Search policies and procedures by title or keyword
Tenure decisions for faculty whose initial official appointment letter for a tenure-track position is dated before the University of Louisiana System adopted its new Rules of the University of Louisiana System (hereinafter Rules) on August 20, 1993, will be governed by the rules and criteria in the System's previous Rules and in the Southeastern Louisiana University 1988 Faculty Handbook. Faculty whose initial official appointment letter for a tenure-track position is dated after August 20, 1993, will be governed by the System's new Rules and by the tenure rules and guidelines in these revised guidelines, adopted October 21, 1994. However, in all cases, the actual tenure review process will adhere to the procedures and calendar set forth in these revised guidelines.
When faculty with initial appointment letters dated before August 20, 1993, apply for their first promotion they will be subject to the rules and criteria of the System's previous Rules and the 1988 Faculty Handbook if the application for promotion comes before or coincides with an application for tenure at the end of the probationary period. Otherwise, the rules and criteria in these revised guidelines apply. In all cases, the actual review process for each promotion decision will adhere to the procedures and calendar set forth in these revised guidelines.
For Assistant Professors, recommendation for tenure will only be made in conjunction with recommendation for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor.
Each department, working in conjunction with the department head and dean, shall establish specific guidelines for evaluation of each of the categories (Teaching/Job Effectiveness, Professional Activity, and Service) for purposes of tenure and promotion. The guidelines must delineate three levels of achievement (excellence, distinction, and adequacy) for each of the categories. Departmental guidelines must be approved by the dean and the Provost prior to being promulgated by the department. The meaning of the words "excellence," "distinction," and "adequate" should not be minimized. Excellence means superior achievement, that which is truly outstanding. Distinction means achievement of a high order, that which sets itself apart from the ordinary or the merely acceptable. Adequacy means competency, that which fulfills all of the essential requirements, that which sets itself apart from the perfunctory or casual. Candidates who do not meet the criteria should not receive a positive recommendation.
Departments may want to use the same specific guidelines for merit evaluations as for tenure and promotion. If so, care should be taken that the merit guidelines conform to the tenure and promotion criteria and guidelines herein promulgated.
Categories for evaluation of faculty for the purposes of tenure and promotion, and the specific elements to be considered within each category are presented below.
Teaching (Updated by the Academic Affairs Council 2/18/10)
Evaluation of Teaching shall be based on
Evaluation of Teaching also may be based on
No one element should be used as the principal evaluation metric for gauging teaching effectiveness. Rather, multiple measures should be employed to capture the dynamic of teaching effectiveness.
Job Effectiveness
Specific guidelines for evaluation of Job Effectiveness shall be developed by the department or the immediate supervisor based on the job description for the position. The guidelines must be approved by the Dean/Library Director1 and Provost prior to being promulgated by the department. All other requirements for evaluation shall apply.
For each department head, the academic dean shall conduct a written annual evaluation of Teaching/Job Effectiveness, Professional Activity, and Service, based on the criteria and procedures for department head evaluation established by the department and approved by the dean and Provost. In the case of a director or similar position, the head of the department of which the director is a faculty member shall conduct the annual faculty evaluation of Teaching, Professional Activity, and Service. The immediate supervisor of the director shall conduct the annual evaluation of Job Effectiveness.
Mentoring
While not all faculty members are expected to be mentors, the mentoring of students is an essential component of the teaching mission of the University. Faculty Mentors and Undergraduate Coordinators are selected by their individual departments to work in conjunction with the Center for Student Excellence to advise, and monitor students’ progress throughout their academic careers. Mentoring of students rises above the level of simply scheduling courses. It is a process that requires a greater commitment than the advising that occurs in the regular course of teaching.
Evaluation of Mentoring activity shall include, but need not be limited to, the following elements:
Evaluation of Mentoring activity may also include, but need not be limited to, the following elements.
Every department will document and communicate its expectations for mentoring regarding tenure and promotion and departmental review.
Professional Activity
Evaluation of Professional Activity shall include producing or creating publications/ performances/ exhibitions.2
Evaluation of Professional Activity may include (but need not be limited to) the following elements
Since some departments may have other methods of exhibiting Professional Activity, the above list is meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. Some of the elements listed above may carry significantly less weight based on the expectations of a department and college.
