluation of the work-study assignment.

Because of the commitment to maintaining an environment that supports our educational goals Rhodes College prohibits romantic, sexual, and exploitative relationships between college employees and students. In the event that any such relationship is reported and confirmed the college employee is subject to employee disciplinary procedures up to and including termination in the case of administrators and staff members, or dismissal for cause in the case of Faculty members. The policies and procedures for employee disciplinary procedures and dismissal for cause, as outlined in the College Handbook, apply in all such cases.

There are exceptional circumstances in which the spouse or partner of a college employee is a student at the College. This fraternization policy does not apply in such circumstances. The Vice President for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Chief Human Resources Officer, is the administrative officer who determines whether an exceptional circumstance applies.

Rhodes College prohibits and will not tolerate sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is reprehensible. It violates the personal rights, growth, and integrity of the victim. It is especially damaging when it involves exploitation of the relationship between Faculty members or administrators on the one hand and students on the other or between superiors and subordinates of any kind. When the authority and power inherent in such relationships is abused, there is damage not only to individual victims but also to the educational climate of the College.

The free search for truth and its free exposition are at the heart of a Rhodes education. Academic freedom protects this process by granting Faculty members freedom of inquiry and expression while defining the special responsibilities that accompany them.

Officers of instruction shall have the freedom to determine, consistent with each course’s description, the specific content of the courses they teach. They have the responsibility to avoid departing from their areas of competence or devoting time to material extraneous to the subject matter of the course.

Officers of instruction shall have full freedom in carrying out their research and in publication of the results, consistent with the performance of their other academic duties. Research or consulting for pecuniary return may be undertaken only with the approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

When officers of instruction speak or write as citizens or as members of a learned profession they shall be free of institutional restraints. While they may identify themselves as Rhodes Faculty, they have the concurrent obligation to state that they are not speaking for the College. The public statements of officers of instruction should be accurate, and should show restraint and respect for the opinions of others.

The College seeks to provide a liberal arts and sciences curriculum that is imaginative and evolving: imaginative, in that it makes an appeal to faculty members and students alike to engage in study that will take both beyond their current understanding; and, evolving, in that it is structured and regularly assessed to achieve the best environment in which the intellectual advancement of both faculty and students can be pursued and realized.

Such a curriculum is possible only if there is effective teaching of students, active scholarly engagement within academic disciplines, and conscientious service to the College community on the part of all faculty members of the College. These three activities are the basis of performance evaluations of faculty members at the College.

Effective teachers are enthusiastic about their disciplines and imaginative in presenting them. They work confidently in their discipline, and they are able to make sound professional judgments about it. They demonstrate their command of the discipline by presenting it systematically and coherently, by making important connections between their discipline and other related fields of study, and by actively probing the boundaries and limitations of their disciplines.

Effective teachers are committed to the intellectual development of their students. They accomplish this by encouraging the maturing of critical faculties, the cultivation of analytic and synthetic abilities, and the focusing of creative imagination. Effective teachers are attentive to the progress of each of their students and encourage each student to become seriously engaged with the subject of the course.

Effective teachers design and teach courses that challenge students to grow intellectually. They are demanding, set high standards, and make their learning objectives clear. Effective teachers seek to develop and improve their pedagogical skills.

Faculty work that is pedagogical is considered to be teaching. Mentoring student scholarship is also considered to be teaching. If such collaborative work results in a peer-reviewed publication, the outcome is considered to be scholarship.

Faculty members at Rhodes are actively engaged with their academic fields as scholars and artists. They are confident exponents and interpreters in the practice of their disciplines. They have an abiding interest in and passion for their discipline.

Faculty scholarship is the development and use of skills and competencies, appropriate to one’s discipline, to address issues within and challenges of the discipline and to enrich the discipline by informed, critical study or performance. The expectation is that these skills and competencies will advance the discipline.

Faculty scholarship includes both research and creative activities. Faculty research refers to original scholarly activity that is intended principally for academic and professional peers and is subject to a peer review process. This research should culminate, where appropriate, in peer-reviewed conference presentations, articles, essays, monographs, or books. Such research may also generate external grants. Creative activity refers to work that reflects an active engagement with the discipline typically intended for an audience not limited to academic peers. Typical forms of creative activity are works of art, productions, compositions, and performances.

Some faculty investigate interdisciplinary research questions or explore issues in fields outside their discipline. Such work is expected to undergo the same rigorous peer review processes as work within a traditional discipline.

Invited expert testimony, consultant assignments, book reviews, participation in professional meetings in roles such as panel chair or discussant, non-peer-reviewed publications, review work for journals or book publishers, and outside reviews of the work of Faculty colleagues comprise professional citizenship activities. These activities are contributions to one’s discipline and valued as part of a faculty member’s professional life at, and on behalf of, the College, but do not substitute for faculty research/creative activity.

Academic Departments work with the Office of Academic Affairs to develop expectations for the assessment of scholarship, making clear how the forms of research/creative activity, appropriate to that discipline, are weighted in the evaluation process. The Office of Academic Affairs, in consultation with department chairs, regularly reviews  these departmental expectations in order to maintain a level of parity across departments.

Members of the Faculty serve Rhodes in many ways that go beyond formal teaching duties and scholarship. Faculty service is essential in creating the community within which our shared work is best accomplished.

Student advising is a critically important service activity. Faculty members will serve as advisors to students majoring in their disciplines, but will also regularly serve as advisors to entering first year students. Faculty members affilitated with master's programs will also serve as advisors for students in the relevant graduate programs. Academic advising includes the routine activities of meeting with advisees, monitoring academic progress, reviewing course grades, responding to notices of academic warning, making registration materials available, and reviewing petitions concerning academic regulations. However, academic advising is also an opportunity to help a student realize his/her academic potential and to utilize the resources at the College to assist a student in envisioning and shaping his/her longer term goals, and to counsel and nurture a student as he/she confronts the inevitable challenges of a collegiate environment.

The Faculty of Rhodes is given and carries out a major role in the planning and implementation of the academic program of the College. Faculty members must assume obligations within the governance structure of the College by attending Faculty meetings, serving on and providing leadership on committees, carrying out departmental functions, and other special assignments that work to ensure that the College provides an excellent educational program for its students. Faculty members demonstrate support for the intellectual life of the College by organizing and participating in events, such as guest lectures, symposia, workshops and seminars. In addition, faculty members serve in ways that develop and nurture a viable Faculty cohort, such as recruitment of Faculty and reviews of colleagues.

The College is an institution whose mission includes service within the greater Memphis community. The College, therefore, values the services rendered by faculty members who apply their professional skills to work that benefits the larger community.

Section VIII establishes the standards of evaluation assigned to each of the three areas of faculty work. Assessments using these standards provide the basis for decisions on reappointment, tenure, and promotion. The College expects a record of excellence in all three areas of assessment, except in instances of non-tenure track faculty seeking promotions (indicated below). Candidates for tenure and/or promotion must meet the standard in each area, commensurate with appointment.

Candidates who reside and teach primarily in departments are evaluated by senior departmental faculty in accordance with procedures in Section IX. For candidates who reside in departments but have interdisciplinary research and/or creative activity programs and/or significant interdisciplinary teaching and service commitments, the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the department and program Chairs, will appoint senior colleagues from the department and the program to evaluate candidates. For candidates with primary appointments in interdisciplinary programs, the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the program Chair will appoint senior colleagues from the interdisciplinary program to evaluate candidates. These procedures are also described in Section IX.

If evaluation criteria are changed within the two-year period prior to tenure evaluation, a tenure candidate may, at his or her request, be evaluated by the criteria in effect during the year of the candidate’s fourth-year review. Such a request must be submitted to the Vice President for Academic Affairs in writing as a part of the tenure application.

Teaching: Effective teaching is central to Rhodes’ educational mission. Teaching includes traditional classroom and laboratory instruction (disciplinary or interdisciplinary), leading internships or fellowships, and supervising directed inquiries, honors projects and/or other forms of student research or creative activity. In evaluating performance in this area, the following standards apply:

• Faculty members sustain in their classes a consistent engagement with matters of substance and importance in the subject area.
• Faculty members demonstrate command of the subject material and the critical issues surrounding it.
• Faculty members construct syllabi that make grading policies and course goals clear.
• Faculty members design student assignments and projects that demonstrably advance course goals.
• Faculty members organize courses in ways that reflect an effective pedagogy, and result in successful educational outcomes.
• Faculty members develop in students the ability to think critically on the subjects studied and to communicate effectively about these subjects.

Rhodes College evaluates teaching by gathering input from students, colleagues, a committee whose charge is specifically to review a faculty member’s in-class performance and teaching materials, as well as by members of the Tenure and Promotion Committee that have access to all of the materials relevant to a particular faculty member’s promotion.

Scholarship: Appointment to the Rhodes Faculty is made with the expectation that faculty members bring with them a commitment to advancing scholarly knowledge and/or producing creative works in their field. In evaluating a faculty member’s performance in this area, the following general standards apply:

• Faculty members demonstrate their ongoing engagement in original research and/or creative activity by the regular appearance of original scholarly work which includes peer-reviewed products, juried exhibits/performances, and products that have undergone rigorous scholarly evaluation appropriate to the discipline.
• Each academic department of the College provides a Statement of Expectations that articulates in more detail the specifics of each discipline with regard to appropriate forms of peer review and scholarly products. These expectations should consider related interdisciplinary research and/or creative activity programs. The departmental expectations are subject to review and approval by the Office of Academic Affairs.
• Each interdisciplinary program with tenure-track faculty appointments provides a Statement of Expectations that articulates in more detail the specifics of what constitutes appropriate forms of peer review and scholarly products. The program expectations are subject to review and approval by the Office of Academic Affairs.
• The quality and the quantity of juried or peer-reviewed work are both important indicators of achievement in scholarship. The quality and quantity of a candidate’s scholarly work is evaluated internally by departmental and/or program colleagues and externally by peer evaluators within the candidate’s discipline(s). The Tenure and Promotion Committee, drawn from representatives of all College divisions, gathers all of these materials together, reviews and evaluates them, and forwards a recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Vice President for Academic Affairs considers all of these evaluations in determining a final recommendation to the President of the College.
• Faculty members, particularly those at the rank of associate professor and professor, are expected to participate in the activities associated with effective professional citizenship, such as reviewing articles and manuscripts for scholarly publications, organizing conferences and panels, serving as a commentator on a scholarly panel, delivering invited talks, taking on leadership roles within professional organizations, and the like. While not a substitute for the appearance of scholarly work as defined above, these activities provide a means by which scholars remain actively involved in their scholarly communities as well as engaged and up to date in their own scholarship.

Service: Effective professional service involves contributing to the operation and welfare of the College, the departmental and/or program, and the larger community. The operation and welfare of the College involve a number of important responsibilities invested in the Faculty. The governance structure of the College serves to distribute these collegial duties in a fair and effective manner. Normally, major leadership responsibilities, such as chairing standing committees, ad-hoc committees, working groups, academic departments, or academic programs, should be assigned to senior faculty members. In evaluating a faculty member’s service, the following standards apply:

• A faculty member is an effective advisor to students and regularly advises both incoming students – through the students’ declaration of major – and continuing students within the major. Aiding students (for example, but not limited to, advisees and research students) who seek post-graduate scholarships and/or admission to professional and graduate schools by providing counsel and, where appropriate, preparing letters of reference is also expected. A faculty member’s work as an advisor is assessed by the Tenure and Promotion Committee using a student survey of all of a faculty member’s advisees, past and current. Additionally, the College recognizes that certain faculty members may participate in advising of students not officially assigned to them (unofficial advisees). This, in many cases, may fall to faculty from marginalized groups in greater proportions. If the faculty member wishes to include this service as evidence of service to the College during the faculty review, this form of service is eligible to be assessed in the same manner as a faculty member's official advisees.
• Faculty members participate in the administrative work of their departmental and/or program. This work includes participating in departmental and/or program meetings, faculty development and evaluation activities, curriculum reviews, and implementation of curriculum changes; overseeing library and other academic resources; aiding in the recruitment of students and new faculty; and supporting departmental and/or program co-curricular activities. Departmental and/or program colleagues are expected to include in their letters to the Tenure and Promotion Committee their assessment of a candidate’s contributions to the work of the departmental and/or program.
• Faculty members participate in the governance of the Faculty and the College. Faculty members are expected to serve the College through such channels as membership on standing committees of the Faculty, administrative committees of the College or Board of Trustees, ad hoc committees, working groups, or task forces, engaging in and/or providing leadership for appropriate co-curricular activities, and/or activities that develop and sustain the College’s connections to external communities. Faculty members are also expected to work with other departments to help with faculty recruitment, development, and evaluation. The Tenure and Promotion Committee relies in this case on the evaluation of a candidate’s contributions in service by colleagues and College staff members who have served with the candidate during the probationary period.

Effective service means not only becoming a member of one or more of the many committees on campus, but also participating in a significant and effective way while upholding the college’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. This commitment can be upheld through service beyond or outside of traditional service on committees. As such, faculty members are expected to work productively and respectfully with students, staff, and colleagues in both the department and the College. Work that fosters both equity and an environment inclusive of a variety of people and respectful of a variety of points of view is highly prized. Evidence of such commitment to effective service in the past and the prospect of a continuing commitment are thus important factors in decisions about reappointment, promotion, and tenure.

Levels of assessment: As noted above, the College expects a record of excellence in all three areas of assessment. Faculty work is assessed as either meeting or not meeting the high standards expected by the College. In the second- and fourth-year reviews particular attention will be paid to the trajectory of work exhibited by the probationary faculty member with an eye towards the level of achievement necessary for a successful sixth-year review.

