Tenure -- Conditions and Procedures
The Tenure—Conditions and Procedures policy articulates Winthrop University’s policy and procedures for the granting of tenure.
Applies to faculty members hired with academic rank on a tenure-track line, in consultation with the Faculty Bylaws and subject to review by Academic Leadership, Faculty Conference, and Senior Leadership.
| Policy Number: | 2.2.33 |
| Effective Date: | 10/29/2019 |
| Date Reviewed: | 10/08/2019 |
| Last Review Date: | Jun 1 2012 12:00AM; 04/19/2021 |
| Responsible Official: | Chief Academic Officer |
| Responsible Office: | Academic Affairs |
| Contact Information: |
Academic Affairs (803)323-2220 academicaffairs@winthrop.edu |
1.0 Specific meanings of bold terms seen throughout this policy can be found within the University's policy definition glossary by following the link below.
Tenure is of great importance to the life of the institution. Tenure decisions reflect the University’s recognition that the individual faculty member has demonstrated a level of performance that merits continued employment. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) defines tenure as a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society (AAUP, 1940).
Tenure also indicates the expectation that the faculty member will continue appropriate involvement in the life and mission of the University and its faculty. Tenure systems, according to Nelson (2010) in No University is an Island, are essential to the continuation of environments that allow for shared governance and academic freedom. The AAUP further describes the awarding of tenure as a presumption of competence and continuing service. Thus, the tenure review and continued evaluations through post-tenure review should be rigorous, meaningful, and thoughtful.
A nominee for tenure is required to hold the appropriate terminal degree for the nominee’s discipline or to have professional achievements that the university recognizes as sufficient for tenure.
To be granted tenure, a faculty member must provide evidence of effective Student Intellectual Development that challenges students and promotes critical thinking skills through the exploration of knowledge. Furthermore, a tenure candidate must provide evidence of Scholarly Activity and the potential for sustained participation in activities associated with Professional Stewardship. Administrative reviews must also indicate a consistent record of academic responsibility.
Once tenure is granted, a faculty member must play an active role in the University and its mission by maintaining a consistent record of academic responsibility. The tenured faculty member must show continued growth and development in activities related to Student Intellectual Development and Scholarly Activity. In addition, the faculty member must show development in the area of Professional Stewardship.
1.0 Timelines are provided by the Chief Academic Officer at this timeline link.
2.0 Credit toward Probationary Period for Tenure At the time a tenure-track appointment is made, credit for prior service may be given toward the probationary period for tenure. The number of years of prior service credited toward the six years of probationary service will be stated in the Reasons/Remarks section of the Personnel Action Form. Policies for awarding credit are:
2.1 Credit may be given for prior service as a temporary faculty member at Winthrop University if the appointment is changed from restricted to regular service.
2.2 Credit may be given for prior full-time academic service at another institution of higher learning at the rank of Assistant Professor or above.
2.3 Credit may be given for prior professional service, other than teaching at another institution of higher learning, when such service is related to the faculty member's appointment at Winthrop.
2.4 Credit will not exceed 3 years except in unusual circumstances.
2.5 In determining the amount of prior service to be credited to a faculty member, no credit shall be given for summer school teaching at Winthrop or elsewhere.
3.0 Leaves of Absence during the Probationary Period During the probationary period, a faculty member may be granted leaves of absence. The time spent in a leave of absence granted for medical or administrative reasons will not be counted toward the probationary period. The time spent in a scholarly leave of absence, as determined by the Chief Academic Officer, for one year or less will count as part of the probationary period.
4.0 Offers of Employment with Tenure Offers of employment may be made with tenure attached for deans, chairs, and faculty who have earned tenure at another accredited institution. Recommendations regarding tenure will receive expedited review prior to initial appointment by a subset of the university-level Faculty Personnel Committee, with additional members to be determined when appropriate. The make-up of this review committee will be determined by the Chief Academic Officer in consultation with the Chair of the Faculty Personnel Committee. This committee will make a recommendation regarding tenure to the Chief Academic Officer, who will then make a recommendation to the President.