In this category, particular attention should be paid to the quality of the item under consideration. Generally, this is most readily judged by faculty within the same field who are engaged in similar pursuits. After considering the quality of the contribution, the appropriate evaluators should weigh its scope, the prestige of its forum, and its relevance to the individual's professional field. In most cases, the broader and more influential the contribution, the greater would be its value. Every department will document and communicate its expectations for professional activity regarding tenure and promotion and departmental review.
Service (Academic Citizenship)
This category of evaluation for tenure and promotion includes all of the contributions that are made to the University, students, and the community (other than in teaching). Evaluation of a faculty member’s service should be weighted in a manner determined by the colleges and departments to reflect the relative importance of these three areas of activities.
To be eligible for tenure, the faculty member must be in a tenure-track position, hold the rank of assistant professor or higher, and have
Instructor to Assistant Professor
An instructor whose initial full-time appointment began prior to the academic year commencing July 1, 1994, is eligible for promotion to assistant professor if he/she has
Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
A recommendation for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor will only be made in conjunction with recommendation for tenure. To be eligible for promotion from assistant to associate professor, the faculty member must have
Associate Professor to Professor
To be eligible for promotion from associate professor to professor, a faculty member must have
Submission of the File
The candidate for tenure or promotion should seek advice from the department head and may choose to consult with the dean regarding eligibility for tenure or promotion. The candidate should maintain a file of supporting materials. Tenure candidates must provide supporting materials from the entire probationary period. Promotion candidates who are also applying for tenure must provide supporting materials covering at least the four most recent years of his/her current rank.
Decisions by the Board of Supervisors to grant tenure and promote faculty in rank are separate actions. As a result, an application for tenure and/or promotion should be accompanied by the appropriate form(s), i.e., Summary - Evaluation for Tenure and/or Summary - Evaluation for Promotion. Assistant professors applying for tenure must also apply for promotion to associate professor. Accordingly, one application may be submitted; however, both Summary of Evaluation forms must accompany the application.
The candidate will be notified in writing of the recommendation at each level. The candidate may add to the file a written response to each recommendation for review by subsequent evaluator(s), but no other materials may be added to the review file during the review period unless they are requested by one of the reviewers. The written response must be made within five working days of the evaluator's recommendation.
It is important that the entire review file be kept secure and confidential, to be seen only by faculty and administrators who need to take action. The candidate shall be allowed access to his/her file at any stage of the tenure or promotion process.
By January 15,6 the candidate must submit to the department head a review file which shall contain at least the following for the specified period of time in the order indicated, if applicable:
Any other information (e.g., annual self-evaluations, publications, letters of recommendation) which the candidate believes would further support the application may also be included. For those faculty who choose to include "comment" sections of the SOT form, only originals should be included.
The Center for Faculty Excellence assists faculty in compiling their tenure/promotion materials by offering helpful guidelines for the completion of a “Professional Portfolio.” Information on the Professional Portfolio can be located at: http://www.selu.edu/Academics/FacultyExcellence/.
Departmental Peer Evaluation
The department head will forward the file to a review committee.5 Because an application by an assistant professor for tenure must be made concurrently with an application for promotion to associate professor, the review committee in these cases will consist of all tenured faculty in the department who hold the rank of associate professor or professor. The review committee for applications for tenure by faculty at the rank of associate professor or professor will consist of all tenured faculty in the department who hold the rank of associate professor or professor. For promotion review from associate professor to professor, the review committee will consist of all tenured and tenure track faculty at the rank of professor. The most senior member (highest academic rank and time of service in that rank) of the committee is expected to serve as chair. In the event two or more members have an equal number of years at the highest rank, those members shall rotate as chair every six years. Should the senior member of the department not be able to fulfill the duties of the chair, the department member next in seniority will automatically become chair. For review committees that include members from outside the department, the senior member from the candidate’s department shall serve as chair.
The candidate shall meet with the committee(s) to discuss, clarify, or interpret the basis for tenure or promotion. The evaluation shall not be tainted by undocumented or hearsay evidence.