Contributions to the tenure decision are made by students, faculty colleagues, outside evaluators, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President of the College. A decision to recommend tenure remains a matter of judgment by the relevant individuals at the College, based on their reading of the evidence and projection of the candidate′s future performance. The recommendation is reached after careful attention to the procedures authorized in Processes and Procedures to be followed in the Evaluation of a Member of the Faculty (Section IX).

The importance of the three areas of the work of the Faculty: All faculty members are required to be engaged in teaching, research/creative activity, and service throughout their career at the College. Care should be taken by the faculty member and those in academic administrative positions to ensure that no one component threatens to compromise a faculty member’s overall performance over extended periods of time.

The College therefore affirms the following:

During the probationary years (normally, the first year through the sixth year of service to the College): The focus at this stage should be on a faculty member’s work as a teacher and scholar/artist – on becoming skilled in the classroom and established as an authoritative contributor to one’s discipline. Service to the College is not a substitute for meeting the standard in teaching and in research and/or creative activity, so care should be taken to ensure that a probationary faculty member’s service involvements do not interfere with his or her development as a teacher and scholar/artist. Service activities early in a faculty member’s career should focus on developing skills and competency as an advisor to students and as a departmental and/or program colleague. After a successful fourth year review, service should normally expand to include work on college-wide committees and/or on campus-wide initiatives.

Following the probationary years (normally, the seventh year of service until retirement): Becoming a senior member of the Faculty entails assuming a more prominent role in faculty governance (e.g., by serving as department or program chair, providing effective service and leadership on college-wide faculty committees or task forces, initiating curricular reform or program development).

Concentrated efforts in pedagogical and/or curricular development may take away time from research/creative activity and service. The awarding of a major grant may involve a reduction in teaching load and in service commitments for the grant period. While such shifts are appropriate, they should be carefully monitored. The post-tenure evaluation cycle provides room for such shifts while also monitoring them to prevent more extensive involvement in one area from compromising a faculty member’s performance in other areas.

Normally, heavy service commitments should not last longer than six consecutive years in order to ensure that every faculty member remains an active and energized teacher and scholar. Care should be taken by each faculty member and those in academic administrative positions to ensure a profile for each faculty member that is in keeping with the College’s standards. Ideally, the equitable distribution of workload across the Faculty is done with the intention of making possible this profile.

Promotion of non-tenure track faculty: In rare circumstances, long-term, full-time, non-tenure track faculty holding the rank of Assistant Professor may seek promotion to the associate level. Such promotion may be sought in the tenth year, normally after three successful tri-annual reviews, commensurate with contractual obligations. Candidates will be assessed on the same teaching and service standards as tenure-track faculty.

The work of the Faculty is outlined in Section VII. This work is expected to be done at a level of accomplishment that meets or exceeds the standard of excellence set by the College as detailed in Section VIII above. This section of the “Statement of Policies and Procedures in regard to Faculty” is a compilation of the procedures that govern the collection of information about the performance of a faculty member. It identifies those persons, committees, and administrative officers involved in the task of making assessments.

Assessments of Faculty occur periodically, based on the standing of a member of the Faculty. Probationary members of the Faculty undergo reviews at the Department/program level (A below), in their second year (B below), in their fourth year (C below) and in their sixth year (D below) of appointment. These reviews focus on progress towards and eligibility for a contract with tenure in the seventh year of appointment. Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor normally coincides with the awarding of tenure. Subsequent to the granting of a contract with tenure, members of the Faculty are reviewed every six years (E below). A special review applies to those members of the Faculty who are eligible and apply for promotion to the rank of Professor (F below).

Input into the assessment processes includes evaluations by students, by colleagues both within and from outside the department/program of the faculty member, and in some cases by faculty members at other institutions within the discipline of the faculty member.

Evaluation by students is achieved in two ways:

1. Near the end of a course, a college-wide evaluation instrument, approved by the Faculty and the Vice President for Academic Affairs, is administered.
2. Questionnaires are distributed in support of the fourth- and sixth-year reviews and in support of the review for promotion to Full Professor.

The college-wide student evaluations are administered in all courses taught by probationary faculty members and part-time officers of instruction, and in at least one course taught each semester by each tenured faculty member. In the latter case, evaluations should be administered to ensure that the variety of courses taught by each tenured faculty member is represented.

For each of the reviews outlined below, the special obligations of colleagues for assessments are noted. Colleague evaluations from within or beyond the Rhodes Faculty may be requested at any time should the department and/or program Chair(s) and the Vice President for Academic Affairs deem it necessary.

A shift in curricular requirements or a substantial change in enrollment patterns may make it necessary to change the definition of a position in the Faculty from tenure-track to temporary or to eliminate the position entirely. The tenure-track member of the Faculty in such a position will be informed about the possibility of a change in status as early as is reasonably possible. Reappointment or tenure may be denied if such shifts have reduced the need for a permanent position in the department/program of the faculty member.

Terms and definitions that apply to section IX:

Candidate – Any faculty member undergoing an evaluation.

CV – A faculty member’s CV may be disciplinarily specific but for evaluative purposes should include at a minimum all professional work accomplished by the faculty member and all records of service to the College and community.

Portfolio – For purposes of evaluation a portfolio consists of a current CV, annual Position Responsibility Statement(s) (PRS), a list of courses taught during the evaluation period, syllabi for each of these courses, and samples of assigned work and exams. Copies of all scholarly achievements (e.g., published work, sound recordings, images of artwork, etc.) should be included in the portfolio. The portfolio also includes a narrative statement (normally three-five double-spaced, pages) that discusses the faculty member’s performance and trajectory in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Examples of types of information to discuss include: a description of teaching philosophy as it relates to courses taught during this period, a description of the feedback given to students on graded assignments, additional teaching experiences, new course development, major changes to existing courses, any initiatives taken to improve teaching, a description of scholarship that has been completed or published during the review period as well as a trajectory for ongoing scholarly activities, and a description of forms of service to the department/program, College, and/or to the wider community, and any other forms of professional activity within the faculty member’s academic discipline. Candidates should update their portfolios annually; these portfolios will be assessed at all stages of review during the probationary period and post-tenure reviews.

Position Responsibility Statement (PRS) - This is a narrative description of faculty responsibilities in teaching, scholarship, and institutional service created in collaboration by the faculty member, Department Chair, Program Chair, and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The PRS specifies teaching commitments to departments and programs, scholarship expectations for the candidate, advising and general service expectations, and evaluation personnel.

Scholarship –research and/or creative activity outcomes as specified in department or program scholarship expectations. All department and program scholarship expectations are approved by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Each candidate’s scholarship or creative activity expectations are specified in the PRS.

Senior member of the department/program – A full-time, tenured faculty member in the department/program.

Teaching Evaluation Committee – A group of three or four colleagues appointed during the candidate’s first term with special responsibility for assessing classroom teaching during the second-, fourth-, and sixth-year reviews. The members of this committee will normally continue to serve during the candidate’s entire probationary period. Normally, these committees are comprised of the Chair of the faculty member’s home department or home program and two senior faculty members. For faculty with significant interdisciplinary teaching commitments, the Chair of the program normally will serve on the Teaching Evaluation Committee. In the sixth-year review, this group also includes a senior faculty member who does not reside in the candidate’s department or program. Where fewer than three senior members of the department/program exist, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Chair of the Department/Program, will appoint ad hoc members to fill out these committees as necessary. Committee membership for all Teaching Evaluation Committees leading up to tenure will be specified in the PRS in the first year of the candidate’s appointment.

Tenure-track faculty member – A faculty member in her or his first six years of service at the College, who is on a tenure-track appointment but has not yet achieved tenure.

Special Provisions for Changes in Section IX of the “Statement of Policies and Procedures in regard to Faculty”

Modifications in the processes and procedures outlined in this section of the “Statement of Policies and Procedures in regard to Faculty” are operational matters. Modifications may be initiated by committees of the Faculty or by members of the College administration. All modifications must be approved by the Faculty and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Modifications are then reported to the Committee of Student Learning of the Board of Trustees. The Committee may bring such matters to the attention of the Board of Trustees for further action as deemed necessary. As such, changes in this section (Section IX) fall outside the procedure for modifying the “Statement of Policies and Procedures in regard to Faculty” prescribed in Section I.

Overview: In the spring semester of years one, three, and five, tenure-track faculty will undergo reviews at the departmental/program level. These reviews are designed to ensure that, when a faculty member is not undergoing a second- or fourth-year review, or a tenure review, ongoing attention is given to the trajectory toward tenure. In the third and fifth years, it will be important to focus on any areas where suggestions for improvement were made to the faculty member in the preceding year’s review.

First-Year Review

The Process: The first-year review is conducted by the department/program Chair early in the spring semester (January) of the tenure-track faculty member’s first year of service to the College. The first-year review is formative in nature as it occurs after only one semester. The candidate will submit a portfolio according to instructions provided by the Office of Academic Affairs that includes materials on teaching, scholarship, and service. The department/program Chair (or, with the approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, a designated senior colleague in the department/program) will observe the candidate’s teaching during the fall semester and meet with the candidate to provide appropriate feedback. The purpose of these visits is to support and guide the candidate toward effective teaching at Rhodes. The Chair and the candidate should work together to determine the timing of class visits to help promote the candidate’s development. Additionally, the department/program Chair will review the candidate’s college-wide student evaluations and grade distributions for all classes taught during the first semester. The department/program Chair and a representative for Academic Affairs will meet with the candidate to discuss his or her progress, plans for future work, and the College’s expectations in all three areas of assessment.

Third-Year and Fifth-Year Reviews

The Process: The third-year and fifth-year reviews are conducted by the department/program Chair early in the spring semester (January) of the tenure track faculty member’s third or fifth year of service to the College, respectively. The department/program Chair reviews materials on teaching, scholarship, and service included in the candidate’s updated portfolio. The department/program Chair (or, with the approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, a designated senior colleague in the department/program) will observe the candidate’s teaching during the fall semester and meet with the candidate to provide appropriate feedback. The purpose of these visits is to support and guide the candidate toward effective teaching at Rhodes. The chair and the candidate should work together to determine the timing of class visits to help promote the candidate’s development. The department/program Chair will also review college-wide student evaluations and grade distributions for all classes taught during the review period. The department/program Chair determines whether progress in each category of evaluation is satisfactory or if there are areas of concern. In the third-year, the department/program Chair will also consider feedback provided to the faculty member during the second-year review and assess whether progress is being made by the candidate in any areas identified as needing improvement. In the fifth-year, feedback provided during the fourth-year review will be considered in a similar fashion. The department/program Chair then meets with the candidate to discuss the Chair’s assessment as well as the candidate’s plans for future work. If no concerns are noted, this concludes the review process.

If there are any areas of concern, the department/program Chair also schedules a meeting with the Vice President for Academic Affairs to discuss the outcome of the review. In the event of such a meeting, the department/program Chair conveys in writing the results of the evaluation (including feedback from the Vice President for Academic Affairs) to the candidate. The department/program Chair will also send a copy of this letter to the Vice President for Academic Affairs that will be maintained in the Office of Academic Affairs throughout the candidate’s tenure-track period of service to the College, and it is available to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion upon request during a sixth-year review.

Overview: A tenure-track member of the faculty undergoes a second-year review in the spring semester of the second year of the first six years of his or her appointment. As both formative and summative, this review provides feedback on progress towards a successful tenure review and identifies areas that require attention prior to a tenure review.

The Process: The second-year review is conducted very early in the spring semester (January) by the tenure-track faculty member’s department/program Chair. The candidate prepares an updated portfolio for this review. The department/program Chair reviews materials on teaching, scholarship and service included in the candidate’s portfolio. The department/program Chair (or, with the approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, a designated senior colleague in the department/program) will also observe three of the candidate’s classes in the fall semester prior to the review. Additionally, the department/program Chair will review the candidate’s college-wide student evaluations and grade distributions for all classes taught during the review period.

The department Chair will receive input from at least two senior members of the department. The program Chair will receive input from at least two senior faculty members in the program or faculty designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Faculty housed in departments but engaged in significant interdisciplinary scholarship or significant and regular teaching in interdisciplinary programs will be evaluated by the department Chair and two other senior faculty, normally the program Chair and a senior faculty member designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the Chairs. These senior members of the department and/or program will be identified in the fall of the candidate’s first year of service at the College and designated in the PRS. When possible, the senior faculty who participate in the second-year review will remain in place through the tenure review in order to ensure continuity of observation and feedback.

Input from these senior department/program members will be informed by observations from class visits during the previous two semesters (at least one class session during the first year and one class session in the fall semester of the second year) and a review of the candidate’s portfolio. These senior members of the department/program will meet as a group with the department/program Chair to discuss their observations and findings.

The department/program Chair then makes a determination regarding the candidate’s progress in each category of evaluation using the description of performance described in the previous section (Section VIII). The department/program Chair then meets with the candidate to discuss the Chair’s assessment as well as the candidate’s plans for future work.

The department/program Chair’s written assessment of the candidate’s progress in each category of evaluation (including the reasons for the assessments) and the candidate’s portfolio are sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, usually late in January. The Vice President for Academic Affairs will have an initial meeting with the department/program Chair to discuss the Chair’s assessment and the Vice President’s assessment of the candidate’s progress. This is followed by a meeting with the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the department/program Chair, and the candidate to discuss his or her progress. The Vice President for Academic Affairs will provide a written summary of the outcome of the review focusing on the candidate’s progress in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service with recommendations for improvement when necessary. If progress is deemed to be insufficient, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will communicate this in the letter as well. This letter will become part of the official record examined during the fourth-year review. After the meeting with the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the department/program Chair will have a follow-up meeting with the candidate to discuss the feedback from the review process and to assist the candidate in identifying strategies to foster an ongoing positive trajectory in each category of evaluation.

