University of Rochester
EMERGENCY INFORMATIONCALENDARDIRECTORYA TO Z INDEXCONTACTGIVINGTEXT ONLY

College Handbook Committee Revisions

Revisions to the Faculty Handbook
Talking Points for Discussion by the College Faculty

Contents

  1. Introduction to Handbook
  2. Criteria for tenure
  3. Procedures for Revocation of Tenure
  4. Internal letters for promotion cases
  5. University Web and Electronic Mail
  6. Safe Workplace
  7. Lengths of Appointments; relation to leaves
  8. Promotion to Associate Professor without Tenure
  9. Affirmative Action

A committee comprised of several College department chairs (Jim Farrar, Dennis Hall, Bette London, Doug Ravenel, Robb Westbrook, Miron Zuckerman ) and chaired by Joanna Olmsted was asked by Tom LeBlanc to identify issues and gather opinions of the College faculty with respect to the proposed Faculty Handbook revisions. In discussions held over the summer, the committee focused on some major items that we thought had generated the most concern and proposed additional revisions. Our discussions also prompted some questions on policies. We met with Provost Phelps in August, and the majority of the proposed textual changes were incorporated verbatim into the September version of the revised and annotated Handbook.

We wish to encourage further discussion among faculty on the points raised by the committee, and to identify other matters of concern that we have not addressed. The following is therefore a more complete summary of our major deliberations, including those that may not have appeared as textual changes. Handbook text (printed copy currently in distribution) is indented, and our revisions to this version follow the same format as in the 4/98 version that was posted on the Web (new--underlines; deleted--strikethrough). A brief rationale (italics) is included for some of the suggested changes.

We welcome responses to our revisions, and comments may be addressed to any or all committee members (e-mail links for the committee and the electronic text of this memo are on the Handbook page of the Senate web site http://www.math.rochester.edu:8080/u/drav/senate/handbook.html).

1). Introduction to Handbook (p. I.1)

This handbook sets forth policies, procedures and information that govern the University Faculty as a whole.

This Handbook is not intended ........

This Handbook may be amended at any time following full public notice of any such amendments to the University Faculty, solicitation by the Provost of the advice and recommendations of the Faculty Senate, and approval by the Board of Trustees.

Rationale: The added wording reflects the procedures that have been happening de facto since the discussions and concerns about the revisions started in the Spring. Our committee thinks it is important to have a formal statement that indicates changes to the Handbook are made with the advice and consent of the faculty.

Further comment: The committee originally had proposed the following text for the 1st and 3rd paragraphs:

This handbook sets forth policies, procedures and information which, by common consent, are those that govern the University Faculty as a whole.

This Handbook may be amended at any time following full public notice of any such amendments to the University Faculty and their subsequent approval by the Faculty Senate and the Board of Trustees.

After discussion with the Provost, we realized that our recommendation to subject any changes in the Handbook to the approval of the Faculty Senate raises a host of issues about the role of the faculty in policy-making at the University. At present, no faculty body--including the Faculty Senate--has the authority to play the role in policy-making that we recommend here. Our conviction is that on the matters addressed in the Handbook--which are essentially matters of professional practice--the faculty should have such a role.

A new fourth paragraph for addition to the introduction

Although this Handbook delineates many of the rules that govern the faculty of the University, underlying these rules are the fundamental convictions that shape the life of the modern university--above all, an abiding commitment to the free inquiry essential to the creation and dissemination of knowledge. As John Dewey, the first president of the American Association of University Professors said at the turn of the twentieth century, "any attack, or even any restriction, upon academic freedom is directed against the university itself. To investigate truth; critically to verify fact; to reach conclusions by means of the best methods at command, untrammeled by external fear or favor, to communicate this truth to students; to interpret to them its bearing on the questions they will have to face in life--this is precisely the aim and object of the university. To aim a blow at any one of these operations is to deal a vital wound to the university itself." The pursuit of truth necessarily generates controversy, and the faculty of the University must be free to trouble the waters of convention. Indeed the protection of dissent and unsparing criticism is essential to the calling of the university as a social institution. Hence, this University is committed in word and deed to the securing of unfettered inquiry and the academic freedom of its faculty.

