MINUTES OF THE FACULTY HANDBOOK REVISION COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, May 1, 2008
Mason Hall, room D1; 1:00 – 3:00 p.m.
Present: Lorraine Brown, Professor of English, College of Humanities and Social Sciences; Rick Coffinberger, Associate Professor of Business and Legal Studies, School of Management, Chair; Martin Ford, Senior Associate Dean, College of Education and Human Development. Suzanne Slayden, Associate Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, College of Science.
Absent: Kevin Avruch, Associate Director and Professor of Conflict Resolution, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution; Dave Harr, Senior Associate Dean, School of Management.
2.12.1 Academic Freedom and Civil Liberties – 2008 Revision
One of the vital activities of a university is the
critical examination of ideologies and institutions. It is essential that
faculty members have the right to express their views responsibly without fear
of censorship or retaliation
penalty. The University defines academic
The University is fully aware that faculty members must enjoy, in addition to academic freedom, the same civil liberties as other citizens. In the exercise of their civil liberties or academic freedom, faculty have an obligation to make clear that they are not representing the institution, its Board, or the Commonwealth of Virginia. All employees have an obligation to avoid any action which appears or purports to commit the institution to a position on any issue without appropriate approval.
Decisions in such Faculty personnel actions as, including initial
appointment, reappointment, and promotion will not be affected by the
exercise of academic freedom and civil liberties non-academic
· To check also AAUP language – to review copy of recent lawsuit on protection of free expression prepared by AAUP Counsel on behalf of faculty member at University of California at Irvine.
· Personnel actions broader than hiring/firing/promotion; such as salaries.
· To add “the exercise of academic freedom and civil liberties”.
· To remove “non-academic considerations” as a non sequitur.
2.2.4 Professor – 2008 revision in progress
A professor must have met the university’s established
criteria for advancement to the highest rank of the professoriate as specified
in Sections (pending resolution).
continue to be an excellent teacher; have achieved a
high external reputation nationally recognized position within the field of
specialization or the profession at large, as documented by the quality of
publications or by other indices appropriate to the discipline; and continue to participate
significantly in the life of the University; or in the case of New
appointees must have demonstrated equivalent qualifications which give
reasonable assurance that the aforementioned criteria requirements will be
prospectively met realized.
· Need to clarify criteria for promotion to professor. In Section 2.4 Criteria for Evaluation of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty paragraph 5 segment “if in theoretical or applied scholarship, there should be evidence that the candidate's contributions have significant influence on colleagues at other institutions in this country, and where applicable, abroad.” more relevant (for promotion to) full professor than associate professor.
· Although service appears in the criteria for promotion, it should not be used as a substitute for other criteria.
· With new rules for term (instructional) faculty suggestion made that criterion for promotion to the highest rank for this group of faculty be genuine excellence in teaching (high competence would only be sufficient for promotion to the Associate rank).
· Should tenured faculty also have access to the full professor rank if they manifest genuine excellence in teaching but they have not achieved a nationally recognized position within the field of specialization or the profession at large, as documented by the quality of publications or by other indices appropriate to the discipline (assuming that the high competence in research threshold is met)? In other words, if one group of faculty can become full professors without meeting the "national recognition in research" requirement, should all instructional faculty have this opportunity?
· Suggested revision: to restore phrase “have achieved a nationally recognized position within the field of specialization or the profession at large, as documented by the quality of publications or by other indices appropriate to the discipline; replacing “nationally recognized position” with “high external reputation”
Universities have a long tradition of self-examination and improvement from within. That process includes the annual evaluation of faculty and administrators.
Clerk, Faculty Senate