In the case of departments/programs with fewer than three senior faculty members, an ad hoc department/program committee for a tenure-track faculty member will be constituted in the first year and specified in the PRS. One or two ad hoc department/program committee members will be designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the senior members of the candidate’s department/program and the candidate. Ad hoc department/program committee members will be expected to engage in regular classroom visitations, as well as have a conversation with the candidate concerning teaching and scholarship expectations. Normally, the ad hoc department/program committee will continue to evaluate the candidate through the tenure review, even if the department/program grows to more than three senior members between the candidate’s first and sixth year. This will help to ensure continuity of observation and feedback throughout the probationary period.

Overview: The fourth-year review is both formative and summative. It considers the same three areas of faculty performance as the second-year review, but is broader in scope in that all tenured faculty participating in the review provide a written assessment of a candidate. The fourth-year review is particularly crucial for determining the likelihood of success during the tenure review for a faculty member at the College. The fourth-year review is also done with attention given to the College’s needs for the position in the faculty member’s discipline.

Faculty housed in academic departments are evaluated at the fourth year by all tenured departmental faculty members. 

Faculty housed in interdisciplinary programs are evaluated by a committee of senior faculty constituted in the first year by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the program Chair and specified in the PRS. Normally, this committee will include the program Chair and two senior faculty involved in the candidate’s second-year review, and possibly other senior faculty with appropriate expertise. When possible, this review committee will stay in place through the candidate’s sixth-year in order to ensure continuity of observation and feedback.

Faculty housed in departments but engaged in significant interdisciplinary scholarship or have significant and regular teaching commitments to interdisciplinary programs will be evaluated by all tenured departmental faculty members, but in these cases the review will normally include the Chair of the relevant interdisciplinary program and/or other tenured program faculty with relevant scholarship and/or teaching expertise. The decision to expand the review beyond the department will be made by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the department Chair, the program Chair, and the candidate and will be specified in the PRS. Normally this decision will be made in the first year, and when possible, the department and program faculty for the fourth-year review will remain in place through the tenure review in order to ensure continuity of observation and feedback.

The fourth-year review takes place in the fall semester of the candidate’s fourth year of service to the College. The review process is initiated in August, with data collection early in the fall semester. It concludes in December with a meeting attended by the candidate, department/program Chair, and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

The Process: By the first day of the fall semester, the candidate will submit an updated portfolio according to instructions provided by the Office of Academic Affairs. During the fall semester, the Office of Academic Affairs will distribute questionnaires to be completed by all students who have completed a class (or classes) with the candidate and earned grades of A through D- during his or her first six semesters of teaching at the College. If the Vice President for Academic Affairs believes more information on teaching performance is needed, a representative for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair will co-conduct interviews with selected students. The Office of Academic Affairs will also send questionnaires to all of the candidate’s official and unofficial advisees, and will collect copies of all of the candidate’s college-generated course evaluations.

Senior departmental/program faculty members will review the candidate’s portfolio and visit at least one class. Faculty who are members of the Teaching Evaluation Committee will visit a minimum of three classes during the first semester of the candidate’s fourth year. Senior faculty members will meet as a group with the department/program Chair to discuss the candidate’s performance in teaching, scholarship, and service over the four years, his or her suitability for renewal, and suggestions for possible improvement, where necessary. Each senior member writes a letter of his or her assessment of the candidate; this letter is submitted according to instructions provided by the Office of Academic Affairs. In addition to his or her independent assessment, the department/program Chair’s letter to the Vice President for Academic Affairs addresses any problems raised by the senior faculty members taking part in the review.

The candidate has the option of soliciting additional letters from faculty and staff members that focus on the candidate’s service performance and campus citizenship, and one optional letter from a representative outside of the Rhodes College community. These letters should be submitted according to instructions provided by the Office of Academic Affairs. The remainder of the review, which culminates in December, is carried out by the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair. A final assessment of performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service is given in writing by the Vice President for Academic Affairs to the candidate at the review’s conclusion.

A faculty member not meeting the College’s standards and/or not making adequate progress toward tenure in any area of evaluation (teaching, scholarship, or service) following the fourth-year review will not have his or her contract renewed after the fifth year of appointment. This candidate does not undergo a sixth-year review. The fifth year constitutes the twelve months’ notice of non-reappointment.

The materials compiled during the fourth-year review will be maintained by the Office of Academic Affairs and will be available to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion upon request during a tenure review.

The tenure review process is a comprehensive assessment of the work of a faculty member. It is a review of the work of the candidate since the beginning of his or her appointment as well as an attempt to gauge a trajectory of the candidate’s career at the College. A candidate for tenure must hold the Ph.D. degree or other appropriate terminal degree.

The group of senior faculty who evaluate the candidate during the tenure review is constituted in parallel with the procedure for the fourth-year review. Faculty housed in academic departments are evaluated for tenure by all tenured departmental faculty members. 

Faculty housed in interdisciplinary programs are evaluated by a committee of senior faculty constituted in the first year by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the program Chair and specified in the PRS. Normally, this committee will include the program Chair and the senior faculty involved in the candidate’s fourth-year review, and other possibly other senior faculty with appropriate expertise.

Faculty housed in departments but engaged in significant interdisciplinary scholarship or significant and regular teaching in interdisciplinary programs will be evaluated by all tenured departmental faculty members, but in these cases the review will normally include the Chair of the relevant interdisciplinary program and/or other tenured program faculty with relevant scholarship and/or teaching expertise. The decision to expand the review beyond the department will be made by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the department Chair, the program Chair, and the candidate and will be specified in the PRS. When possible, extra-departmental faculty participating in the tenure review will include those who evaluated the candidate in the fourth-year review.

By May 31 (preceding the academic year of review), the candidate for tenure submits the names of at least six outside reviewers of professional work. At the start of the year of the review, the candidate for tenure prepares an updated portfolio, together with supplemental materials described below. The Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, the candidate’s department/program Chair, and the Office of Academic Affairs then work together to gather all of the documentation required for the review. A number of steps are involved in this process:

• A designated representative for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion contact the Teaching Evaluation Committee assembled prior to the fourth-year review. Four external reviewers are secured to assist in evaluating the candidate’s scholarship. A designated Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion select two outside reviewers from a list created by the candidate. The designated representative for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Chair of the candidate’s department/program and with the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, selects two additional reviewers. The representative for Academic Affairs contacts outside reviewers to secure their agreement to participate in the process of assessment and forwards the materials to be reviewed.
• The Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion obtains a list of students taught by the candidate. These students receive a survey about the candidate’s teaching effectiveness. A similar list is prepared to include all of the advisees served by the candidate. These students will receive a survey about the candidate’s work as an advisor. If the candidate provides an additional list of students considered as unofficial advisees and states the nature of their advising relationship with them, these students will also receive a survey about the candidate’s work as an unofficial advisor.
• The Chair of the Teaching Evaluation Committee convenes the committee, reviews the process of visitation, and oversees the timely preparation of letters for the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.
• The Chair of the Committee on Tenure and Promotion invites those faculty colleagues named by the candidate to submit letters of evaluation concerning service to the College.
• The Chair of the department/program reviews the process of evaluation at the departmental/program level with the senior members of the department/program early in the semester of review, and oversees the scheduling of class visits for senior faculty not appointed to the Teaching Evaluation Committee. He or she then convenes the department/program meeting to discuss the candidate’s performance at the end of the review process, and oversees the timely submission of letters for the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.

When all of the review materials have been assembled, the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion evaluates the candidate’s record of teaching, scholarship, and service. Deliberation by the Tenure and Promotion Committee usually occurs late in the fall semester of the review year. This committee makes a recommendation for or against the granting of tenure to the Vice President for Academic Affairs normally by February 15. The Vice President for Academic Affairs’ review of the case is completed by early March. The Vice President for Academic Affairs forwards his or her recommendation, along with the Tenure and Promotion Committee’s recommendation, to the President for review. The President’s decision, if positive, results in a recommendation for the granting of tenure and promotion that is sent to the Board of Trustees at their April meeting. Tenure is granted to members of the Rhodes Faculty by the Board of Trustees on the recommendation of the President (typically at that same meeting).

In completing the assessment and determining that a recommendation in favor of granting tenure is appropriate, the consensus of the department/program Chair, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President must be that there is a clear need for continuing a permanent position in the area of the faculty member’s expertise and teaching competence.

Normally no member of the Faculty may teach more than seven years at Rhodes without having been granted tenure; exceptions are made only in those special circumstances where a term contract is appropriate.

Promotion to Associate Professor normally accompanies a positive tenure decision as a natural consequence of meeting the standards for tenure. On rare occasions, promotion to Associate Professor may occur before completion of twelve semesters of full-time teaching as a way to recognize an unusually effective member of the Faculty. While such early promotion to Associate Professor requires evidence of outstanding contributions to the College, it does not guarantee a positive tenure review.

Tenure may be offered with the initial appointment of a senior academic to the Rhodes Faculty; in this case expedited reviews by the appropriate academic department/program, the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs are required.

A number of people or groups have roles in this process, and the responsibilities of each of these are outlined below.

The responsibilities of candidates for tenure are as follows:

1. Preparation of an updated portfolio in which the candidate presents relevant materials in support of the application for tenure. This portfolio would include the following

• A current curriculum vitae
• A written statement about the candidate’s work that focuses on contributions to the scholarship of the respective discipline(s) and the candidate’s teaching and service at Rhodes College.
• Copies of all scholarly work (publications, evidence of creative activities, etc.).
• Teaching materials including, but not limited to, syllabi, exams, study questions, laboratory exercises.
• An optional research statement that outlines the current and future trajectory of their scholarly work and/or places their scholarly work in the context of an overall strategy for external reviewers. 

2. Lists of the following possible evaluators:

A-Required:

• The names of the four members of the Faculty who served on the fourth-year Teaching Evaluation Committee.
• The names of at least six outside evaluators of professional work. All of these persons should be recognized scholars in the discipline. None should have a personal stake in the career of the candidate. The candidate provides a description of the extent of personal acquaintance, if any, the candidate has with each of the scholars named. At least two of the outside evaluators will be selected from this list.
• The names of three members of the Rhodes community (tenured faculty members and/or staff members) who can provide evaluations of service to the College. One of these can be a faculty or staff member who has left or retired from the College in the previous two years.

B-Optional:

• If the candidate chooses the option of soliciting an additional letter from a representative outside of the Rhodes College community that focuses on the candidate’s service performance and campus citizenship, then the candidate may provide the names of up to three individuals outside of the Rhodes community.
• If the candidate chooses the option of soliciting additional survey information from students that the candidate considers unofficial advisees, then the candidate may provide the names of these students and state the nature of their advising relationship with them.

The responsibilities of the senior members of the candidate’s department/program as specified in the PRS are as follows:

• Senior members review the materials prepared for the department/program by the candidate. Senior members should be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarship formulated by the academic department/program of the candidate. These have been established to present, in more detail, expectations for scholarship that must be met for a positive review at the department/program level.
• Senior members will observe at least one class during the fall semester of the review year. (Those senior members appointed to the Teaching Evaluation Committee will observe more classes, and their specific responsibilities are described below.)
• Senior members may seek further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, when that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s performance. While candidates for tenure cannot be privy to student, faculty, or outside colleague comments on their performance, they must be informed if the department/program has questions about matters which the candidate can reasonably be expected to answer or clarify. In such instances, the candidate makes a written response which becomes a document available throughout the review process.
• As a group, senior members meet with the Chair of the department/program to discuss the performance of the candidate, as measured against the College’s standards for reappointment with tenure. At the close of this meeting, each senior member will indicate whether or not, in her/his judgment, the candidate has met the College’s standard for excellent work in all three areas of evaluation: teaching (as defined in Handbook section 7A), scholarship (section 7B, and further clarified in the department/program expectations), and service (section 7C). The purpose of this meeting of senior department/program colleagues is to provide the candidate a clear and direct indication of the judgment of their department/program colleagues, while still preserving confidentiality, and so senior members are asked here only to judge whether the candidate has met the College’s standards for promotion and tenure, or not. This meeting will take place no later than November 1.
• Following this meeting the department/program Chair will prepare a very brief letter to the candidate summarizing its outcome. This letter will not contain names or number of votes. This department/program letter shall be conveyed to the candidate by November 15, with copies sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.
• Each senior member of the department/program writes an individual letter of assessment, covering all three areas (teaching, scholarship, and service) and submits the letter according to instructions provided by the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion. These letters are due by November 15.

The responsibilities of the Teaching Evaluation Committee are as follows:

• Committee members review the teaching materials prepared for the Committee by the candidate.
• Committee members will coordinate with the candidate to schedule visits to classes during the fall semester of the review.
• Each member of the Committee will visit a minimum of three different class sessions. The Committee will meet with the candidate at the conclusion of the class visits to discuss its observations and findings.
• Each member of the Committee then prepares a letter detailing his or her observations of the classes. When a member of the Teaching Evaluation Committee is also a senior department/program member, the letter writer should identify himself or herself as such and write a single letter. This letter will include a more substantial discussion of the candidate’s teaching than will the standard evaluation letter. All letters are submitted according to instructions provided by the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion. This letter is due by November 15.