The committee(s) will discuss the merits of each candidate's application and vote by secret ballot in closed session. A written report of the number of positive and negative votes and a written narrative explaining the basis for the recommendation for each application shall be inserted in the candidate's file. Before the chair submits the narrative, faculty serving on the departmental peer review committee(s) shall read and initial the statement. The candidate will be given a copy of each committee's narrative explanation and recommendation by February 1.6
Department Head Evaluation
The department head's evaluation of the categories for tenure/promotion should be founded primarily upon a definite interpretation of the individual's review file. The evaluation shall not be tainted by undocumented or hearsay evidence. The department head will review the candidate's file and may request additional supporting information as well as an interview with the candidate. The department head will make a separate recommendation in the form of a written narrative explanation of his/her evaluation of the candidate's performance in each of the three categories. This written recommendation will be inserted in the candidate's file, which will be forwarded to the dean of the college. The candidate will be given a copy of the department head's narrative explanation and recommendation by February 7.6
Dean Evaluation
The dean's evaluation of the categories for tenure/promotion should be founded primarily upon a definite interpretation of the individual's review file. The evaluation shall not be tainted by undocumented or hearsay evidence. In making his/her decision, the dean should consider carefully the evaluations of the candidate's department head and departmental evaluative committee(s). When there are conflicting recommendations from the committee and department head, the dean should study the particulars, seek advice outside the University if deemed necessary, interview the candidate if deemed necessary, and make his/her own recommendation.
Approval/disapproval by the dean should be a matter of careful review to ensure that no major misjudgments have been made by the departmental peer committee and the department head, and that no major inequalities exist from department to department in meeting the academic standards of the college or school. The dean's recommendation with written narrative justification shall be inserted in the candidate's file, and all supporting materials will be forwarded to the Provost's Office. The candidate will be given a copy of the dean's written narrative explanation and recommendation by March 2.6
University Tenure/Promotion Committee Review
Review by the University Tenure/Promotion Committee is an optional step, at the candidate's discretion. By March 5,6 the candidate shall send to both the Provost and the chair of the committee, written notification of his/her decision about having the committee review the file.
The University Tenure/Promotion Committee will be composed of fifteen tenured full professors of the General Faculty elected by the respective tenured and tenure-track faculty in each college to staggered three-year terms, with representation as follows:
If any of these units has no full professors, the committee member may be a tenured associate professor. If there is no tenured associate professor in the unit, the member may be a tenured assistant professor. The Faculty Senate shall conduct the elections at the end of each spring semester. The most senior member (highest academic rank and time of service in that rank) of the committee shall serve as chair.
The recommendation of this committee shall be based on careful review to ensure that the criteria for tenure or promotion in the candidate's department have been applied fairly and consistently by lower recommending units. When there are conflicting recommendations from the lower units, the committee should study all the particulars. It may seek advice outside the University and interview the candidate, the chair of the departmental committee, the department head, and the dean. The evaluation shall not be tainted by undocumented or hearsay evidence.
The committee will discuss the merits of the candidate's application and vote by secret ballot in closed session. A written report of the number of positive and negative votes and a written narrative explaining the bases for the recommendation shall be inserted in the candidate's file. Before the chair inserts the narrative, the committee members will read and initial the statement. The candidate will be given a copy of the committee's written narrative explanation and recommendation by April 7.6 The committee chair will forward the file to the Provost by April 7.6
Provost Review
Approval/disapproval by the Provost should be a matter of careful review to ensure that no major misjudgments have been made by the lower recommending units and that no major inequalities exist from college to college in meeting the academic standards of the University. When there are conflicting recommendations from the lower units, the Provost should study all the particulars. The Provost may seek advice outside the University and interview the candidate.
