University of Rochester
EMERGENCY INFORMATIONCALENDARDIRECTORYA TO Z INDEXCONTACTGIVINGTEXT ONLY

Discussion of the Faculty Handbook in the UR-Forum

The UR-Forum is an electronic discussion group open to all University faculty and staff.

The postings reproduced below all concern the Faculty Handbook.

Posting of April 28 by Douglas C. Ravenel, Mathematics.

Some extensive revisions to the Faculty Handbook have been proposed by the Office of the Provost. They are posted on the web at http://www.rochester.edu/FacultyHandbook. On April 21, the Faculty Senate voted unanimously in favor a resolution, proposed by Jacob Jorne of Chemical Engineering, to postpone approval of these changes until September because of their substantive character.

There are some major issues at stake here which deserve the attention of the faculty as a whole. This forum seems like a good place to discuss these matters, so here is my two cents worth.

The faculty handbook is widely read political document, perceived by many as the constitution of the university. For this reason its aim should be to convey the spirit of the institution clearly and favorably, as well as to spell out regulations and procedures and to state the required legal caveats needed to defend against possible future litigation. It should not be stripped of passages which may be legally meaningless but politically significant.

Unfortunately this constitution is lacking a preamble. There is no statement in it of institutional purpose, at least not in a conspicuous place. In particular there appears to be no mention anywhere in either the 1995 or 1998 edition the handbook of academic freedom, its relation to tenure, and its importance to the mission of the university.

It is not uncommon for documents of this type at other universities to include such statements. Five examples are shown in an appendix below, compiled in less than two hours of searching the web. I am not suggesting that we adopt the provisions of any one of them in particular, but merely that it would be appropriate to include some writing of this nature. The absence of such passages in our handbook is regretable. The recent senate vote makes this the opportune time to consider adding a deeper statement of purpose and commitment to freedom of inquiry.

Meanwhile, here are four additional areas of concern in the proposed revisions, the first of which is closely related to the lack of a preamble.

1. Why are the 1967 Senate resolutions (quoted below) on dissent ("Dissent and public order") and the recognition (also quoted below) of on campus partisan political activity (in "Political Activity") no longer included? They were the closest things we had to an affirmation of academic freedom.

The Senate affirms its conviction that free discussion of vital issues of our day is an essential ingredient of a viable intellectual climate. Dissent and protest are welcomed as stimuli to discussion and to the search for truth. In a free university, however, dissent and protest cannot take the form of physical interference or coercion. Any behavior which obstructs any person on campus in the freedom of his expression or his movements on campus is unacceptable and can neither be condoned, overlooked, nor tolerated.

The University of Rochester recognizes and provides campus facilities, on an impartial basis, to activities of a partisan political nature such as the campus Republican, Democratic, and other political clubs. The federal and state tax laws prevent such clubs from extending their activities off campus. Obviously, this does not mean that individual members of such groups cannot campaign off campus.

2. In the ninth clause of "FACULTY DUTIES, RANK, AND TENURE", the new sentence

Academic cause [for revocation of tenure] shall be defined as service that falls notably below the standard that 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.

in combination with

A tenured professor is expected to have become and continue to be a major authority in his or her chosen field; in artistic areas he or she is expected to be a major exponent. Promotion to tenure carries with it the expectation that this position of leadership will continue in the future.

in "CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION" appears to be a substantial change in the definition of tenure here. It should be studied very carefully, perhaps with professional legal help, before being endorsed by the faculty.

3. The new Page "University Web and Electronic Mail" says nothing about privacy rights connected with individual email, a disturbing omission. It is like being told that the University has the means to tap one's phone, without being assured that it will only do so under narrowly defined circumstances. Email should be given the same sanctity as paper mail.

4. The "Safety" Page appears to shift the burden of responsibility from the institution to individual faculty. Why has the opening sentence (quoted below) of the 1995 edition been removed?

It is the policy of the University of Rochester to provide an environment free from recognized hazards that could cause injury or illness to faculty, staff, students, patients, and visitors, and to protect its facilities from risk of damage from unsafe acts or conditions.

Return to top of this page

Appendix: Statements concerning institutional purpose and academic freedom in some other faculty handbooks.

CONTENTS

  1. University of Chicago
  2. Harvard University
  3. Brown University
  4. Northwestern University
  5. University of Washington

1. University of Chicago [The University of Chicago Faculty Handbook is on the web at http://ap-www.uchicago.edu/UCPOL/UCPOLidx.html in pdf format, which means the text cannot be readily transcribed. It includes a Page entitled "Political and Social Action" (pp 27-28), excerpted from the 1967 Kalven Report.]