The responsibilities of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion are as follows:

• In the event that a member of the Committee is from the same departmental/program as (or has served on an ad hoc evaluation committee for) the candidate, that member is excluded from the discussion and formulation of the Committee’s recommendation.
• A designated representative for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion select two outside reviewers from a list created by the candidate. The designated representative for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Chair of the candidate’s department/program and with the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, selects two additional reviewers.
• The Committee will apply the College’s standard of excellence in all three areas of assessment as described in Section VIII in assessing the performance of the candidate being reviewed over the entirety of his or her appointment at the College. The committee will be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarship as formulated by the academic department/program of the candidate.
• The Committee will request letters of evaluation of service/campus citizenship from three outside-of-the department/program colleagues/staff members selected by the candidate.
• If the candidate chose the option of soliciting an additional letter from a representative outside of the Rhodes College community, the Committee invites one of those individuals named by the candidate to submit a letter of evaluation concerning service.
• The Committee will distribute special surveys to the candidate’s advisees and students. In the assessment of teaching, only students with grades A through D- will be included. In addition to the special survey, the Committee will also review the record of teaching, as measured by the college-wide evaluation instrument, during the entirety of the candidate’s probationary years at the College.
• If the candidate chose the option of soliciting additional survey information from unofficial advisees and has stated the nature of their advising relationships, the Committee will distribute special surveys to the specified students.
• The Committee may seek any further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, where that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s performance. While candidates for tenure cannot be privy to student, faculty, or outside colleague comments on their performance, they must be informed if the committee has questions about matters which the candidate can reasonably be expected to answer or clarify. In such cases, the candidate makes a written response which becomes a document available throughout the review process.
• The Committee may consult materials compiled for the second-year and/or the fourth-year reviews.
• The Committee will make a recommendation in regard to appointment with tenure and promotion to Associate Professor to the Vice President for Academic Affairs normally by February 15 (the recommendation is provided at the same time to the President). A positive recommendation means that the committee has established to its satisfaction that the candidate has met the College’s standard of excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service and that based on this comprehensive review the pattern of excellence evidenced in the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service can be expected to be a distinguishing mark of the candidate’s continued work at the College.
• By mid-February the committee will inform the candidate in writing of its recommendation, positive or negative, with an explanation of the Committee’s reasoning in reaching its recommendation.

The responsibilities of the Provost are as follows: 

• The Provost will review all information collected in the process of assessment. 
• The Provost will weigh the recommendation of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, requesting from the Committee or its Chair additional information, if needed, to clarify the Committee’s recommendation. 
• The Provost will apply the College’s standard of excellence in all three areas of assessment as described in Section VIII in assessing the performance of the candidate being reviewed over the entirety of his or her appointment at the College, and will be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarship as formulated by the academic department/program of the candidate. 
• The Provost will make an independent recommendation for or against the granting of tenure which is then submitted, along with all materials collected in the process of assessment, to the President by early March. The Provost will meet with the President to discuss the recommendation. 
• Normally by mid-March the Provost will meet with the candidate and communicate his or her recommendation for or against the granting of tenure, along with that of the President. 
• After the meeting, the Provost will provide the candidate with a letter summarizing his or her recommendation. 
• The Provost will inform the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion and the candidate’s department/program Chair of both the Provost’s own recommendation and that of the President.

Personal circumstances may arise that warrant a delay in the tenure review of a faculty member. Examples may include, but are not limited to, the birth or adoption of a child or the need to care for a partner or family member who is seriously ill. In such cases, a faculty member is eligible to request a one-year postponement of the tenure review. This postponement will not change what is expected in the cumulative record of the faculty member in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service at the time of tenure consideration, even though the candidate will have been in the probationary period longer than six years. This extension of the probationary period is independent of and different from any full or partial leave of absence, although faculty who meet qualifications for the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) would also be eligible to request an extension of the probationary period. An extension of a faculty member’s service to seven or more years does not de facto grant tenure.

The faculty member wishing to request a postponement of the tenure review must submit this request in writing to the Provost, copying the department/program Chair. Requests normally will not be granted if made after the first Friday of March in the calendar year during which review materials are due to be submitted to the Tenure and Promotion Committee. In consultation with the department/program Chair and the Chief Human Resources Officer, the Provost will determine whether the extension will be granted. The Provost will issue a written reply to the faculty member, copying the department/program Chair and the Chief Human Resources Officer, within one month of the day the request was made. Requests for more than two postponements normally will not be granted. 

Overview: The review process is a comprehensive assessment of the work of a faculty member. It is a review of the work of the candidate since the beginning of his or her appointment as well as an attempt to gauge a trajectory of the candidate’s career at the college. A candidate for promotion must hold the Ph.D. degree or other appropriate terminal degree.

In the year prior to review, the candidate consults with the department/program Chair to discuss the viability of a promotion. The process for consideration begins with notification of intent to apply to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion at the end of the academic year preceding the academic year in which the review takes place (early May). At the start of the year of the review, the candidate for promotion prepares an updated portfolio, described below. The Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, the candidate’s department/program Chair, and the  Office of Academic Affairs then work together to gather all of the documentation required for the review. A number of steps are involved in this process:

• A designated representative for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion assemble a Teaching Evaluation Committee, working in consultation with the candidate’s department/program Chair, and as specified in the PRS.
• The Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion obtains a list of students taught by the candidate. These students receive a survey about the candidate’s teaching effectiveness. A similar list is prepared to include all of the advisees served by the candidate. These students will receive a survey about the candidate’s work as an advisor.
• The Chair of the Teaching Evaluation Committee convenes the committee, reviews the process of visitation, and oversees the timely preparation of letters for the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.
• The Chair of the Committee on Tenure and Promotion invites those non-departmental/non-program colleagues named by the candidate to submit letters of evaluation concerning service to the College.
• The Chair of the department/program reviews the process of evaluation at the department/program level with the senior members of the department/program early in the semester of review, and oversees the scheduling of class visits for senior faculty not appointed to the Teaching Evaluation Committee. The Chair then convenes the department/program meeting to discuss the candidate’s performance at the end of the review process, and oversees the timely submission of letters for the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.

When all of the review materials have been assembled, the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion evaluates the candidate’s record of teaching and service. Deliberation by the Tenure and Promotion Committee usually occurs late in the fall semester of the review year. This committee makes a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion to the Vice President for Academic Affairs by the end of the fall semester. The Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President undertake their own, respective, evaluations of the candidate’s record. The Vice President for Academic Affairs’s review of the case is completed by early March. The Vice President for Academic Affairs forwards his or her recommendation, along with the Tenure and Promotion Committee’s recommendation, to the President for review. The President’s decision, if positive, results in a recommendation for the granting of promotion that is sent to the Board of Trustees at their April Meeting. Promotion is granted to members of the Rhodes Faculty by the Board of Trustees on the recommendation of the President (typically at that same meeting).

In completing the assessment and determining that a recommendation in favor of granting promotion is appropriate, the consensus of the department/program Chair, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President must be that there is a need in the area of the faculty member’s expertise and teaching competence. Nothing in this paragraph alters the nature of the term contract appointments of nontenurable faculty or confers tenure on nontenurable faculty.

A number of people or groups have roles in this process, and the responsibilities of each of these are outlined below.

The responsibilities of candidates for promotion without tenure are as follows:

1. Preparation of an updated portfolio in which the candidate presents relevant materials in support of the application for tenure. This portfolio would include the following

• A current curriculum vitae.
• A written statement about the candidate’s work that focuses on the candidate’s teaching and service at Rhodes College.
• Teaching materials including, but not limited to syllabi, exams, study questions, laboratory exercises.

2. Lists of the following possible evaluators:

• The names of four members of the Faculty nominated by the candidate to serve on the Teaching Evaluation Committee; these members are to be tenured Faculty from the department/program and/or related departments/programs as specified in the PRS.
• The names of three members of the Rhodes community (tenured faculty members and/or staff members) who can provide evaluations of service to the College. One of these three can be a faculty or staff member who has left or retired from the College in the past two years. 

The responsibilities of the senior members of the candidate’s department/program are as follows: 

• Senior members review the materials prepared for the department/program by the candidate.
• Senior members will observe at least one class during the semester of the review year. (Those senior members appointed to the Teaching Evaluation Committee will observe more classes, and their specific responsibilities are described below.)
• Senior members may seek further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, when that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s performance. While candidates for promotion cannot be privy to student, faculty, or outside colleague comments on their performance, they must be informed if the department/program has questions about matters which the candidate can reasonably be expected to answer or clarify. In such instances, the candidate makes a written response which becomes a document available throughout the review process.
• As a group, senior members meet with the Chair of the department/program to discuss the performance of the candidate, as measured against the College’s standards for promotion. At the close of this meeting, each senior member will indicate whether or not, in her/his judgment, the candidate has met the College’s standard for excellent work in both areas of evaluation: teaching (as defined in Handbook section 7A) and service (section 7C). The purpose of this meeting of senior department /program colleagues is to provide the candidate a clear and direct indication of the judgment of their department/program colleagues, while still preserving confidentiality, and so senior members are asked here only to judge whether the candidate has met the College’s standards for promotion, or not. This meeting will take place no later than October 1.
• Following this meeting the department/program Chair will prepare a very brief letter to the candidate summarizing its outcome. This letter will not contain names or number of votes. This department/program letter shall be conveyed to the candidate by October 15, with copies sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.
• Each senior member of the department/program writes an individual letter of assessment, covering both areas (teaching and service) and submits the letter according to instructions provided by the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion. These letters are due by October 15. 

The responsibilities of the Teaching Evaluation Committee are as follows: 

• Committee members review the materials prepared for the Committee by the candidate.
• Committee members will coordinate with the candidate to schedule visits to classes during the fall semester of the review.
• Each member of the Committee will visit a minimum of three different class sessions. The Committee will meet with the candidate at the conclusion of the class visits to discuss its observations and findings.
• Each member of the Committee then prepares a letter detailing his or her observations of the classes. When a member of the Teaching Evaluation Committee is also a senior department/program member, the letter writer should identify himself or herself as such and write a single letter. This letter will include a more substantial discussion of the candidate’s teaching than will the standard evaluation letter. All letters are submitted according to instructions provided by the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion. This letter is due by October 15. 

The responsibilities of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion are as follows: 

• In the event that a member of the Committee is from the same department/program as (or has served on an ad hoc evaluation committee for) the candidate, that member is excluded from the discussion and formulation of the Committee’s recommendation.
• The Committee will apply the College’s standard of excellence in both areas of assessment as described in Section VIII in assessing the performance of the candidate being reviewed over the entirety of his or her appointment at the College.
• The Committee will request letters of evaluation of service/campus citizenship from three outside-of-the department/program colleagues/staff members selected by the candidate.
• The Committee will distribute special surveys to the candidate’s advisees and students. In the assessment of teaching, only students with grades A through D- will be included. In addition to the special survey, the Committee will also review the record of teaching, as measured by the college-wide evaluation instrument, during the entirety of the candidate’s years at the College.
• The Committee may seek any further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, where that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s performance. While candidates for promotion cannot be privy to student, faculty, or outside colleague comments on their performance, they must be informed if the committee has questions about matters which the candidate can reasonably be expected to answer or clarify. In such cases, the candidate makes a written response which becomes a document available throughout the review process.
• The Committee may consult materials compiled for the three preceding tri-annual reviews.
• The Committee will make a recommendation in regard to promotion to Associate Professor to the Vice President for Academic Affairs normally by the end of the fall semester (the recommendation is provided at the same time to the President). A positive recommendation means that the committee has established to its satisfaction that the candidate has met the College’s standard of excellence in teaching and service and that based on this comprehensive review the pattern of excellence evidenced in the candidate’s teaching and service can be expected to be a distinguishing mark of the candidate’s continued work at the College.
• By mid-February the Committee will inform the candidate in writing of its recommendation, positive or negative, with an explanation of the Committee’s reasoning in reaching its recommendation. 

The responsibilities of the Vice President for Academic Affairs are as follows: 

• The Vice President for Academic Affairswill review all information collected in the process of assessment.
• The Vice President for Academic Affairswill weigh the recommendation of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, requesting from the Committee or its Chair additional information, if needed, to clarify the Committee’s recommendation.
• The Vice President for Academic Affairswill apply the College’s standard of excellence in both areas of assessment as described in Section VIII in assessing the performance of the candidate being reviewed over the entirety of his or her appointment at the College.
• The Vice President for Academic Affairswill make an independent recommendation for or against the granting of promotion which is then submitted, along with all materials collected in the process of assessment, to the President by early January. The Vice President for Academic Affairswill meet with the President to discuss the recommendation.
• In mid-January the Vice President for Academic Affairswill meet with the candidate and communicate his or her recommendation for or against the granting of promotion, along with that of the President.
• At the end of the meeting, the Vice President for Academic Affairswill provide the candidate with a letter summarizing his or her recommendation.
• The Vice President for Academic Affairs will inform the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion and the candidate’s department/program Chair of both the Vice President’s own recommendation and that of the President.

Overview: Faculty members who achieve tenure at Rhodes College continue to develop as effective teachers and active scholars and as members who support in their service work the educational mission of the College. Tenured associate professors have a post-tenure review every six years, with a mid-period update at the third year. Tenured full professors have a post-promotion review every six years. The objective of these reviews is to provide opportunities for reflection and feedback on the tenured faculty member’s continued growth in teaching, scholarship, and service, and to provide a framework for discussions of long-term career planning, including, in the case of associate professors, promotion to professor.

Excellence as defined in Section VIII of the College Handbook remains the benchmark for tenured faculty. Excellence in the post-tenure period entails:

• A level of teaching effectiveness that maintains or exceeds the excellence required for tenure;
• Continued scholarly achievement, demonstrated by activities and outcomes appropriate for a recognized scholar in the field;
• Sustained and effective academic citizenship commensurate with level of experience.