5.0 Pre-Tenure Review A pre-tenure review shall be conducted in the third year for faculty hired with no credit for prior service. For faculty hired with one or two years of credit toward tenure, the review will take place in the second year of employment at Winthrop. If a faculty member is hired with three years’ credit toward tenure, a pre-tenure review will ordinarily not be conducted unless the review is requested by the faculty member. The pre-tenure review will be conducted by the appropriate committee as specified by the academic unit. This review shall be completed and the results will be given to the faculty member no later than May 15. Results of this review shall be discussed with the candidate in a conference with the department chair and the dean. For faculty hired prior to Fall 2021, the results of this review need not be included in the tenure portfolio unless the candidate chooses to include the results. For faculty hired Fall 2021 and after, the review letter and the faculty member’s response must be included in the Tenure Portfolio.
6.0 Pre-tenure Review Portfolio Preparation. A faculty member standing for pre-tenure review must submit an electronic portfolio to his/her department chair/direct supervisor that follows academic unit guidelines and contains all materials indicated below. Further it is the responsibility of the faculty member to organize the portfolio in such a way as to facilitate review at all levels.
6.1 A cover sheet containing the following information:
6.2 An application letter which includes an analysis/statement by the candidate explaining how he/she is progressing toward the qualifications of tenure and/or promotion.
6.3 A current vita.
6.4 Annual reports from all years since hire (including student evaluation data, chair/immediate supervisor evaluations, and dean evaluations), arranged in chronological order with the semester/year clearly indicated on teaching evaluations.
6.5 A Statement or report of activities associated with Student Intellectual Development, Scholarly Activity, and Professional Stewardship as defined by the college.
6.6 Syllabi from all courses taught during the evaluation period.
6.7 Peer evaluations, if available.
6.8 Supporting documents pertinent to the review.
6.9 A statement of the faculty member’s goals and plans for involvement and development over the next six years.
7.0 Tenure Portfolio Preparation A faculty member standing for tenure review must submit an electronic portfolio to his/her department chair/direct supervisor that follows academic unit guidelines and contains all materials indicated below. Further it is the responsibility of the faculty member to organize the portfolio in such a way as to facilitate review at all levels.
7.1 A cover sheet containing the following information:
7.2 An application letter which includes an analysis/statement by the candidate explaining how he/she met the qualifications of tenure.
7.3 A current vita.
7.4 Annual reports from all years since hire (including student evaluation data, chair/immediate supervisor evaluations, and dean evaluations), arranged in chronological order with the semester/year clearly indicated on teaching evaluations.
7.5 For faculty hired Fall 2021 and after, the Pre-Tenure Review letter and the faculty member’s response. For faculty hired prior to Fall 2021, the Pre-Tenure Review letter and any response is optional.
7.6 A statement or report of activities associated with Student Intellectual Development, Scholarly Activity, and Professional Stewardship as defined by the college.
7.7 Syllabi from all courses taught during the evaluation period.
7.8 Peer evaluations, if available.
7.9 Supporting documents pertinent to the review.
7.10 A statement of the faculty member’s goals and plans for involvement and development over the next six years.
8.0 Tenure Review ProcessFaculty will stand for tenure in the sixth year of probation, including credit given for prior service. A faculty member standing for tenure submits an electronic portfolio prepared according to the guidelines of the University and the academic unit. The general University expectations are included in this document and academic units are responsible for providing faculty members additional expectations electronically on the unit website at least six months prior to the portfolio due date. Timelines for the review process are provided by the Chief Academic Officer.
8.1 When a faculty member is applying for tenure and for promotion concurrently, a single supporting portfolio for both processes will be used. The letters of application from the faculty member, recommendations from the chair and the dean, and all committee recommendations must be submitted separately, as the review processes for tenure and promotion will occur independently.
8.2 The membership of all reviewing committees upon formulation will be made known to the candidate and appropriate administrators. Each reviewing body, whether faculty or administrator, will upload its recommendation(s) to the electronic platform by the deadlines stipulated in the tenure and promotion timelines to ensure adequate time for the next level of review.
8.3 The faculty member under review will prepare the tenure case on the electronic platform. The process of review will follow a procedure established by the unit that is consistent with the general guidelines from the university. The portfolio review process for tenure will be focused exclusively on materials contained within the electronic portfolio and on the recommendations of the various review bodies.
8.4 In units that include department level review committees, a committee of no fewer than five tenured faculty, of whom a majority will be tenured within the faculty member's department or academic unit (if possible), will be formed (as specified by the academic unit) and convened at the request of the department chair to review the tenure portfolio and to determine whether to recommend the faculty member for tenure. If there is not a sufficient number of tenured faculty within the department or academic unit, then tenured faculty outside the department or unit will serve as members of the committee. Once the portfolio is submitted, the department chair will make the portfolio available to the department committee.
