Additional comments/revisions from the College Handbook Committee—November, 1998

The College Handbook Committee has had further deliberations since the 9/98 version of the Handbook was posted and the following paragraphs note some of the major items that have been discussed. Additional items have been proposed by the University Committee on Tenure and Privileges (UCTP) and the Academic Affairs Committee of the Senate. All text references refer to the pages in the 9/98 version.

1) p. I.1, third paragraph

Comment: There is a continuing discussion about the mechanism by which changes to the Handbook might be made. As outlined in the first set of revisions suggested by the College Handbook Committee, the committee favored wording that indicated changes would be by the *approval* of the Faculty Senate and the Board of Trustees. The Committee notes that although the proposed mechanism is different, an elected faculty committee (UCTP) has also strongly recommended that a faculty body not only advise on, but also approve, changes. The committee does not think that these differences between the current revision and the other proposals should delay adoption of the Handbook at this time. However, the committee does think that the issue of policy-making in areas that affect faculty is very important, and that a continued serious discussion among the faculty, the administration, and the trustees on the role of faculty in governance is critical. Such discussions should necessarily deal with some of the topics raised by other groups (e.g., UCTP recommendation on the process by which a final decision is reached in a tenure revocation case).

2) p.I.1 Addition to end of 4th paragraph.

... and the academic freedom of its faculty. In turn, while each faculty member has the freedom to determine how to make signal contributions to his or her field, each is expected to adhere to the ethical standards and evidentiary criteria for that field, and to discharge responsibly his or her obligations to the University as a teacher, scholar and citizen.

Comment: Prior drafts of this initial 'mission statement' spoke entirely of faculty rights and said nothing of their obligations.

3) p. IV.41-2 (last sentence continuing onto next page)

But of course ~~the~~ a central concern in tenure is with future expectations, and the primary use of the record of the past is to answer affirmatively the question, "Is this individual likely to be an important teacher and scholar (or artist) for the many years ahead?" ~~as in the past?" However, brilliant the early performance, subsequent lagging effectiveness would speak against tenure.~~

Comment: The committee thought the phrases, with concepts containing the past, present and future, did not make sense, whereas the question itself conveyed the necessary idea.

4) p. IV.35

..A request in writing to the Dean/Director is required from a faculty member who wants to postpone tenure review due to a non-academic leave ~~or waive his or her right to postpone tenure review due to a leave~~ .

Comment: Clarification on leaves and the tenure clock. The committee still recommends that academic leaves count towards a faculty member's time in rank.

5) p. IV.44, item 7.

Comment: The Handbook Committee recommended this paragraph, and the UCTP has suggested deletion of the last sentence. The committee is neutral on whether the sentence stays or is removed.

6) p. IV.42, Promotion to Associate Professor without tenure

Comment: The Academic Affairs Committee of the Senate is proposing a revision that will indicate this rank can be used in instances other than a delay in a tenure decision, including as a first appointment at the University for an individual with some experience, or as an indication of excellent performance before a full tenure case would be appropriate. The committee strongly supports the addition of this language.

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 November 18, 1998