The process for post-tenure review: During the first full academic year of service following the receipt of tenure, the faculty member prepares a non-binding prospectus of professional development for the next six years. This prospectus is written in consultation with the department/program Chair and filed with the Office of Academic Affairs. The prospectus addresses all three areas of evaluation. At six-year intervals thereafter until promotion to the rank of professor, the faculty member prepares a two-part professional development document, consisting of a reflection on the faculty member’s growth in teaching, scholarship, and service over the previous six-year period, and a prospectus for the next six years. The professional development document provides a framework for a review of the faculty member’s professional growth.

In the third year of each post-tenure review cycle, the faculty member prepares an update of the professional development document, indicating progress to date as well as any changes or updates to the prospectus. The faculty member presents this update and a current curriculum vitae to the department/program Chair. The department/program Chair also reviews whatever evidence of effective teaching seems appropriate to insure that the faculty member is continuing to meet the College’s standards of excellence in teaching. The faculty member and the department/program Chair meet to discuss the update along with any issues that may have arisen concerning teaching. The department/program Chair then sends a brief statement to the Vice President for Academic Affairs summarizing the outcome of that conversation. In the event that there are issues that appear to demand attention, the Vice President for Academic Affairs may request a meeting with the department/program Chair and/or the faculty member.

In early January of the post-tenure review year, the faculty member creates a portfolio containing:

• The professional development document
• A current curriculum vitae that includes
  • All scholarly or creative activity
  • Courses taught
  • Service to the College and the profession.
• Representative samples of course syllabi, exams, and assignments for courses taught during the previous six-year period, a list of any additional teaching (Directed Inquiries, undergraduate research/creative activity, honors research/creative activity, etc.), and a list of any new courses taught.
• Student evaluations from classes taught during the previous six-year period. Tenured faculty are required to have student evaluations conducted in one course each semester, selected in consultation with the department/program Chair to make sure that all types of teaching performed by the faculty member are represented in the review.

In addition to the portfolio, the department/program Chair reviews final grades given for all courses taught by the faculty member during the previous six-year period. This information is provided by the Data Services Office.

The department/program Chair meets with the faculty member to discuss the professional development document and the faculty member’s progress toward achieving career goals. The department/program Chair then writes an assessment of the faculty member’s professional growth which is sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, usually late in January. The Vice President or a designated representative and the department/program Chair meet in mid-February to discuss points of agreement and disagreement in the assessment. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative conveys in writing the results of these discussions to the faculty member being evaluated, with a copy to the department/program Chair. The faculty member is welcome to meet with the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative, if desired, to discuss the outcome of the review; the department/program Chair may be invited to this meeting at the discretion of the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative.

The process for post-promotion review: At six-year intervals after promotion to the rank of professor, the faculty member prepares a professional development document, consisting of a reflection on the faculty member’s growth in teaching, scholarship, and service over the previous six-year period, and a non-binding prospectus for the next six years. The prospectus may propose shifts in emphasis between scholarship or creative activity and service, as appropriate for the faculty member’s career trajectory. In early January the faculty member provides to the department/program Chair the professional development document and a current curriculum vitae. The department/program Chair meets with the faculty member to discuss the professional development document and the faculty member’s progress toward achieving career goals. The department/program Chair then writes an assessment of the faculty member’s career growth which is sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, usually late in January. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or a designated representative and the department/program Chair meet in mid-February to discuss points of agreement and disagreement in the assessment. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative conveys in writing the results of these discussions to the faculty member being evaluated, with a copy to the department/program Chair. The faculty member is welcome to meet with the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative, if desired, to discuss the outcome of the review; the department/program Chair may be invited to this meeting at the discretion of the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative.

Reviews of department chairs: If the faculty member under review is a department/program Chair, the review normally will be conducted by some other senior member of the department/program designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Remediation: In rare and extreme cases, in either the post-tenure review or the post-promotion review, a faculty member may receive an assessment indicating that the faculty member has failed to meet the College’s standards of excellence in one or more areas of evaluation. In such cases, the faculty member will develop, in consultation with the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair, a plan for improvement that addresses the area(s) of deficiency and a timeline for improvement. In accordance with a schedule specified by the timeline, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair will evaluate the faculty member’s work in removing the deficiency. After two years, if the Vice President for Academic Affairs determines that the faculty member has not shown evidence of improvement in the designated area(s), the salary of the faculty member will continue without increases until the level of achievement is deemed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs to be appropriate; that is, the salary will be frozen at the level of salary in the second year after the review. At the conclusion of the period specified in the timeline, should performance not meet the level of achievement specified in the plan for improvement, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will determine an appropriate response.

At the time of a negative review, the faculty member may request a review of the matter. The Tenure and Promotion Committee will hear the petition from the member of the Faculty, and the Committee will make a recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Committee’s recommendation will become part of the official record maintained at the College.

Overview: Promotion to the rank of Professor recognizes a sustained trajectory of significant achievement in teaching, scholarship, and service to the College since the appointment to Associate Professor. Given the need for an extensive period of time in which to establish such a trajectory, application for promotion to Professor normally occurs six years or more after promotion to Associate Professor. In teaching, the successful candidate should have maintained or exceeded the level of teaching effectiveness achieved for tenure. In scholarship, there should be concrete evidence of scholarly productivity that has contributed significantly to the candidate’s professional profile. In service, the candidate should demonstrate a level of meaningful and effective service to the College beyond that required for tenure. Potential candidates are encouraged to discuss their plans for promotion with their department/program Chairs and a designate of the Office of Academic Affairs.

The Process: The process for consideration begins with notification of intent to apply to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion at the end of the academic year preceding the academic year in which the review takes place (early May). By May 31 (preceding the academic year of review), the candidate for promotion submits the names of at least six outside reviewers of professional work. The due date for submission of materials will be early August. The Faculty Committee will consider the application in the fall semester.

The candidate for promotion prepares an updated portfolio according to instructions provided by the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.

Participation in the review process:  Normally every senior member of a candidate’s department/program participates in the review process; the minimum number of reviewers is three. In cases where fewer than three senior members of the department/program exist, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Chair of the Department/Program, will appoint ad hoc members of the faculty to bring the number of participants in the review up to three. These external faculty will act in the capacity of senior departmental/program members for the purposes of the candidate’s evaluation, and their assessments of the candidate will be given equal weight with assessments from faculty within the candidate’s department/program. In selecting faculty, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will consult with an Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, the candidate, and the candidate’s department/program chair.

For all faculty with significant interdisciplinary teaching commitments, regardless of the size of the home department, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will normally invite the Chair or another senior member of the relevant interdisciplinary programs to evaluate the faculty as an ad hoc member of the candidate’s department.

The responsibilities of candidates for promotion are as follows:

1. Preparation of an updated portfolio in which the candidate presents relevant materials in support of the application for promotion. This portfolio would include the following:

• A letter, or personal statement, addressing qualifications for promotion in the areas of teaching, scholarship activities, and service (These letters typically average from 4-5 typed, double-spaced pages.)
• A current curriculum vitae, including a complete bibliography of published work or evidence of creative activity;
• A representative sample of syllabi, examinations, and class or laboratory exercises covering the period since the appointment to Associate Professor;
• Copies of publications, evidence of creative activity, and other materials related to professional work since the appointment to Associate Professor;
• An optional research statement that outlines the current and future trajectory of their scholarly work and/or places their scholarly work in the context of an overall strategy for external reviewers. 

2.  Lists of the following possible evaluators:

A-Required:

• Names of at least six (6) outside evaluators of scholarly production or creative works (These persons should be recognized scholars in the discipline; none of them should have a personal, vested stake in the professional standing of the candidate; the candidate should describe the extent of the acquaintance with the outside evaluators and indicate what work each outside evaluator is in a position to review.);
• Names of three (3) members of the Faculty from outside the candidate’s department/program and/or College staff who can comment on the candidate’s citizenship at the College. One of these three can be a faculty or staff member who has left or retired from the College in the previous two years.

B-Optional:

• If the candidate chooses the option of soliciting an additional letter from a representative outside of the Rhodes College community that focuses on the candidate’s service performance and campus citizenship, then the candidate may provide the names of up to three individuals outside of the Rhodes community.
• If the candidate chooses the option of soliciting additional survey information from students that the candidate considers unofficial advisees, then the candidate may provide the names of these students and state the nature of their advising relationship with them.

The responsibilities of the senior members of the candidate’s department/program, and of faculty acting in this capacity, are:

• To review the portfolio prepared for the department/program by the candidate being reviewed;
• To be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarly performance as prescribed for the academic department/program of the candidate as specified in the PRS;
• To seek further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, where that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s performance;
• To write an individual letter of assessment that is submitted according to instructions provided by the Chair of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion. (In the case that the letter is written by a Professor in the Faculty, a recommendation in regard to the promotion is made; in the case that the letter is written by an Associate Professor in the Faculty, an evaluation without a recommendation is offered.)

The responsibilities of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion are:

• In the event that a member of the Committee is from the same department/program as the candidate being reviewed, that member is excluded from the discussion and formulation of the Committee’s recommendation;
• In the event that a member of the Committee is a candidate to be considered for promotion, that member resigns from the Committee;
• The Chair of the Committee and a designated representative for Academic Affairs select two (2) outside evaluators for the candidate’s scholarly work, taken from the list provided by the candidate, and select two (2) additional outside evaluators after consultation with the Chair of the department/program;
• To apply the standards as prescribed in Section VIII above in assessing the performance of the candidate being reviewed since the appointment of the candidate as an Associate Professor at the College;
• To be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarly performance as prescribed for the academic department/program of the candidate and as specified in the PRS;
• To collect information about teaching effectiveness and student advising duties from special student surveys, including interviews with students, if deemed necessary;
• The Committee will distribute special surveys to the candidate’s advisees and students. In the assessment of teaching, only students with grades A through D- will be included; In addition to the special survey, the Committee will also review the record of teaching, as measured by the college-wide evaluation instrument since the appointment of the candidate as an Associate Professor at the College;
• If the candidate chose the option of soliciting additional survey information from unofficial advisees and has stated the nature of their advising relationships, the Committee will distribute special surveys to the specified students.
• If the candidate chose the option of soliciting an additional letter from a representative outside of the Rhodes College community, the Committee invites one of those individuals named by the candidate to submit a letter of evaluation concerning service.
• To seek further information, not gathered as a result of the processes described above, where that information is essential in making a reasoned judgment about the candidate’s achievements;
• To make a recommendation in regard to appointment with promotion to Professor to the Vice President for Academic Affairs on or about December 5 (the recommendation is provided at the same time to the President); and,
• To inform the candidate, normally by mid-December, of the result of the recommendation, positive or negative, made by the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, with an explanation of the Committee’s reasoning in reaching its recommendation.

The responsibilities of the Vice President for Academic Affairs are:

• In cases where a candidate’s department/program contains fewer than three senior faculty members, to select senior faculty from outside of the candidate’s home department/program who have first-hand experience of the candidate’s work in the areas of teaching, research, and/or service to act as senior departmental/program members for the purposes of the candidate’s evaluation.
• To obtain, with the assistance of a designated representative for Academic Affairs, the agreement of outside evaluators to review the candidate’s scholarly work and to submit in a timely fashion a report of these evaluations to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion;
• To be especially mindful of the particular expectations for scholarly performance as prescribed for the academic department/program of the candidate and as specified in the PRS;
• To review all information collected in the process of assessment;
• To weigh the recommendation of the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion, requesting from the Committee or its Chair additional information, if needed, to clarify the Committee’s recommendation;
• To make an independent recommendation which is then submitted with all materials collected in the process of assessment to the President; this is to be done on or about January 10 (If the President agrees with a recommendation to promote, the President forwards this recommendation to the Board of Trustees for action.); and,
• To inform the candidate of the result of the recommendation, positive or negative, made by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, with an explanation of the Vice President for Academic Affairs′ reasoning in reaching his or her recommendation.

In the event that a review for promotion reaches a negative outcome, the faculty member must wait at least three years from the date of the previous application before reapplying for consideration.

If contract extension beyond the fifth year is denied as a result of the fourth-year review, the Provost will inform the candidate at a meeting of the Provost, the department/program Chair, and the candidate, usually in December; notice will also be provided to the candidate in writing.

If tenure is denied, the Provost will so inform the candidate, normally on or about March 15. The Provost will meet with the candidate denied tenure to discuss with the candidate the reasons for denial. A statement summarizing the Provost’s findings, which preserves the confidentiality of the process, shall be provided to the candidate.

If promotion to Professor is denied, the Provost will so inform the candidate, normally on or about January 15. The Provost will meet with the candidate denied promotion to discuss with the candidate the reasons for denial. A statement summarizing the Provost’s findings, which preserves the confidentiality of the process, shall be provided to the candidate.

The faculty member denied contract extension at the fourth-year review, or denied tenure or promotion to Professor, may appeal the decision on the grounds that it was made capriciously or not in conformity with the established procedures. The faculty member must notify the Provost in writing of their intent to appeal the decision within ten calendar days of being notified that contract extension, tenure, or promotion was denied. For purposes of this section, an action is taken “capriciously” if it is a “willful and unreasonable action taken without consideration or in disregard of facts or without determining principle.”

A written appeal must then be submitted to the Provost, the President, and the Faculty Appeals Committee no later than twenty calendar days after the submission of the notice of intent to appeal. The appeal must specify what procedure is alleged to have been violated and/or in what way the decision is alleged to have been made capriciously. In making the appeal, as throughout the tenure process and promotion process, the burden of proof rests with the faculty member.

In considering the appeal, the Faculty Appeals Committee will review all pertinent information supplied by the Provost, including recommendations by the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion and the Provost, and will conduct interviews limited to the alleged capriciousness or violation of procedure described in the appeal.