The Provost will review the recommendations of the departmental committee, the department head, the dean, and the University Tenure/Promotion Committee. In a case where all of the recommendations have been positive and the Provost concurs, he/she need only make a brief statement to that effect. If, however, the Provost recommends against awarding tenure or promotion, or does not concur with any or all of the previous recommendations, he/she will write a narrative justification explaining his/her recommendation. The Provost's recommendation with written narrative justification will be inserted in the candidate's file, and all supporting materials will be forwarded to the President by April 24.6 The candidate will be given a copy of the Provost's written narrative explanation and recommendation by April 24.6
The President shall make the final recommendation for promotion. If affirmative, the President's recommendation will be forwarded to the University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors for final action. The President's decision regarding promotion shall be forwarded to the candidate by April 29.6 Supporting documents will be returned to the candidate after the Supervisors have announced their decision. The decision shall be made public only after the System has approved the promotion.
The President will make the final recommendation to award tenure or not. If affirmative, the President's recommendation will be forwarded to the University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors for final action, and the candidate shall be informed of his/her recommendation by April 29.6
A decision to recommend denial of tenure by the President will be conveyed to the candidate for tenure by April 29,6 in time that the appropriate notice guidelines may be followed. If a decision is made not to grant tenure in the sixth year, it shall result in a terminal appointment for the seventh year. The notice of terminal appointment shall be made in writing to the faculty member prior to the conclusion of the sixth year (Rules, Part Two, Chapter III, Section XI Tenure, located at: https://s25260.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Chpt_3_XI_Tenure_2_25_2011.pdf ).
Should the Board of Supervisors award tenure, the faculty member shall be so informed by the President in writing. The decision shall be made public only after the Supervisors have awarded tenure.
May 1 Deadline |
The department head is to inform, in writing, each faculty member who is approaching the final review year for tenure that the file is to be prepared by the faculty member for submission by January 15. |
September 1 Deadline |
A faculty member who is in the final review year for tenure and who does not desire evaluation for tenure must submit to the President through the department head, a letter of resignation effective at the end of that academic year or request a terminal appointment for the following year. |
September 15 Deadline | Each candidate for promotion must notify the department head of the intent to apply. |
January 15 Deadline | The completed application file for promotion and/or tenure must be submitted to the department head. |
February 1 Deadline | The faculty committee's written review is forwarded to the department head. The candidate is notified of the committee's recommendation. |
February 7 Deadline |
The department head's written recommendation, with all supporting materials, is forwarded to the dean. The candidate is notified of the department head's recommendation. |
March 2 Deadline |
The dean's written recommendation, with all supporting materials, is forwarded to the Provost's office for perusal, when applicable, by University Tenure/Promotion Committee. The candidate is notified of the dean's recommendation. |
March 5 Deadline |
The candidate sends to the Provost and the committee chair written notification of his/her decision about submitting the file to the University Tenure and Promotion Committee. |
April 7 Deadline |
When applicable, the University Tenure and Promotion Committee's written recommendation, with all supporting materials, is forwarded to the Provost. The candidate is notified of the committee's recommendation. |
April 24 Deadline | The Provost's written recommendation, with all supporting materials, is forwarded to the President. The candidate is notified of the Provost's recommendation. |
April 29 Deadline | The candidate is notified of the President's decision. |
Faculty of any rank serving the probationary period shall be evaluated each year by the department head or other appropriate administrative head in order to establish progress toward meeting departmental, college, and institutional goals for the awarding of tenure.
For faculty with a six-year probationary period, an interim review will take place no later than the spring semester of the third year. The interim review process will follow the time schedules listed in the Interim Review Schedule for Probationary Faculty. For those faculty having a shorter probationary period, the review will occur approximately midway in the period.
Principles of the Interim Review
The interim review of faculty is a supportive process that offers information that assists the faculty member in working toward achieving promotion and tenure. The review process allows a forum for self-assessment and, through peer review, provides the faculty member with concrete benchmarks. Through the review process the candidate will receive an overview of what he or she has achieved to date and benchmarks upon which the candidate should focus his/her future efforts. Interim reviews are advisory in nature, and are part of the overall review a faculty member receives during the probationary period. The interim review is not a recommendation for future promotion and tenure.
