UNLV Faculty Senate Tenure Promotion Forum

1. UNLV Faculty SenateTenure & Promotion Forum Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost

2. Acknowledgements UNLV Faculty Senate UNLV Library for Tape Archival Provost�s Office - Home Page Display of Slide Show Thanks to Faculty Senate for Providing a Forum for discussing the issue of tenure and promotion, among the most important issues of faculty governance, in order to: reach a consensus on a collaborative process; and to reduce anxieties surrounding what could be a stressful process (too much stress distracts from productive efforts). The video tapes are available for viewing in the UNLV library, so please pass the word to those who could not attend. This presentation will be available for viewing through the Provost Office�s Home Page.Thanks to Faculty Senate for Providing a Forum for discussing the issue of tenure and promotion, among the most important issues of faculty governance, in order to: reach a consensus on a collaborative process; and to reduce anxieties surrounding what could be a stressful process (too much stress distracts from productive efforts). The video tapes are available for viewing in the UNLV library, so please pass the word to those who could not attend. This presentation will be available for viewing through the Provost Office�s Home Page.

3. Concept of Tenure What it is: Guarantee of Academic Freedom Financial Security Reward for Faculty Committed to Excellence Increased Responsibilities for Mentoring, Continued Commitment to Excellence in Academics and Shared Governance What it is NOT: Academic Hazing (Fear Factor) License to Do Whatever You Please Protection for �Dead Wood� Faculty An Entitlement Tenure is: Tenure is a valued academic tradition to ensure excellent faculty have: academic freedom to conduct teaching, research and service activities without fear of administrative or political pressures; and to provide financial security for faculty who have demonstrated excellence. With the award of tenure comes the additional responsibilities of mentoring junior faculty, modeling continued commitment to academic excellence and governance to ensure the continued improvement of the University. Tenure is NOT: Something senior faculty �hold over� junior faculty (inappropriate behavior; zero tolerance at UNLV) A license to do, or not do, whatever you please once you have obtained it. It is not an opportunity to start �coasting�. Tenure is not an entitlement. While tenure is secure at UNLV for the foreseeable future, It is under political attack throughout the country. Some of the country�s newest public universities (in Arizona and Florida) have been established without it, and the lack of tenure is seen in many �for profit� institutions. Even in Ivy League schools, it is becoming a much more prolonged process. Thus, it is important to maintain the quality, rigor and the value of the process or it may fall prey to political pressures. Tenure is: Tenure is a valued academic tradition to ensure excellent faculty have: academic freedom to conduct teaching, research and service activities without fear of administrative or political pressures; and to provide financial security for faculty who have demonstrated excellence. With the award of tenure comes the additional responsibilities of mentoring junior faculty, modeling continued commitment to academic excellence and governance to ensure the continued improvement of the University. Tenure is NOT: Something senior faculty �hold over� junior faculty (inappropriate behavior; zero tolerance at UNLV) A license to do, or not do, whatever you please once you have obtained it. It is not an opportunity to start �coasting�. Tenure is not an entitlement. While tenure is secure at UNLV for the foreseeable future, It is under political attack throughout the country. Some of the country�s newest public universities (in Arizona and Florida) have been established without it, and the lack of tenure is seen in many �for profit� institutions. Even in Ivy League schools, it is becoming a much more prolonged process. Thus, it is important to maintain the quality, rigor and the value of the process or it may fall prey to political pressures.