The role of the Faculty Appeals Committee is to advise the President to uphold or reconsider the Provost’s recommendation. The Appeals Committee will provide a written report to the Provost and the President. The report will contain findings of fact and conclusions as to whether or not the original decision was reached capriciously or procedures were violated. In the event the committee finds there were violations sufficient to warrant reconsideration, the Appeals Committee will recommend in its report that the President review the original decision. If the committee is divided, a minority report also will be filed.

A statement summarizing the Appeals Committee findings, which preserves the confidentiality of the process, will be made available to the candidate. The summary will indicate if the decision was unanimous. If the Appeals Committee asks the President to review a previous recommendation, the President may overturn or uphold the Provost’s recommendation. In either case, the President will determine the final College position on the matter. If the President’s decision is positive on tenure or promotion, it is sent to the Board of Trustees for action at the April meeting. If the President’s decision is negative on tenure or promotion, a statement summarizing the President’s findings and rationale, which preserves the confidentiality of the proceedings, will be provided to the candidate.

At the conclusion of the process, the Provost’s, the Appeals Committee’s, and, if applicable, the President’s summary statement to the candidate will be provided to the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Promotion.

Persons holding non-tenure track appointments to the faculty have responsibilities that vary by department/program. These areas of responsibility are specified in their term appointment contract of employment. Individuals appointed on term appointments who serve as Instructor or Assistant Professor will be evaluated in the second year of their first three years and then in the third year of their subsequent three years. Individuals on term appointments who serve as Associate Professor without tenure will be evaluated every six years after that promotion.

Review of Instructor or Assistant Professor. This term appointment review is conducted in the fall semester by the faculty member’s department/program Chair. The candidate will prepare an updated portfolio for this review. The department/program Chair will review materials on teaching and service. The department/program Chair (or, with the approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, a designated senior colleague in the department/program) will also observe three of the candidate’s classes in the fall semester of the review year. Additionally, the department/program Chair will review the candidate’s college-wide student evaluations and grade distributions for all classes taught during the review period.

The department Chair will receive input from at least two senior members of the department. The program Chair will receive input from at least two senior faculty members in the program or faculty designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Faculty housed in departments but engaged in significant interdisciplinary scholarship or significant and regular teaching in interdisciplinary programs will be evaluated by the department Chair and two other senior faculty, normally the program Chair and a senior faculty member designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the Chairs. Input from these senior department/program members will be informed by observations from class visits during the fall semester. These senior members of the department/program will meet as a group with the department/program Chair to discuss their observations and findings.

The department/program Chair will then make a determination regarding the candidate’s progress in teaching and service using the description of performance described in the previous section (Section VIII). The department/program Chair will meet with the candidate to discuss this assessment.

The department/program Chair’s written assessment of the candidate’s progress is sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, usually late in November. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or a designated representative will have an initial meeting with the department/program Chair to discuss the assessment of the candidate’s progress. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or a designated representative will provide a written summary of the outcome of the review, focusing on the candidate’s progress in each category of evaluation, with recommendations for improvement when necessary.

Review of Associate Professor without tenure. Faculty members who have been promoted to the rank of Associate Professor without tenure have a review every six years. The objective of this review is to provide opportunities for reflection and feedback on the faculty member’s continued growth in teaching and service.

In January of the term appointment review year, the faculty member creates a portfolio containing:

• The professional development document: a two-part document consisting of a reflection on teaching and service over the previous six-year period and a prospectus for the next six years.
• A current curriculum vitae that includes
  • Courses taught
  • Service to the College or profession
• Representative samples of course syllabi, exams, and assignments for courses taught during the previous six-year period, a list of any additional teaching (Directed Inquiries, undergraduate research/creative activity, honors research/creative activity, etc.), and a list of any new courses taught.
• Student evaluations from classes taught during the previous six-year period. Faculty who have been promoted to the rank of Associate Professor without tenure are required to have student evaluations conducted in one course each semester, selected in consultation with the department/program Chair to make sure that all types of teaching performed by the faculty member are represented in the review.

In addition to the portfolio, the department/program Chair reviews final grades given for all courses taught by the faculty member during the previous six-year period. This information is provided by the Data Services Office.

The department/program Chair meets with the faculty member to discuss the professional development document and the faculty member’s progress toward achieving career goals. The department/program Chair then writes an assessment of the faculty member’s professional growth, sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs in late January. The Vice President or a designated representative and the department/program Chair meet in mid-February to discuss the assessment. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative conveys in writing the results of these discussions to the faculty member being evaluated, with a copy to the department/program Chair. The faculty member is welcome to meet with the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative, if desired, to discuss the outcome of the review; the department/program Chair may be invited to this meeting at the discretion of the Vice President for Academic Affairs or designated representative.

In rare and extreme cases, an Associate Professor without tenure may receive an assessment indicating that the faculty member has failed to meet the College’s standards of excellence in one or both areas of evaluation. In such cases, the faculty member will develop, in consultation with the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair, a plan for improvement that addresses the area(s) of deficiency. Two years after that review, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the department/program Chair will evaluate the faculty member’s work in removing the deficiency. After that evaluation, if the Vice President for Academic Affairs determines that the faculty member has not shown evidence of improvement in the designated area(s), the faculty member will not have their term appointment contract renewed after one additional year. The additional year constitutes the twelve months’ notice of non-reappointment.

A. Retirement. There is no mandatory retirement age for officers of instruction.

B. Resignation. Officers of instruction who intend to resign their faculty position will inform the Vice President for Academic Affairs in writing within two weeks of receiving contracts for the next academic year.

C. Dismissal for Cause. On rare occasions there are reasons to question the fitness of a tenured faculty member or a faculty member whose term has not expired for continued employment. Such reasons may include, without limitation, moral turpitude (including falsification of academic credentials), neglect of assigned duty, or incompetency.

The procedures to be followed in evaluating these reasons and taking appropriate actions must be pursued with due consideration of the position of the faculty member and of the welfare of the academic mission of the College. For this reason Rhodes College has adopted procedural guidelines set forth in the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, established by the American Association of University Professors. A copy is attached as an Appendix. The procedures outlined in the paragraphs below are direct adaptations to the Rhodes College governance structure of these AAUP guidelines.

1. Preliminary Proceedings Concerning the Fitness of a Faculty Member. When reason arises to question the fitness of a college faculty member who has tenure or whose term appointment has not expired, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, after consultation with the President, will discuss the matter with the faculty member in personal conference. The matter may be terminated by mutual consent at this point; but if a resolution does not result, the Faculty Governance Committee will informally inquire into the situation to effect a resolution if possible and, if none is effected, to determine whether in its view formal proceedings to consider dismissal for cause should be instituted.
   
   If the Faculty Governance Committee recommends that such proceedings be begun, or if the Vice President for Academic Affairs, after consultation with the President, even after considering a recommendation of the committee favorable to the faculty member, takes the position that a proceeding should be undertaken, action will be commenced under the procedures which follow.
   
   Except where there is disagreement between the Faculty Governance Committee and the Vice President for Academic Affairs, a statement with reasonable particularity of the grounds proposed for the dismissal will be jointly formulated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Faculty Governance Committee. If there is disagreement, the DVice President for Academic Affairs will formulate the statement.
    
2. Commencement of Formal Proceedings. The formal proceedings are initiated by a letter to the faculty member from the Vice President for Academic Affairs, informing the faculty member of the statement formulated, and informing the faculty member that, if requested, a hearing to determine whether the faculty member should be removed from the faculty position on the grounds stated will be conducted by the Faculty Committee on Appeals at a specified time and place. The Faculty Committee on Appeals sits as the Hearing Committee for matters involving dismissal for cause. The hearing is normally scheduled within thirty days of notification to the faculty member.
   
   In setting the date of the hearing, sufficient time will be allowed the faculty member to prepare a defense. The faculty member will be informed, in detail or by reference to published regulations, of the procedural rights that will be accorded to the faculty member. The faculty member will state in reply whether a hearing is requested and, if so, will answer in writing, not less than ten days before the date set for the hearing, the statements in the Vice President for Academic Affairs’s letter.
    
3. Suspension of the Faculty Member. Suspension of the faculty member during the proceedings is justified only if immediate harm to self or others is threatened by a continuance of the appointment. Unless legal consideration forbids, any such suspension will be with pay.
    
4. Faculty Committee on Appeals. The committee of faculty members to conduct the hearing and reach a decision is an elected standing committee of the Faculty – the Faculty Committee on Appeals. In the event that there is a conflict of interest presented to any member of the committee the standard procedure for appointing a replacement is to be followed.
    
5. Faculty Committee on Appeals Proceedings. The Faculty Committee on Appeals proceeds by considering the statement of grounds for dismissal already formulated and the faculty member’s response written before the time of the hearing.
   
   If the faculty member has not requested a hearing, the Committee should consider the case on the basis of the obtainable information and decide whether the appointment of the faculty member should not be renewed; otherwise the hearing should go forward.
   
   The Committee, in consultation with the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the faculty member, will exercise its judgment as to whether the hearing should be public or private. If any facts are in dispute, the testimony of witnesses and other evidence concerning the matter set forth in the letter to the faculty member will be made available to the Committee by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
   
   The Vice President for Academic Affairs has the option of attendance during the hearing. The Vice President for Academic Affairs may designate an appropriate representative to assist in developing the case; but the committee will secure the presentation of evidence important to the case, will determine the order of proof, and will normally conduct the questioning of witnesses if called.
   
   The faculty member will have the option of assistance by counsel, whose functions should be similar to those of the representative chosen by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The faculty member has the additional procedural rights set forth in the 1940 AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and will have the aid of the Faculty Committee on Appeals, when needed, in securing the attendance of witnesses.
   
   The faculty member or his or her counsel, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs or representative designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, have the right, within reasonable limits, to question all witnesses who testify orally. The faculty member has the opportunity to be confronted by all witnesses adverse to the faculty member. Where unusual and urgent reasons cause the Faculty Committee on Appeals to withhold this right, or where the witness cannot appear, the identity of the witness, as well as the witness’ statements, will nevertheless be disclosed to the faculty member. Subject to these safeguards, statements may when necessary be taken outside the hearing and made available to the Committee. All of the evidence will be duly recorded. Unless special circumstances warrant, it is not necessary to follow formal rules of court procedure.
    
6. Consideration by the Faculty Committee on Appeals. The Faculty Committee on Appeals will reach its decision in conference, on the basis of the hearing. Before doing so, it will give opportunity to the faculty member or counsel and the representative designated by the Vice President for Academic Affairs to argue orally before it. If written briefs would be helpful, the committee may request them.
   
   The committee may proceed to decision promptly, without having the record of the hearing transcribed, where it feels that a just decision can be reached by this means; or it may await the availability of a transcript of the hearing if its decision would be aided thereby. It will make explicit findings with respect to each of the grounds of removal presented, and a reasoned opinion is required.
   
   Publicity concerning the committee’s decision may properly be withheld until consideration has been given to the case by the governing body of the institution.
   
   The Vice President for Academic Affairs, the President, and the faculty member will be notified of the decision in writing and will be given a copy of the record of the hearing. Any release to the public is made through the President’s office.
    
7. Consideration by Governing Body. The President transmits to the Board of Trustees the full report of the Faculty Committee on Appeals, stating its action. On the assumption that the Board of Trustees has accepted the principle of the Faculty Committee on Appeals, acceptance of the committee’s decision is normally expected.
   
   If the Board of Trustees chooses to review the case, its review will be based on the record of the previous hearing, accompanied by opportunity for argument, oral or written or both, by the principals at the hearing or their representatives.
   
   The decision of the Faculty Committee on Appeals is either sustained or the proceeding is returned to the committee with objections specified. In such a case the committee will reconsider the case, taking account of the stated objections and receiving new evidence if necessary. It frames its decision and communicates it in the same manner as before.
   
   Only after study of the committee’s reconsideration will the Board of Trustees make a final decision overruling the committee.
    
8. Publicity. Except for such simple announcements as may be required, covering the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements about the case by either the faculty member or administrative officers are avoided so far as possible until the proceedings have been completed. Any announcement of the final decision will include a statement of the Faculty Committee on Appeal’s original action, if this has not previously been made known.

D. Dismissal of Tenured Faculty. Special institutional circumstances may lead to the dismissal of a tenured faculty member.

If a program or department or major track within a department is discontinued, faculty members within that program or department may be dismissed. However, the College will give hiring priority to any tenured faculty member who had been dismissed for these reasons should the program or department or track be reestablished within two years.

The President may declare a state of financial exigency in the event that the College’s total operating income declines by 10% or more from the annual projected income budget. In the event that a state of financial exigency is declared, each department and division of the College will develop a reduction plan immediately, not waiting for the next budget cycle.

If the College declares a state of financial exigency, tenured members of the faculty may be dismissed. The College should be most reluctant to take the extreme measure of dismissing tenured members of the Faculty.

Sabbatical leave is granted to members of the Faculty to allow them to pursue professional activities that will promote scholarly research or creative activities. The College expects sabbatical leave to produce tangible results. Completing work for the Ph.D. or other terminal degree is not an appropriate use of sabbatical leave. A record of scholarship or creative productivity is expected for successful applications (including, when applicable, demonstrated outcomes from the previous sabbatical). However, the sabbatical is not granted in recognition of previous work; rather, it is awarded in anticipation of future work.

A. Eligibility. A Faculty member with tenure is eligible for sabbatical leave after twelve semesters of full-time teaching and thereafter is eligible after each successive twelve semesters of full-time teaching. The sabbatical leave or leave of absence will not count toward a subsequent sabbatical leave.