The mission of the university is the discovery, improvement, and dissemmination of knowledge. Its domain of inquiry and scrutiny includes all aspects and all values of society. A university faithful to its mission will provide enduring challenges to social values, policies, practices and instututions. By design and by effect, it is the institution which creates discontent with the existing social arrangements and proposes new ones. In brief, a good university, like Socrates, will be upsetting.

The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. Its is, to go back to the classic phrase, a community of scholars. To perform its mission i the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintian an independence from poltical fashions, passions, and pressures. A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community. It is a community but only for the limited, albeit great, purposes of teaching and research.

Return to top of this page

2. Harvard University

From http://hul.harvard.edu/assembly/handbook/hb12.htm

University-wide Statement on Rights and Responsibilities

This Statement, and the interpretation that follows it, were adopted on an interim basis by the Governing Boards on September 20, 1970.

The central functions of an academic community are learning, teaching, research and scholarship. By accepting membership in the University, an individual joins a community ideally characterized by free expression, free inquiry, intellectual honesty, respect for the dignity of others, and openness to constructive change.

The rights and responsibilities exercised within the community must be compatible with these qualities. The rights of the members of the University are not fundamentally different from those of other members of society. The University, however, has a special autonomy and reasoned dissent plays a particularly vital part in its existence. All members of the University have the right to press for action on matters of concern by any appropriate means. The University must affirm, assure and protect the rights of its members to organize and join political associations, convene and conduct public meetings, publicly demonstrate and picket in orderly fashion, advocate and publicize opinion by print, sign, and voice.

The University places special emphasis, as well, upon certain values which are essential to its nature as an academic community. Among these are freedom of speech and academic freedom, freedom from personal force and violence, and freedom of movement. Interference with any of these freedoms must be regarded as a serious violation of the personal rights upon which the community is based. Furthermore, although the administrative process and activities of the University cannot be ends in themselves, such functions are vital to the orderly pursuit of the work of all members of the University. Therefore, interference with members of the University in perfor mance of their normal duties and activities must be regarded as unacceptable obstruc tion of the essential processes of the University. Theft or willful destruction of the property of the University or its members must also be considered as unacceptable violation of the rights of the individuals or of the community as a whole.

Moreover, it is the responsibility of all members of the academic community to maintain an atmosphere in which violations of rights are unlikely to occur and to develop processes by which these rights are fully assured. In particular, it is the responsibility of officers of administration and instruction to be alert to the needs of the University community; to give full and fair hearing to reasoned expressions of grievances; and to respond promptly and in good faith to such expressions and to widely-expressed needs for change. In making decisions which concern the community as a whole or any part of the community, officers are expected to consult with those affected by the decisions. Failures to meet these responsibilities may be profoundly damaging to the life of the University. Therefore, the University community has the right to establish orderly procedures consistent with imperatives of academic freedom to assess the policies and assure the responsibility of those whose decisions affect the life of the University.

No violation of the rights of members of the University, nor any failure to meet responsibilities, should be interpreted as justifying any violation of the rights of members of the University. All members of the community -students and officers alike - should uphold the rights and responsibilities expressed in this Statement if the University is to be characterized by mutual respect and trust.

Interpretation

It is implicit in the language of the Statement on Rights and Responsibilities that intense personal harassment of such a character as to amount to grave disrespect for the dignity of others be regarded as an unacceptable violation of the personal rights on which the University is based.

Return to top of this page

3. Brown University

From http://facgov.brown.edu/facgov/facrulesfolder/part4/ sect10/Sect10.html#RTFToC307

B. Academic Freedom

Academic freedom is essential to the function of education and to the pursuit of scholarship in universities.

1. Therefore, Brown University, mindful of its historic commitment to scholarship and to the free exchange of ideas, affirms that faculty and students alike shall enjoy full freedom in their teaching, learning, and research.

2. Brown University also affirms that faculty and students shall have the freedom of religious belief, of speech, of press, of association and assembly, of political activity inside and outside the University, the right to petition the authorities, public and University, to invite speakers of their choice to the campus, and that students and faculty as such should notbe required to take any oath not required of other citizens. The time, place, and manner of exercising these rights on the campus shall be subject to reasonable regulation only to prevent interference with the normal functions of the University.

Return to top of this page

4. Northwestern University

From http://www.nwu.edu/provost/handbook/freedom.html

Northwestern University subscribes to the principles of academic freedom stated by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as follows:

(a) The teacher is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of [his/her] 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/her] subject, but [he/she] should be careful not to introduce into [his/her] teaching controversial matter which has no relation to [his/her] 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/she] speaks or writes as a citizen, [he/she] should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but [his/her] special position in the community imposes special obligations. As a [person] of learning and an educational officer, [he/she] should remember that the public may judge [his/her] profession and [his/her] institution by [his/her] utterances. Hence [he/she] 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/she] is not an institutional [spokesperson].