Rationale: The committee thought that the Handbook lacked a mission statement that reflected the general principles under which the faculty, who constitute the continuing scholarly community that forms a university, operate. Some of the discussions in the Senate and among other faculty have expressed concerns about the absence of language that reflects the importance of tenure and its links to academic freedom. A global statement at the beginning of the Handbook would address some of these concerns, and establish the broader context in which the policies are formulated. As importantly, we think a statement of this sort is important in transforming the Handbook from a list of policies that few faculty have read into a document that they might consider an important reflection of their participation in, and obligations to, the institution. Such brief preambles are part of the equivalent documents of several institutions with which we like to compare ourselves.

2) Criteria for tenure (p. IV.8)

Alternative wordings for paragraphs 3 and 4

The second threshold is of scholarship or artistic work. To achieve tenure, a faculty member is expected to have made signal scholarly contributions to his or her chosen field; in artistic areas, he or she is expected to have produced creative work of distinction. Since scholars and artists work in communities marked by widely-shared standards of individual achievement, the judgments about the work of a scholar or artist by those who have themselves met those standards is a critical part of the case for tenure.

Rationale: Wording emphasis on national reputation and leadership was thought to overshadow the fundamental premise that the work had to have significant intrinsic merit that could be identified by professional colleagues of senior status. There was specific objection to the added sentence in this paragraph "Promotion to tenure carries with it the expectation that this position of leadership will continue in the future." Several faculty had expressed concern that this statement in combination with revocation of tenure for academic cause (p. IV.29; see also below) implied that the standards that had to be met for tenure and those which would lead to revocation for academic cause could be construed as identical.

In most academic fields there is an appropriate literature that is recognized as the medium of exchange, and intellectual distinction derives from contributions (in books or journals) to that literature. For tenure, published contributions to this literature are necessary, along with the testimony of expert referees that these contributions are of exceptional quality. It is virtually always required that these contributions have appeared in print or be in press. For tenure, it is not enough that intellectual distinction is promised; it has to be achieved.

Rationale: Specific concerns were raised that the published work had to have appeared and evoked comment. The acceptance of a peer-reviewed article or manuscript was considered an indication that work had intrinsic merit, and the identification of this work as important by external referees expert in the field was considered of paramount significance in making a tenure decision.

3). Procedures for Revocation of Tenure (p. IV.29),

Change in wording on academic cause

Academic cause shall be defined as service which falls notably below the standard which the University may justly expect of a person holding the rank in question , in terms of a composite of teaching, productive scholarship, professional competence, and cooperation with colleagues

Academic cause shall be defined as the failure by a member of the faculty to discharge responsibly his or her fundamental obligations as a teacher, colleague and member of the wider community of scholars.

Rationale: It is commonly understood that the criteria for revoking tenure (an extreme step that has been taken very rarely if at all here) are quite different from those for awarding it in the first place. The Handbook should be worded in such a way that there is no confusion on this point. While it is reasonable to ask referees if they expect a candidate for tenure or promotion to continue to work at a comparable scholarly level into the foreseeable future, it is not reasonable to revoke tenure merely because of failure to maintain such a high standard into the distant future. The redefinition of academic cause for revocation of tenure on page IV.1 in combination with the insertion of the sentence on page IV.8 about future expectations could be construed as change in the understanding described above. We hope that this interpretation was not intended and that the revisions can be phrased in such a way as to preclude it.

4) Internal letters for promotion cases (p. IV.11)

Replacement of item 7.

In addition to the letter described in item 6, each faculty member is expected to send a letter directly to the dean or director with his or her opinion regarding the proposed promotion. This letter may be a simple sentence in favor of the proposed promotion.

It is assumed that the case forwarded from the department reflects the opinions of the faculty appropriate to consider the promotion, that these opinions have been frankly shared in discussion, and that any range of views is reflected in a complete set of individual faculty letters that are forwarded with the case by the department. However, as in other matters, faculty may also write directly to the dean/director about the case.