8.5 The portfolio review process for tenure will focus exclusively on materials contained within the portfolio, any optional candidate responses uploaded to the electronic platform in accordance with these procedures, and on the recommendations of the various review bodies.
8.6 Neither the department chair nor dean may serve on a review committee for a faculty member for whom they are a supervisor. However, any committee may request to meet with the chair or dean for clarification of information. In the case of a department chair's consideration for tenure, the dean will appoint a committee of no fewer than five tenured faculty, one of whom must be a member of the faculty member’s department; the committee may include a majority who are tenured outside the chair's department. Should there be no tenured faculty member in the department, the dean will appoint the committee members from tenured faculty outside the department.
8.7 The department level committee reviews the portfolio, uploads a letter of recommendation, shares the letter with the candidate, and advances the portfolio to the department chair. The letter must outline reasons for the recommendation, addressing all appropriate areas of review (Student Intellectual Development, Scholarly Activity, Professional Stewardship, and academic responsibility) as appropriate for the rank held. When the decision of the committee is not unanimous, the letter should indicate the areas of disagreement. If a single letter cannot adequately represent the evaluation of committee members, a minority letter must be submitted along with the letter of recommendation. All committee members must sign either the letter of recommendation or minority letter. It is the role of the departmental committee to clarify any discipline-specific information concerning Scholarly Activity or Professional Stewardship that is provided in the faculty member’s portfolio for reviewers unfamiliar with the norms of the discipline. At this juncture, no material may be deleted from the portfolio.
8.8 Candidates for tenure will be allowed to review the department committee letter of recommendation and will have an option to respond to the letter prior to consideration by the chair. If there is a minority letter, names will be redacted from both the majority and minority letters. A candidate will have three business days from uploading of the department committee’s letter(s) to write and submit a response letter. Letters received after this time period will not be considered. The response letter shall not exceed 1000 words. The response letter is to be a direct response to issues raised by the department committee in order to clarify the candidate’s original portfolio submission or correct factual errors in the department committee and/or minority letter. The candidate’s response letter must be included with all other evaluation letters as the case advances. If requested by the department committee, material missing from the above list in section 7.0 may be requested from the candidate via the department chair and may be added to the portfolio prior to the department committee’s sending a recommendation to the department chair.
8.9 The department chair reviews all materials. If requested by the department chair, new material from the candidate may be added to the portfolio prior to the chair’s sending a recommendation to the unit committee. No further supporting evidence may be added after this point.
8.10 The department chair uploads a letter of recommendation addressed to the academic unit (college or library) committee to the electronic platform. The chair’s letter must outline reasons for the recommendation addressing all appropriate areas of review (Student Intellectual Development, Scholarly Activity, Professional Stewardship, and academic responsibility). The chair may clarify a faculty member’s claims with regard to the discipline and department norms that may not be evident to a reviewer from another unit or discipline.
8.11 Candidates for tenure will be allowed to review the department chair’s letter of recommendation and will have an option to respond to the letter prior to consideration by the unit committee. The chair will share the letter with the candidate via the electronic platform. A candidate will have three business days from uploading of the department chair’s letter to write and submit a response letter via email to the dean. Letters received after this time period will not be considered. The response letter shall not exceed 1000 words. The response letter is to be a direct response to issues raised by the chair in order to clarify the candidate’s original portfolio submission or correct factual errors in the department chair’s letter. The candidate’s response letter must be included with all other evaluation letters as the case advances.
8.12 The unit committee reviews all materials and uploads a letter of recommendation addressed to the dean to the electronic platform. The unit committee’s letter must include a clear statement indicating the recommendation and must highlight pertinent information or clarification for subsequent review bodies. The unit committee’s letter and recommendation can refer to previous recommendations and documents from the department committee and chair and to responses from the candidate. When the decision of the committee is not unanimous, the letter should indicate the areas of disagreement. If a single letter cannot adequately represent the evaluation of committee members, a minority letter must be submitted along with the majority letter. All committee members must sign either the majority or minority letter. In the case of academic units without department level review committees, the unit committee may clarify faculty member claims with regard to the discipline that may not be evident to a reviewer from another unit or discipline.