Return to top of this page

5. University of Washington

From http://www.washington.edu/admin/#ADMIN, reference Page.

Chapter 1

OBJECTIVES AND ROLES

Page 1. Institutional Objectives

A. The aim and purpose of the University of Washington shall be to provide a liberal instruction in literature, science, art, law, medicine, military science, and such other fields as may be established from time to time by the Board of Regents or by law.

B. A university is not merely the highest type of school in the educational system, devoted exclusively as the lower schools generally are, to the training of youth. A university, because it deals with the most advanced phases of knowledge and discipline, acquires other functions than instruction. Somewhere in the school system, new knowledge of the sciences and arts must originate, and the inevitable function of the highest school is to investigate fact in a dispassionate way. Every true university is an institution for scientific research. It seeks knowledge in its laboratories and beyond them in the real world of practical issues. That search for truth outside of academic walls requires the cooperation of many agencies, and a university becomes rich in significant knowledge if it has them.

Page 2. Role and Mission of the University

The primary functions of the University of Washington are in equal measure the preservation, development, and dissemination of knowledge. The University preserves existing knowledge through its libraries and collections, its courses, and the scholarship of its faculty. It develops new knowledge, synthesizes existing knowledge, and rediscovers or reinterprets old knowledge through many forms of inquiry and discussion. It disseminates knowledge and promotes learning through the classroom and the laboratory, and through varied means of communication, including scholarly exchanges, practical application, and contacts with the general public. The University must provide an environment in which objectivity and imaginative inquiry can flourish and must insure the free exchange of diverse facts and ideas.

Since proficiency in any one field entails the general ability to learn, the University emphasizes the mastery of essential methods of inquiry. In order to instill the capacity to make humane and informed decisions, the University fosters those qualities of mind that encourage mature and independent judgment. These include an appreciation of the range and diversity of human achievement displayed in the liberal arts and sciences, a sense of the values and experiences of past eras and other cultures, and a capacity for critical thinking and effective self-expression. The University views these qualities as fundamental attributes of the educated mind, and regards them as essential in any profession or specialized field of learning, and for meaningful participation in society.

The work of the University of Washington is exacting. It is concerned with scholarship at the most advanced levels. By tradition and reputation the University has the obligation to provide academic leadership in the arts, sciences and professions through excellence in teaching and research. This requires that the members of the University should be of the highest quality and should maintain the highest standards in all phases of the University's work.

While the appropriateness of its activities must always be judged in terms of its primary functions, the University is also a resource which assists in the solution of problems of public concern and has the obligation to provide professional and specialized instruction to prepare students for service to the State and Nation. Moreover, since it is an integral part of its community, the University must reflect the diversity of our society. Hence access to the University should be based solely on potential ability to contribute to or benefit from the University's pursuits. The University's tasks, by their very nature, demand high levels of energy, dedication and intelligence if they are to be carried out effectively. The members of the University community are partners in this effort, and the survival and development of knowledge depend largely on the successful achievement of these tasks.

Return to top of this page

Posting of April 29 by Thomas Homerin, Religion and Classics.

I would like to thank Doug Ravenel for taking the time and care in examining the proposed revisions to the Faculty Handbook. I agree with him that these revisions should not be rushed through, but carefully considered and further revised if need be. Further, he has noted several serious omissions and the need for what I read as an overall mission statement.

Matters of tenure are always a faculty concern, and regarding the "Criteria for Promotion" and the "second threshold" of scholarship mentioned by Prof. Ravenel, I suggest the following revisions (in caps) to the revisions:

The second threshold is of scholarship or artistic work. THE SCHOLARSHIP of a tenured professor is expected to have become and continue to be AUTHORITATIVE in his or her chosen field...(rest of the paragraph as is).

(In the next paragraph) It is GENERALLY required that these contributions have appeared in print and evoked scholarly reaction before any promotion can be considered. Nevertheless, exceptions may occur when extensive EVIDENCE (SUCH AS READERS' REPORTS AND AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF OUTSIDE LETTERS) ATTEST THAT unpublished material which is in press has proved to scholars that the author has made a major contribution. (Rest of the paragraph as is) These are suggestions open to comment and criticism, and given the importance of these matters, it is imperative that we give them our immediate attention, even though most of us are swamped at the end of this semester.

Return to top of this page

Posting of April 30 by Anthony T. Carter, Anthropology.