The probationary faculty member will forward to the department head a review file to be evaluated by a peer review committee, department head, and dean as outlined in the Interim Review Schedule. The review file shall contain the annual evaluations by the department head and materials supporting progress in Teaching/Job Effectiveness, Professional Activity, and Service. The peer review committee will consist of all tenured, full-time faculty in the department excluding the department head. The probationary faculty member shall meet with the committee to discuss his/her progress toward the requirements for promotion and tenure. A draft of an evaluation statement shall be written and reviewed, revised, and signed by the Committee, similar to the procedures for tenure. The original copy shall be given to the probationary faculty member and a copy inserted in the review file. The department head shall review the file and the committee’s recommendations and then write an evaluation, with the original copy given to the probationary faculty member and a copy inserted in the review file. The dean shall review the file as well as the recommendations from the committee and the department head, and then write an evaluation, with the original copy given to the probationary faculty member and a copy inserted in the file. The dean shall forward copies of all three recommendations to the Provost and release the file to the probationary faculty member. The dean shall also send copies of the department head’s and dean’s evaluations to the chair of the Interim Review Committee. If the evaluations are significantly different, then the dean, department head, and review committee chair should discuss the evaluations. The candidate has the right to write a rebuttal to the evaluation made at any level.
The narrative comments provided by the tenured faculty and department head must be clear and concise, with very defined statements regarding the faculty member's performance. It is imperative that both the faculty member and the department head monitor closely the faculty member's progress toward tenure and promotion in subsequent annual evaluations. Reviews are important indicators relative to the potential success of the faculty member in meeting promotion and tenure expectations. It is expected and incumbent upon all parties involved that they be candid and forthright in their assessment of the faculty member's performance and their recommendations for improvement. Evaluations shall not be tainted by undocumented or hearsay evidence. The Provost reserves the right to return for clarification any vague or unclear comments by faculty committee, department head, or dean.
The following interim review schedule is based on a memorandum previously disseminated by the Provost.
May 1 Deadline |
Each eligible faculty member must be notified in writing by the department head that an interim review shall take place in the spring semester, and that the file is to be prepared by the faculty member for submission by March 3. |
March 3 Deadline |
The probationary faculty member submits his/her review file to the department head. The file should include documentation regarding his/her teaching/job effectiveness4, professional activity, and service during the probationary period. |
March 21 Deadline |
The chair of the peer review committee forwards to the faculty member the summary evaluation of the progress of the probationary faculty member by the tenured faculty. A copy is provided to the department head, dean and Provost. |
April 3 Deadline |
The department head completes his/her review of the faculty member’s file and summary comments by the tenured faculty. The department head responds to the evaluation where appropriate. A copy of the department head’s comments is provided to the faculty member, dean, and Provost. |
April 17 Deadline | The dean completes his/her review of the probationary faculty member’s materials, the committee’s comments, and the department head’s evaluation, and responds where appropriate to those documents. A copy of any comments/recommendations is given to the faculty member, department head and Provost. |
May 1 Deadline |
The dean provides written copies of all evaluation summaries and recommendations to the Provost. |
The narrative comments provided by the tenured faculty and department head must be
clear and concise with very defined statements regarding the faculty member’s performance.
Reviews are important indicators relative to the potential success of the faculty
member in meeting tenure and promotion expectations. It is expected and incumbent
on all parties involved to be candid and forthright in their assessment of the faculty
member’s performance and recommendations for improvement. The Provost reserves the
right to return any vague or unclear comments by either the faculty committee, department
head, or dean for rewriting or clarification.
The solution is not to find a new term, but to return to an older, and much broader, meaning of the word “publish,” to make public. A professor should be engaged in scholarly and/or creative activity appropriate to his/her discipline, laboratory research, rehearsal, writing, painting, or whatever, and the result of this activity should be made public, i.e., “published,” by some appropriate means. What is appropriate will vary greatly depending upon the discipline. Therefore, to “publish” for a pianist might mean presenting a recital. For an artist, it might mean participating in an exhibition. For a director, it might mean directing a theatrical production. And for professors in a variety of disciplines, it might mean producing an audio or video production, computer software, or any appropriate medium, including electronic formats, that would make the result of scholarly or creative activity “public.”
Departments shall discuss, with their deans, applications of this broad definition of “publication” so that a mutual understanding within the department and within the college is established.
ACADEMICS
RESOURCES
Member of the University of Louisiana System | Accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC)
© 2024 Southeastern Louisiana University | All Rights Reserved