8.13 Candidates for tenure will be allowed to review the unit committee letter(s) and will have an option to respond to the letter(s) prior to consideration by the dean. If there is a dissenting opinion that cannot be integrated into the majority’s recommendation, committee members’ signatures will be redacted from the majority and minority letters. A candidate will have three business days from uploading of the unit committee’s letter to write and submit a response letter to the dean. Letters received after this time period will not be considered. The response letter shall not exceed 1000 words. The response letter is to be a direct response to issues raised by the unit committee letter(s) in order to clarify the candidate’s portfolio submission or correct factual errors in the unit committee letter(s). No evidence of new activities is permitted in the candidate’s response letter in any circumstances. Any evidence of a completed activity must be added to the portfolio prior to the chair’s letter being sent to the unit committee. The candidate’s response letter must be included with all other evaluation letters as the case advances.
8.14 The dean reviews all materials and uploads a letter of recommendation to the electronic platform. The dean’s response must include a clear statement indicating his/her recommendation and must highlight pertinent information or clarification for subsequent review bodies. In most cases, a rationale pointing to previous reports is sufficient. In cases of disagreement within and among the review bodies, the dean must clarify and address the issues of disagreement.
8.15 Candidates for tenure will be allowed to review the dean’s letter of recommendation and will have an option to respond to the letter prior to consideration by the Chief Academic Officer. A candidate will have three business days from uploading of the dean’s letter to write and submit a response letter to the Chief Academic Officer. Letters received after this time period will not be considered. The response letter shall not exceed 1000 words. The response letter is to be a direct response to issues raised by the dean in order to clarify the candidate’s portfolio submission or correct factual errors in the dean’s letter. The candidate’s response letter must be included with all other evaluation letters as the case advances.
8.16 The Chief Academic Officer provides access to all tenure portfolios, letters of recommendation, and any candidate responses to the university-level Faculty Personnel Committee for review on the electronic platform. The Faculty Personnel Committee reviews all materials and uploads a letter of recommendation to the electronic platform. In cases of agreement, a brief rationale pointing to previous letters is sufficient. In cases of disagreement within and among the review bodies, the Faculty Personnel Committee must clarify and address the issues of disagreement in support of its recommendation.
8.17 The Chief Academic Officer may convene the Faculty Personnel Committee to discuss the tenure recommendations, as needed. The Faculty Personnel Committee recommendations are shared with the candidate via the electronic platform.
8.18 The Chief Academic Officer uploads a letter of recommendation to the electronic platform. In cases of agreement, a brief rationale pointing to previous letters is sufficient. In cases of disagreement within and among the review bodies, the Chief Academic Officer must clarify and address the issues of disagreement in support of her/his recommendation. The Chief Academic Officer’s recommendation is shared with the candidate via the electronic platform. The Chief Academic Officer forwards a single report with all recommendations from each level of review to the President and provides access to any needed materials on the electronic platform to inform the President’s final recommendation.
9.0 Notification of Tenure Decision The President, acting as agent of the Board of Trustees, shall then determine whether to grant tenure to the faculty member in question. Based upon the recommendations of the Chief Academic Officer and all reviewing bodies, the President decides upon tenure and shares his/her recommendations with the Board of Trustees. If tenure is to be granted, the faculty member shall be notified in writing by the President (transmitted by the Chief Academic Officer) no later than fifteen business days prior to May 15 of the faculty member's sixth probationary year. The faculty member to whom tenure is to be granted will receive a tenured appointment for the seventh year of service, or its equivalent, at Winthrop. The President or designee reports to the faculty on the status of tenure by submitting for publication the names of those faculty who have been granted tenure. The names will be published by the University.
9.1 A faculty member who is denied tenure shall receive written notice no later than fifteen business days prior to May 15 to allow time for an appeal process and to allow for notification at least twelve months before the expiration of the appointment. This permits a faculty member to serve a final year after being denied tenure. A faculty member may appeal denial of tenure only if he/she considers that improper procedure has been followed. Any alleged improper procedure must have had a substantive impact on the outcome of the tenure denial decision. Such appeal must be filed with the Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Promotion Committee no later than ten business days prior to May 15, to allow the committee to make its recommendation before faculty go off appointment on May 15 and to allow for twelve months notification before the expiration of the appointment, should the tenure denial decision be upheld. (See Termination of Faculty Appointment).
Portfolio Preparation Guidelines
College Alignment Statements/Personnel Policies:
· College of Arts and Sciences
· College of Business Administration
· College of Visual and Performing Arts
College Faculty Handbooks:
· College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Handbook