I am grateful to the Faculty Senate and Douglas Ravenel for bringing to our attention the range of issues involved in the revision of the Faculty Handbook and for urging the Administration to provide time for thorough and informed discussion.

I hope the Faculty Council in the College will follow the Senate's lead. As I understand it, the Council has been informed of the proposed changes only through a one-page memo that details the review process (it began in March of this year with the distribution of the revised draft to "deans and legal council," came to the Council on April 4 and is to end in May with a "request for approval from the Board of Trustees") and a list of proposed revisions. That list reads as follows:

  • Eliminate use of the terms 'limited tenure' and unlimited tenure'.
  • Encourage the use of the untenured associate professor position.
  • Add 'Assistant/Associate Professor (Research)' and "Assistant/Associate Professor (Teaching)' to the range of special titles available for non-tenure track faculty.
  • Modify the process by which faculty members comment on proposed promotions within their departments.
  • Allow for part-time leaves.
  • Extend rules that apply to use of University letterhead to use of University's electronic mail and Web site."

These are by no means minor changes, but as Professor Ravenel notes, the issues involved in the new draft -- both what it says and what it does not say -- are considerably wider.

If anything, the Faculty Senate has been too modest in urging that the changes not be accepted until September. This would mean that there would be few, if any, general discussions of the changes among faculty in their departments or in their deliberative councils. Given that the proposed draft is available on a format to which access is limited and during the busiest time of the year, there is a very real danger that the changes would be made before many faculty are able to read the document let alone discuss it.

Return to top of this page

Posting of May 1 by Sue Gustafson, Modern Languages and Culture.

As I understand it from the faculty senate meeting on Apr. 21st--we voted to postpone our vote on the proposed changes to the faculty handbook until the fall--to allow for faculty discussion during the fall semester. It was not my understanding that the vote itself would be in Sept. My understanding was that we felt it was necessary to put off further discussion of the issue by the senate until Sept.--This is a crucial issue--and perhaps someone else from the senate or Provost's office can help clarify this.

I would like to express my appreciation for all of the thoughtful comments on the proposed changes to the faculty handbook that have been discussed so far on the UR forum--personally I think that the tenure issues that Emil Homerin raised are of critical importance--especially given discussions in the College about requiring "tenurable candidates" in many disciplines to have their books out and reviewed in journals--as opposed to contracted and reviewed by the press readers, editors etc. As it stands now--not only do we have press reviews but we require 12 outside letters in addition to internal ones. So we already have approximately 15+ reviews of the scholar's work from the outside alone----that seems more than sufficient to me. In addition, I assume that other colleagues have had experiences similar to my own with the book publication process: my book on Lessing was complete in 1992--I sent it to one press that accepted it--and sent me a contract by 1993--the book was out in 1995--a few reviews appeared in 1996, more in 1997, and some are still coming out in 1998. If my experience is typical--we are calculating about 5-6 years just to get the book to the "out and reviewed" stage. So our pre-tenured faculty would have to send their books out by the end of the first or second (at the latest)year here. I think this would have the effect only of encouraging departments to hire advanced asst. prof. who came with completed manuscripts--I don't see any scholarly benefit to pressuring pre-tenured faculty to hurry up and get their books out any faster than they already do, nor do I see any reason why we need even more reviews of their work. Frankly, as a faculty member, I also feel ethically unsettled by proposed changes to tenure which not only demand more and more publication from our pre-tenured faculty (and many of them publish more than their senior colleagues have produced in an entire career...), at the same time we are requiring more excellence in teaching (which is good), and as departments get smaller and smaller around here--the pre-tenured faculty have to do more and more of the administrative work. Combining all of these things at once seems "cruel and unusual." In fact, given our increased emphasis on undergrad. education and the shrinking of the faculty, one might have expected a little relaxing of demands on publication--in recognition of the fact that pre-tenured faculty--have to devote themselves more and more to other College concerns.

At any rate, this issue is just one of many crucial ones that the faculty should be addressing in conjunction with the proposed changes to the faculty handbook--I would encourage everyone to pay special attention to the senate minutes from Apr. 21st--because several other important issues came to the fore there.

Return to top of this page

Posting of May 2 by Charles Phelps, Provost.

The Faculty Senate Resolution approved unanimously at the April meeting sought a deferral of discussion of the revisions until the autumn semester. There was NEVER any consideration of completing the discussion in September.

In the subsequent meeting with the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate (this past Tuesday), President Jackson and the Executive Committee agreed on the goal of completing the work in time for the Board of Trustees meeting in February, 1999. We intend tooether to work out a specific timetable for discussion during the coming weeks so that the agreed-upon timetable can be included in the minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting that will take place in May.