Full-time Faculty members may count semesters taught at a reduced load if the reduced load is the result of a College initiative. If a sabbatical leave is delayed beyond the semester in which a Faculty member is first eligible, the additional semester of teaching will not count toward a subsequent sabbatical unless the delay is the result of a College request. Only four semesters can be carried forward in this way.

B. Length and Compensation. Sabbatical leave may be granted for one semester or for one full academic year.

While on one semester leave a Faculty member will continue to receive full salary. While on a full year, two semester leave a Faculty member will be paid a total of 60% of the annual salary that would have been paid in that year if not on leave. Contributions by the College to a faculty member’s retirement plan will be based on the salary actually paid under the annual contract for the sabbatical leave year in accordance with the retirement plan adopted and approved for the College. During a sabbatical leave year, all other fringe benefits remain in force as outlined in the College Handbook.

C. Application.

1. Faculty eligible for sabbatical leave will submit a letter of intent to the Office of Academic Affairs by 1 October of the year prior to the academic year of the projected leave. This letter of intent will include a statement from the candidate indicating the projected duration of the sabbatical leave (either a full academic year or the specific semester being requested for leave) and will be accompanied by a letter from the applicant’s Department Chair that describes the department’s (and any affected program’s) plan for covering the applicant’s teaching responsibilities during the leave. When a leave is contingent on acceptance into a program or research group, or on receipt of grant support, the letter of intent application should give a detailed description of such contingencies and the dates by which the contingencies will be removed.
2. Applicants for sabbatical leave will present copies of the full project description and a current curriculum vitae to both the Office of Academic Affairs and the Faculty Development Committee by 1 November of the year prior to the academic year of the leave. This detailed description of the proposed project should not exceed 2500 words and must include the expected outcomes that will result from the leave activities. Proposals from applicants who have had a previous sabbatical leave must include a separate section reporting the final outcome(s) of project(s) undertaken in the most recent sabbatical leave. Any clarifications requested by the Committee must be provided by the faculty member no later than 1 December.
3. The Faculty Development Committee will make a recommendation on the proposal to the Office of Academic Affairs by 15 December.
4. The Office of Academic Affairs will notify the faculty member regarding the outcome of his or her application for sabbatical leave on or about 15 January.
5. In special cases in which being awarded a grant is contingent upon an approved sabbatical, applications are permitted within a year in advance of the normal deadline, to accommodate idiosyncratic funding opportunities. In such cases, an appropriate similar timetable will be followed.
6. In the event that a sabbatical leave application is denied, the faculty member can reapply in the following year or any later year.

D. Returning from Sabbatical Leave. Sabbatical leave is granted on the condition that the Faculty member will return to Rhodes for at least one full-time service year immediately after the leave. Faculty members who do not return following sabbatical leave for one full-time service year will be under a contractual obligation to refund to Rhodes the full amount of their sabbatical salary and benefits on demand. No pro-ration of this obligation will be given for partial year or part-time return service.

In exceptional circumstances a member of the Faculty may be eligible for a sabbatical leave of absence and plan to retire from the College upon the end of the sabbatical leave. In such cases the eligibility and provisions for a sabbatical leave of absence apply; however, it will be designated as an academic leave of absence, not a sabbatical, the provision to resume the teaching appointment is waived, and the reporting requirements associated with a sabbatical leave of absence are not in effect.

E. Reports. A faculty member returning from leave will make a full written report of his or her leave activities to the Faculty Development Committee and Office of Academic Affairs no later than November 1st following their return. This report, together with a statement on additional long-term outcomes of these activities (if any), will be included as a section of the next sabbatical leave application. Both reports will guide the Committee and the Vice President for Academic Affairs when considering future leave applications.

Personal leaves of absence without salary may be granted officers of instruction at the discretion of the President on the recommendation of the officer’s departmental chair and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Requests for a Leave of Absence without pay must be made at least one semester prior to the beginning of the leave.

Leaves of absence may be granted for personal reasons or to allow a Faculty member to accept a fellowship or other short-term professional opportunity. A leave of more than one service year’s length will be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Failure to return to Rhodes at the end of a leave of absence will be considered a resignation.

A. The Proportion of the Faculty Holding Tenure. The College takes seriously the commitment to a member of the Faculty when a tenured appointment is made; it also takes seriously the concerns that are frequently expressed when the proportion of the Faculty holding tenure appears to limit the College’s ability to alter, to modify, or to change academic programs when good reasons are presented for such changes. By action of the Board of Trustees the President and the Vice President for Academic Affairs are to present annually an accounting of the current profile of the Faculty, including the proportion of the Faculty holding tenure, and to present a projection of the Faculty cohort over the next five years, showing anticipated changes due to non-reappointment, tenure contracts awarded, and expected retirements.

B. Policy on the Replacement of Faculty Recruited to Administrative Positions. The expertise and experience of senior members of the Rhodes faculty can make them attractive candidates for administrative positions at the College, and their work in administration provides valuable service to the College. When the administrative appointment of a faculty member results in the loss of some teaching capacity to an academic department, that department should routinely be allowed to hire replacement faculty, on a term basis, to cover the courses lost. If the administrative duties of the faculty member are likely to extend over several years, a term appointment of three years or more may be justified. However, because administrative positions are not lifetime appointments, and because the length of an administrative appointment may be difficult to define or predict at the outset, replacement hires for faculty serving in administration will not be tenurable. 

The College may consider an exception to this general policy under certain circumstances. If a faculty member has served in an administrative position for a period of not less than four years, and if all parties expect her or his administrative appointment to continue indefinitely, her or his home academic department may apply for the creation of a tenure-track position to replace that colleague. Such applications should be made only if the department can demonstrate that there is a special need for a tenure-track or tenured faculty member in this position. These applications should be submitted according to the regular process for requesting new faculty positions. 

A diverse learning community is a necessary element of a liberal arts education, for self-understanding is dependent upon the understanding of others. We, the members of Rhodes College, are committed to fostering a community in which diversity is valued and welcomed. To that end, Rhodes College does not discriminate – and will not tolerate harassment – on the basis of race, gender, color, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, and national or ethnic origin.

We are committed to providing an open learning environment. Freedom of thought, a civil exchange of ideas, and an appreciation of diverse perspectives are fundamental characteristics of a community that is committed to critical inquiry. To promote such an academic and social environment we expect integrity and honesty in our relationships with each other and openness to learning about and experiencing cultural diversity. We believe that these qualities are crucial to fostering social and intellectual maturity and personal growth.

Intellectual maturity also requires individual struggle with unfamiliar ideas. We recognize that our views and convictions will be challenged, and we expect this challenge to take place in a climate of open-mindedness and mutual respect.

A diverse learning community is a necessary element of a residential liberal arts education. We, the members of the Rhodes College community, are committed to creating a community where diversity is valued and welcomed. To that end, Rhodes College does not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, color, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and national or ethnic origin and will not tolerate harassment or discrimination on those bases. We are committed to providing an open learning environment. Freedom of thought, a healthy exchange of ideas, and an appreciation of diverse perspectives are fundamental characteristics of a community of scholars. To promote such an academic and social environment we expect integrity and honesty in our relationships with each other and openness to learning about and experiencing cultural diversity. We believe that these qualities are crucial to fostering social and intellectual maturity. Intellectual maturity also requires individual struggle with unfamiliar ideas. We recognize that our views and convictions will be challenged, and we expect this challenge to take place in a climate of tolerance and mutual respect.

Quorum. A quorum is constituted by a majority of the voting members of the Faculty.

Attendance, Participation, and Voting. Regular meetings of the Faculty or special sessions of the Faculty are not open to all members of the community unless so designated by action of the entire Faculty.

Only members of the Faculty are eligible to vote in Faculty meetings. However, others may attend Faculty meetings and participate in discussion. Persons normally permitted to attend Faculty meetings are the President of the Rhodes Student Government, members of the Senior Leadership Team, the Chief Information Officer, and the Registrar. Members of the Board of Trustees, Officers of Instruction who are not members of the Faculty, and one of the student members of any standing committee of the Faculty may attend Faculty meetings as they wish.

In addition, individuals whose views on a particular issue are important to the conduct of Faculty business may be invited to attend a Faculty meeting and participate in discussion of that issue. These invitations are made by the Faculty Governance Committee or by the Faculty as a whole. 

The Faculty will vote by anonymous electronic polling unless the Presiding Officer chooses to allow a voice vote or employ paper ballots. Similarly, a motion approved by a majority vote of the Faculty may also move voting to paper rather than electronic ballots.

Agenda. The normal order of business at meetings of the faculty shall be as follows:

1. Call to Order 
2. Items for Faculty Action from Standing Committees
3. Items for Information or Discussion from Standing Committees  
4. Reports from Officers of the College
5. Old Business
6. New Business 
7. Announcements 
8. Adjournment 

Upon the passage of a motion from the floor, the order of consideration of agenda items may be changed at any time during the meeting.

“Items for Faculty Action” (2) includes all business submitted by standing committees for faculty approval. This would include motions from standing committees that constitute some change in current practice and require faculty approval, or resolutions from standing committees aimed at an expression of the will of the faculty. 

“Items for Information or Discussion” (3    ) includes routine announcements from committees, but also business which standing committees wish to bring before the faculty to present important information or to invite preliminary or informal discussion on a matter of concern. Committees may use this time to make routine announcements; these need not be included in committee minutes as agenda items. Committees wishing to report to faculty with needed information, or to invite discussion on an upcoming question or matter of concern, will normally submit these items with their minutes, in a separate section marked “For Faculty Information or Discussion.” These items will be included in the agenda, allowing faculty to acquaint themselves with the questions in advance. Questions brought by committees here may take the form of a draft or tentative motion, on which a committee requests preliminary feedback, or may be stated informally as topics of potential faculty interest. Where appropriate, faculty may be asked by a standing committee to register their initial view of such questions, using a system of balloting which makes all responses anonymous. Results of such polls will be available for all faculty but will be used only to provide information to the relevant committee to guide their further work. No items included in Part 4 of the meeting agenda may be brought for a faculty decision until a subsequent meeting.

New Business. Any member of the Faculty or Standing Committee may introduce New Business without receiving prior approval from a standing faculty committee. However, an item of New Business can be proposed, discussed, and voted on during the meeting only if it is submitted to the Faculty Governance Committee for consideration 48 hours in advance and included on the meeting agenda. Otherwise, items may be proposed and discussed as New Business during that portion of the meeting, but any vote must be delayed until the subsequent meeting, when the item will be taken up as Old Business.

Meeting Length. Faculty meetings are normally 75 minutes. Extending the length of faculty meetings beyond 90 minutes requires a vote. The motion to extend the meeting past 90 minutes must include a time limit. 

Minutes. Minutes of the Faculty meetings shall be kept by the Faculty Secretary in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order and shall be filed digitally and physically in the Academic Affairs Office along with the relevant agenda and supporting documents.

Specific actions of the Faculty shall be communicated in writing by the Faculty Secretary to the individuals or committees affected by the action. The Faculty Secretary shall provide the Faculty with electronic access to the minutes within two weeks of the meeting. Written objections to the minutes shall be submitted to the Chair of the Faculty Governance Committee and the Faculty Secretary within one week of receipt. With no objections, the minutes are tacitly approved. Any unresolved objections shall be circulated with the agenda for the subsequent faculty meeting, where they will be presented as the first item of business.

Confidentiality. Deliberations or actions of the Faculty judged to be confidential by the President, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Presiding Officer, or the Faculty shall not be discussed outside its membership. A designation of “Confidential” shall be made by the President, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, by the Presiding Officer, or by vote of the Faculty at the time of such deliberation or action. Announcement of the confidential Faculty action should be made only by the Presiding Officer or, if requested by the Presiding Officer, by the Faculty Secretary.

Faculty meetings will be recorded by only the Faculty Secretary. No private recording of faculty meetings is permitted, except when necessary for a disability accommodation. Any such accommodation must be documented and approved in advance by the Presiding Officer. Such a recording is only for use by the person approved for the recording. 

Important Matters. An action being considered by the Faculty may be designated an “important matter” when the importance of the action is deemed sufficiently great to demand extended deliberation. A matter may be declared an “important matter” by any one of the following methods:

1. The President or the presiding officer at the Faculty meeting may so designate it;
2. If the matter comes to the Faculty from a standing committee, the committee may so designate it by a majority vote; or,
3. Upon a motion from the floor, in which case the motion requires the affirmation of one-third of the Faculty present.

In every case, the designation must take place prior to the final vote on the action.

When a matter has been declared an “important matter,” final vote on it shall be taken at a meeting subsequent to the meeting in which the matter was introduced for consideration. The matter may be debated on its first introduction, and will be discussed. It will be debated again at the subsequent meeting, at which time the final vote will be taken.

Nonconcurrence of the President. If an action is taken by the Faculty in which the President does not concur, the President may announce the nonconcurrence immediately after the Faculty action, or, in writing, at some later time. Notification of nonconcurrence by the President has the effect of tabling the action of the Faculty. The matter may then be reopened for debate at a subsequent meeting and if two-thirds of the Faculty members present vote affirmatively on the matter, the President must present the action to the Board of Trustees along with the President’s recommendation.

Parliamentary Rules. Faculty meetings shall be conducted in accordance with these rules and procedures and with Roberts’ Rules of Order, latest edition. The Faculty’s own rules and procedures shall have precedence. The Faculty Parliamentarian shall give interpretations of correct procedure when requested by the presiding officer or upon the Parliamentarian’s own volition. Procedural questions not specifically covered by these specified sources shall be decided by majority vote of the Faculty. These rules of procedure that do not limit the presiding officer may be suspended by a two-thirds vote of the Faculty present.