 

Rationale: Discussions in the CDC meeting and subsequently indicated that many faculty thought inclusion of item 7 undercut the basic trust that must be inherent in a decision-making process within a department. In cases where departmental governance may be a problem, then there does need to be a clear statement that individual faculty can also comment directly to the dean/director (or provost). However, it is not understood why a second set of letters is required from all faculty.

5) University Web and Electronic Mail (p. III.8); second paragraph

The question was raised in the Senate and discussed in our committee as to why the second paragraph discussing computer backups and their availability in the case of legal action was introduced in the Handbook. The wording has been viewed variously as a warning to faculty or as a threat (Big Brother is watching). It was suggested that this specific information might be more appropriate for a memo. It was also unclear why accessibility in case of legal action would not also apply to other kinds of records that might be kept (for example, correspondence, phone mail messages, phone calls). We would like to get a sense of whether there are legal reasons that information about privacy rights with respect to e-mail or other forms of communication need to be documented in the Handbook. If this is the case, then a more generic section that addresses all of these issues should be devised.

6) Safe Workplace (p. III.10)

The truncation of this section removed redundancies, but the committee was concerned that the language had become weakened and was now ambiguous as to who was ultimately responsible for maintaining a safe workplace. In the previous version of the Handbook, there were explicit statements on responsibility for administering policies {e.g., one deleted sentence: 'Administration of the University's safety policy is the responsibility of each dean and director...'). The revised version now focuses the responsibility on individuals {e.g., 'It is each person's responsibility to be alert to actual or potential hazards'. 'Faculty engaged in laboratory instruction or research are obligated to assure compliance.....'). Should this section include information on reporting procedures, and who is ultimately responsible for compliance? With the revised wording, what are the ramifications with respect to legal actions against individual faculty? We also thought it was important to state explicitly that it is a policy of the University to provide a safe workplace, not just to encourage one.

Addition to end of paragraph 3, p. III.10

...Faculty should consult with EH&S regarding the appropriate procedures to follow. It is the policy of the University of Rochester to provide an environment in which recognized hazards that could cause injury or illness to faculty, staff, students, patients and visitors are controlled and monitored, and to protect its facilities from risk of damage from unsafe acts or conditions.

Rationale: It is not possible to remove all hazards, especially in research labs or certain clinical settings (e.g., X-rays are inherently dangerous). However, it is possible to have a policy that says the institution will be responsible for monitoring and controlling those hazards through appropriate administrative procedures.

7) Lengths of Appointments; relation to leaves (p. IV.3)

paragraph on Assistant Professor

...rank of assistant professor may not exceed seven years, not including time on non-academic leave. Typically, a review for tenure is initiated at the end of the fifth year in rank, with notification of the decision being made by the end of the sixth year (see Notification of Reappointment or Termination). Time on academic leave will not count towards a faculty member's time in rank, but may be considered in future evaluation and promotion decisions. A request in writing to the Dean/Director is required from a faculty member who wants to postpone tenure review due to a leave, or waive his or her right to postpone tenure review due to a leave.

Rationale: The committee does not concur with the idea that an academic leave should delay a tenure decision, since the leave is presumably enhancing the ability of a non-tenured faculty member to pursue his/her creative or scholarly work. The committee thought it was also important there be a written understanding of when a tenure decision would be made if changes were requested because of leaves (academic or non-academic), and that a written request should originate with the faculty member.

8) Promotion to Associate Professor without Tenure (p. IV.9); rewording

In some cases or fields, the material to support tenure commonly develops at a different pace so such that the above criteria are not met within the five year period preceding initiation of the review process.

9) Affirmative Action (III.3); last two paragraphs

These paragraphs are considered fairly anemic statements about affirmative action policy, with no information on the nature of the plan. Are there legalities involved in what might be written?

Copyright by University of Rochester
Faculty Senate site created June 29, 1998, by William Simon wsimon@biophysics.rochester.edu
Maintained by Douglas C. Ravenel drav@harpo.math.rochester.edu.
This page last revised September 27, 1998