We will also be completing an "annotated guide" to proposed changes in the Handbook and publishing that soon on the Web. (To get to the site from the UR Home Page, click on "For the University Community" and then "Faculty Handbook". ) I sincerely hope that every interested faculty member will take time over the summer and early autumn to become familiar with the handbook in its old form, the proposed changes, and the discussion surrounding those changes. There are also relevant Pages of the general University employee's policy statements that are relevant to the faculty, Pages directly indicated in the proposed revisions of the Faculty Handbook. A copy of that general employee policy handbook is also available at the same Web site. Comments can be sent directly to handbook@admin.rochester.edu

Return to top of this page

Posting of May 3 by John Michael, English.

I find Provost Phelps's last posting encouraging. Certainly if the administration is contemplating significant changes in the handbook including changes with implications for tenure then enough time for discussion and deliberation must be provided. Since the issues involved are momentous for all faculty here, I would like to suggest that Provost Phelp's disseminate information not only over the website but also in "hard copy" form to each faculty member. Not everyone in the university community can be assumed to be comfortable with digital culture. Also, I suggest that not only should a series of open faculty meetings be planned in order to foster genuine discussion and debate in the traditional face to face forum that should still be the arena in which we make our most important decisions, but that for those of us who are wedded to the new technologies, discussion should continue in the relatively open forum that this service provides.

In short, every measure to insure that exchanges on these topics among us on the faculty and between us and the administration be as open and as widely disseminated as possible should be taken.

Return to top of this page

Posting of July 9 by David Bleich (English), Eldred Chimowitz (Chemical Engineering), Allan Greenleaf (Mathematics), and Jacob Jorne (Chemical Engineering).

An ad hoc group of concerned faculty members has met to discuss the proposed changes in the Faculty Handbook (FH). To start, we suggest the following alternatives to the proposed changes, and to invite your contributions to this discussion, so that coherent proposals can be made at the Faculty Senate in the Fall.

(1) Members of the University Committee on Tenure and Privileges were consulted at the last minute, as was the Faculty Senate. The FH should stipulate that proposed changes in the FH should come before the faculty in advance, and should not proceed without full faculty review, contribution, and approval.

(2) A statement regarding the connection between tenure and academic freedom should be inserted on p. IV-7 under "Criteria for Promotion." For example,

The University of Rochester supports the principles of Academic Freedom as formulated by the AAUP. Faculty members win tenure in order to secure latitude for a full range of knowledge and opinion to be pursued. The University of Rochester supports the holding by faculty of "unpopular" opinion, and is committed to protecting the ability of all faculty to pursue reasonable research projects without obstruction. Criteria for tenure and promotion given here aim to support long-term faculty research projects and scholarly development.

(3) Delete item 7 on page IV-11. This provision permits individual faculty members to undercut department chairs decisions and departmental votes on tenure and promotion. The result would be a precipitous drop in mutual trust among the faculty, especially the necessary trust of senior faculty by junior faculty.

More to come.

Return to top of this page

Posting of July 16 by David Bleich, English.

Following the memo of 4 July, here are a few more changes proposed by the ad hoc faculty group, Bleich, Chimowitz, Greenleaf, and Jorne:

(4) In the new Faculty Handbook (FH) delete the language and discussion regarding revocation of tenure for "academic cause," including alleged problems with collegiality. Presently, each faculty member submits materials at the annual review to inform department chairs and administrators of professional progress. Should cases of dereliction of duty arise, there are presently procedures in place to cope with them, at various administrative levels, beginning at the department level. The insertion of this new level of surveillance would demoralize the faculty, and make it unattractive for talented faculty to seek employment at the University of Rochester.

(5) On page IV-10 the "appropriate faculty members" should be stipulated on each step (as in the present FH).

The present promotion and tenure procedures should be kept as now outlined in the FH with respect to departments, divisions, and schools. Should the need arise to change these procedures, the FH should add the stipulation that they must first be reviewed and approved in the Faculty Senate and the University Committee on Tenure and privileges (UCTP).

(6) Administrative initiative to terminate appointments, as reviewed by the UCTP, should be bound by the decision of the UCTP. The role of this committee, with regard to decisions about grievances and tenure review, should be written into the FH as co-administrative: faculty and administration officials must both agree to steps taken with regard to grievances and revocation of tenure.

Return to top of this page

Posting of October 1 by Tom Gibson, Anthropology.

[This posting was a reproduction of the article The Faculty Handbook As a Contract: Is it Enforceable?, which appeared in the September-October 1998 issue of Academe, published the American Association of University Professors.]

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 October 21, 1998