Revision of Rules and Procedures for Faculty Meetings. All amendments to the Rules and Procedures for Faculty Meetings must be approved by the Faculty. Proposals for revision shall be presented at a Faculty meeting at least one month before a final vote on the matter is taken. Ordinarily such proposals will be referred for study and recommendation to a committee appointed for this purpose by the Faculty Governance Committee.

Electronic Meetings. The Faculty Governance Committee may call for a meeting to be held through electronic means. Meetings conducted through electronic means shall follow the College Handbook to the extent possible, as determined by the Faculty Governance Committee. During electronic meetings the following rules shall additionally apply: Participants shall identify themselves as required to sign in to the electronic meeting service.  

Participants are responsible for their own audio and internet connections; no action shall be invalidated on the grounds that the loss of, or poor quality of, a participant’s individual connection prevented participation in the meeting.  

The Presiding Officer may cause or direct the disconnection or muting of a participant’s connection if it is causing undue interference with the meeting.

Votes shall be taken by the anonymous voting feature of the electronic meeting service, unless a different method is agreed upon by faculty vote. Business may also be conducted by unanimous consent. 

[Reprinted from L. Joughin (Ed.), Academic Freedom and Tenure: A Handbook of the American Association of University Professors (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), pp. 33-39.]

In 1915, at the time of the founding of the association, a committee on academic freedom and tenure formulated a statement entitled A Declaration of Principles. This statement set forth the concern of the association for academic freedom and tenure, for proper procedures, and for professional responsibility. The declaration was endorsed by the American Association of University Professors at its second annual meeting, held December 31, 1915, and January 1, 1916.

In 1925, the American Council on Education called a conference of representatives of a number of its constituent members, among them the American Association of University Professors, for the purpose of preparing a statement in this area. There emerged the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which was endorsed in 1925 by the Association of American Colleges and in 1926 by the American Association of University Professors.

In 1940, following upon a series of conferences which began in 1934, representatives of the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors agreed upon a Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and upon three attached “interpretations.” The 1940 statement and its interpretations were endorsed by the two associations in 1941. In subsequent years endorsement has been officially voted by numerous other organizations.

The purpose of this statement is to promote public understanding and support of academic freedom and tenure and agreement upon procedures to assure them in colleges and universities. Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth its free exposition.

Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights.

Tenure is a means to certain ends—specifically, (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security—hence, tenure—are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society.

Academic Freedom

(a) The teacher is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of his other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

(b) The teacher is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing his subject, but he should be careful not to introduce into his teaching controversial matter which has no relation to his subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.

(c) The college or university teacher is a citizen, a member of a learned profession, and an officer of an educational institution. When he speaks or writes as a citizen, he should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but his special position in the community imposes special obligations. As a man of learning and an educational officer, he should remember that the public may judge his profession and his institution by his utterances. Hence, he should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that he is not an institutional spokesman.

Academic Tenure

(a) After the expiration of a probationary period, teachers or investigators should have permanent or continuous tenure, and their service should be terminated only for adequate cause, except in the case of retirement for age or under extraordinary circumstances because of financial exigencies. In the interpretation of this principle it is understood that the following represents acceptable academic practice:

1. The precise terms and conditions of every appointment should be stated in writing and be in the possession of both institution and teacher before the appointment is consummated.
2. Beginning with appointment to the rank of full-time instructor or a higher rank, the probationary period should not exceed seven years, including within this period full-time service in all institutions of higher education, but subject to the proviso that when—after a term of probationary service of more than three years in one or more institutions—a teacher is called to another institution, it may be agreed in writing that his new appointment is for a probationary period of not more than four years, even though thereby the person’s total probationary period in the academic profession is extended beyond the normal maximum of seven years. Notice should be given at least one year prior to the expiration of the probationary period if the teacher is not to be continued in service after the expiration of that period.
3. During the probationary period a teacher should have the academic freedom that all other members of the Faculty have.
4. Termination for cause of a continuous appointment, or the dismissal for cause of a teacher, previous to the expiration of a term appointment, should, if possible, be considered by both a Faculty committee and the governing board of the institution. In all cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused teacher should be informed before the hearing in writing of the charges against him and should have the opportunity to be heard in his own defense by all bodies that pass judgment upon his case. He should be permitted to have with him an adviser of his own choosing who may act as counsel. There should be a full stenographic record of the hearing available to the parties concerned. In the hearing of charges of incompetence the testimony should include that of teachers and other scholars, either from his own or from other institutions. Teachers on continuous appointment who are dismissed for reasons not involving moral turpitude should receive their salaries for at least a year from the date of notification of dismissal whether or not they are continued in their duties at the institution.
   Termination of a continuous appointment because of financial exigency should be demonstrably bona fide.

Interpretations

At a conference of representatives of the American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges on November 7-8, 1940, the following interpretations of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure were agreed upon:

1. That its operation should not be retroactive.
2. That all tenure claims of teachers appointed prior to the endorsement should be determined in accordance with the principles set forth in the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure.
3. If the administration of a college or university feels that a teacher has not observed the admonitions of paragraph (c) of the section on Academic Freedom and believes that the extramural utterances of the teacher have been such as to raise grave doubts concerning his fitness for his position, it may proceed to file charges under paragraph (a) (4) of the section on Academic Tenure.
4. In pressing such charges the administration should remember that teachers are citizens and should be accorded the freedom of citizens. In such cases the administration must assume full responsibility, and the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges are free to make an investigation.

Proceedings

The following Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings was prepared by a joint committee representing the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors and was approved by these two associations at their annual meetings in 1958. It supplements the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure by providing a formulation of the “academic due process” that should be observed in dismissal proceedings. The exact procedural standards here set forth, however, “are not intended to establish a norm in the same manner as the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, but are presented rather as a guide. . . .”

Introductory Comments

Any approach toward settling the difficulties which have beset dismissal proceedings on many American campuses must look beyond procedure into setting and cause. A dismissal proceeding is a symptom of failure; no amount of use of removal process will help strengthen higher education as much as will the cultivation of conditions in which dismissals rarely if ever need occur.

Just as the board of control or other governing body is the legal and fiscal corporation of the college, the Faculty are the academic entity. Historically, the academic corporation is the older. Faculties were formed in the Middle Ages, with managerial affairs either self-arranged or handled in course by the parent church. Modern college faculties, on the other hand, are part of a complex and extensive structure requiring legal incorporation, with stewards and managers specifically appointed to discharge certain functions.

Nonetheless, the Faculty of a modern college constitute an entity as real as that of the faculties of medieval times, in terms of collective purpose and function. A necessary pre-condition of a strong Faculty is that it have first-hand concern with its own membership. This is properly reflected both in appointments to and in separations from the Faculty body.

A well-organized institution will reflect sympathetic understanding by trustees and teachers alike of their respective and complementary roles. These should be spelled out carefully in writing and made available to all. Trustees and Faculty should understand and agree on their several functions in determining who shall join and who shall remain on the Faculty. One of the prime duties of the administrator is to help preserve understanding of those functions. It seems clear on the American college scene that a close positive relationship exists between the excellence of colleges, the strength of their faculties, and the extent of Faculty responsibility in determining Faculty membership. Such a condition is in no wise inconsistent with full Faculty awareness of institutional factors with which governing boards must be primarily concerned.

In the effective college, a dismissal proceeding involving a Faculty member on tenure, or one occurring during the term of an appointment, will be a rare exception, caused by individual human weakness and not by an unhealthful setting. When it does come, however, the college should be prepared for it, so that both institutional integrity and individual human rights may be preserved during the process of resolving the trouble. The Faculty must be willing to recommend the dismissal of a colleague when necessary. By the same token, presidents and governing boards must be willing to give full weight to a Faculty judgment favorable to a colleague.

One persistent source of difficulty is the definition of adequate cause for the dismissal of a Faculty member. Despite the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and subsequent attempts to build upon it, considerable ambiguity and misunderstanding persist throughout higher education, especially in the respective conceptions of governing boards, administrative officers, and faculties concerning this matter. The present statement assumes that individual institutions will have formulated their own definitions of adequate cause for dismissal, bearing in mind the 1940 Statement and standards which have developed in the experience of academic institutions.

This statement deals with procedural standards. Those recommended are not intended to establish a norm in the same manner as the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, but are presented rather as a guide to be used according to the nature and traditions of particular institutions in giving effect to both Faculty tenure rights and the obligations of Faculty members in the academic community.

Procedural Recommendations

1. Preliminary Proceedings Concerning the Fitness of a Faculty Member. When reason arises to question the fitness of a college or university Faculty member who has tenure or whose term appointment has not expired, the appropriate administrative officers should ordinarily discuss the matter with him in personal conference. The matter may be terminated by mutual consent at this point; but if an adjustment does not result, a standing or ad hoc committee elected by the Faculty and charged with the function of rendering confidential advice in such situations should informally inquire into the situation to effect an adjustment if possible and, if none is effected, to determine whether in its view formal proceedings to consider his dismissal should be instituted. If the committee recommends that such proceedings should be begun, or if the president of the institution, even after considering a recommendation of the committee favorable to the Faculty member, expresses his conviction that a proceeding should be undertaken, action should be commenced under the procedures which follow. Except where there is disagreement, a statement with reasonable particularity of the grounds proposed for the dismissal should then be jointly formulated by the president and the Faculty committee; if there is disagreement, the president or his representative should formulate the statement.

2. Commencement of Formal Proceedings. The formal proceedings should be commenced by a communication addressed to the Faculty member by the president of the institution, informing the Faculty member of the statement formulated, and informing him that, if he so requests, a hearing to determine whether he should be removed from his Faculty position on the grounds stated will be conducted by a Faculty committee at a specified time and place. In setting the date of the hearing, sufficient time should be allowed the Faculty member to prepare his defense. The Faculty member should be informed, in detail or by reference to published regulations, of the procedural rights that will be accorded to him. The Faculty member should state in reply whether he wishes a hearing and, if so, should answer in writing, not less than one week before the date set for the hearing, the statements in the president’s letter.

3. Suspension of the Faculty Member. Suspension of the Faculty member during the proceedings involving him is justified only if immediate harm to himself or others is threatened by his continuance. Unless legal consideration forbid, any such suspension should be with pay.

4. Hearing Committee. The committee of Faculty members to conduct the hearing and reach a decision should either be an elected standing committee not previously concerned with the case or a committee established as soon as possible after the president’s letter to the Faculty member has been sent. The choice of members of the hearing committee should be on the basis of their objectivity and competence and of the regard in which they are held in the academic community. The committee should elect its own chairman.

5. Committee Proceeding. The committee should proceed by considering the statement of grounds for dismissal already formulated and the Faculty member’s response written before the time of the hearing. If the Faculty member has not requested a hearing, the committee should consider the case on the basis of the obtainable information and decide whether he should be removed; otherwise the hearing should go forward. The committee, in consultation with the president and the Faculty member, should exercise its judgment as to whether the hearing should be public or private. If any facts are in dispute, the testimony of witnesses and other evidence concerning the matter set forth in the president’s letter to the Faculty member should be received.

The president should have the option of attendance during the hearing. He may designate an appropriate representative to assist in developing the case; but the committee should determine the order of proof, should normally conduct the questioning of witnesses, and, if necessary, should secure the presentation of evidence important to the case.

The Faculty member should have the option of assistance by counsel, whose functions should be similar to those of the representative chosen by the president. The Faculty member should have the additional procedural rights set forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and should have the aid of the committee, when needed, in securing the attendance of witnesses. The Faculty member or his counsel and the representative designated by the president should have the right, within reasonable limits, to question all witnesses who testify orally. The Faculty member should have the opportunity to be confronted by all witnesses adverse to him. Where unusual and urgent reasons move the hearing committee to withhold this right, or where the witness cannot appear, the identity of the witness, as well as his statements, should nevertheless be disclosed to the Faculty member. Subject to these safeguards, statements may when necessary be taken outside the hearing and reported to it. All of the evidence should be duly recorded. Unless special circumstances warrant, it should not be necessary to follow formal rules of court procedure.

6. Consideration by Hearing Committee. The committee should reach its decision in conference, on the basis of the hearing. Before doing so, it should give opportunity to the Faculty member or his counsel and the representative designated by the president to argue orally before it. If written briefs would be helpful, the committee may request them. The committee may proceed to decision promptly, without having the record of the hearing transcribed, where it feels that a just decision can be reached by this means; or it may await the availability of a transcript of the hearing if its decision would be aided thereby. It should make explicit findings with respect to each of the grounds of removal presented, and a reasoned opinion may be desirable. Publicity concerning the committee’s decision may properly be withheld until consideration has been given to the case by the governing body of the institution. The president and the Faculty member should be notified of the decision in writing and should be given a copy of the record of the hearing. Any release to the public should be made through the President’s Office.

7. Consideration by Governing Body. The president should transmit to the governing body the full report of the hearing committee, stating its action. On the assumption that the governing board has accepted the principle of the Faculty hearing committee, acceptance of the committee’s decision would normally be expected. If the governing body chooses to review the case, its review should be based on the record of the previous hearing, accompanied by opportunity for argument, oral or written or both, by the principals at the hearing or their representatives. The decision of the hearing committee should either be sustained or the proceeding be returned to the committee with objections specified. In such a case the committee should reconsider, taking account of the stated objections and receiving new evidence if necessary. It should frame its decision and communicate it in the same manner as before. Only after study of the committee’s reconsideration should the governing body make a final decision overruling the committee.

8. Publicity. Except for such simple announcements as may be required, covering the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements about the case by either the Faculty member or administrative officers should be avoided so far as possible until the proceedings have been completed. Announcement of the final decision should include a statement of the hearing committee’s original action, if this has not previously been made known.