4. General Points Related to Tenure Starts with Hiring Process; With Excellent Hires, Everybody is Potentially �Tenurable� & �Promotable� At UNLV - No Quotas/Barriers One of Most Important Faculty Governance Responsibilities Process of Increasing Quality Linked Decisions Tenure & Promotion The better the hiring process is, the less problem tenure will be. If we hire excellent faculty, there should be no reasons why all (or, at least, the vast majority) cannot be tenured and promoted. Unlike many universities, UNLV has no quotas or departments that are �tenured in� (i.e. you have to wait until a tenured faculty member leaves or dies for you to be considered for tenure). We would hope that departments and colleges would mentor and facilitate the tenure process for junior faculty. At all steps from the department to the college, to the University-level, faculty are involved in the processes of tenure and promotion. Choosing a high quality core faculty through tenure is one of the most important aspects of faculty governance. (see below for the process) Moreover, the promotion to full professor represents the most prestigious and meaningful achievement in academia and should be the ultimate goal of all faculty going through their professional careers. The responsibilities of ensuring that the quality increases over time as the University grows and develops also largely resides with the faculty. At UNLV, the decisions for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor are tightly linked. Philosophically, neither the President nor the Provost believe that somebody should be tenurable but not promotable (as may have occurred in the past) nor promotable but not tenurable (except in cases where previous experience of an individual leads to the granting of the rank of Associate Professor upon hire but the University reserves tenure until a �track record� can be established on campus). The better the hiring process is, the less problem tenure will be. If we hire excellent faculty, there should be no reasons why all (or, at least, the vast majority) cannot be tenured and promoted. Unlike many universities, UNLV has no quotas or departments that are �tenured in� (i.e. you have to wait until a tenured faculty member leaves or dies for you to be considered for tenure). We would hope that departments and colleges would mentor and facilitate the tenure process for junior faculty. At all steps from the department to the college, to the University-level, faculty are involved in the processes of tenure and promotion. Choosing a high quality core faculty through tenure is one of the most important aspects of faculty governance. (see below for the process) Moreover, the promotion to full professor represents the most prestigious and meaningful achievement in academia and should be the ultimate goal of all faculty going through their professional careers. The responsibilities of ensuring that the quality increases over time as the University grows and develops also largely resides with the faculty. At UNLV, the decisions for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor are tightly linked. Philosophically, neither the President nor the Provost believe that somebody should be tenurable but not promotable (as may have occurred in the past) nor promotable but not tenurable (except in cases where previous experience of an individual leads to the granting of the rank of Associate Professor upon hire but the University reserves tenure until a �track record� can be established on campus).

5. Role of Provost Fiduciary Responsibility � Is Investment Justified? Ensures That Comparable Rigor Has Been Maintained throughout the Process (Duty that is Shared with the Faculty Senate Tenure & Promotion Committee) The cost of granting tenure extrapolated over the professional career of the average faculty member is estimated to exceed $3 million. The expectation of the state is that the Provost will ensure that faculty who are offered tenure �have exhibited excellent abilities, sufficient to convince the University of Nevada community that their expected services and performances in the future justify the privileges [and investment] afforded by tenure.� (NSHE Code Section 3.1.2) The concept of �comparable rigor� is sort of a University-wide quality control system. While interpretation of specific qualifications are best done at the discipline (department and college) level, it is up to the Provost and the Senate Academic Freedom Tenure and Promotion Committee to ensure that all candidates coming up for consideration have been judged by comparably rigorous (albeit different) criteria for tenure. The concept of comparable rigor is �horizontal� rather than �vertical� in nature. In other words, the qualifications of the candidates are judged against those of other candidates coming forth at the same time. We don�t look back to compare records with those who have previously received tenure (i.e. we don�t look back to find the weakest case in the past; nor do we project into the future). This does not mean that, if a cohort of exceptional candidates come forward at the same time, they all won�t be tenured (they will), but that the minimum benchmark will be established in the context of the records of the contemporary candidates. Through this mechanism of horizontal comparable rigor, not only the quality control function maintained, but the standards of the University can improve through time (not in large, discrete jumps, but in progressive increases in expectations across time as UNLV progresses to the status of a top Research University). This means that senior faculty have the responsibilities of prudently but progressively raising the minimum expectations for tenure (�raising the bar�). The cost of granting tenure extrapolated over the professional career of the average faculty member is estimated to exceed $3 million. The expectation of the state is that the Provost will ensure that faculty who are offered tenure �have exhibited excellent abilities, sufficient to convince the University of Nevada community that their expected services and performances in the future justify the privileges [and investment] afforded by tenure.� (NSHE Code Section 3.1.2) The concept of �comparable rigor� is sort of a University-wide quality control system. While interpretation of specific qualifications are best done at the discipline (department and college) level, it is up to the Provost and the Senate Academic Freedom Tenure and Promotion Committee to ensure that all candidates coming up for consideration have been judged by comparably rigorous (albeit different) criteria for tenure. The concept of comparable rigor is �horizontal� rather than �vertical� in nature. In other words, the qualifications of the candidates are judged against those of other candidates coming forth at the same time. We don�t look back to compare records with those who have previously received tenure (i.e. we don�t look back to find the weakest case in the past; nor do we project into the future). This does not mean that, if a cohort of exceptional candidates come forward at the same time, they all won�t be tenured (they will), but that the minimum benchmark will be established in the context of the records of the contemporary candidates. Through this mechanism of horizontal comparable rigor, not only the quality control function maintained, but the standards of the University can improve through time (not in large, discrete jumps, but in progressive increases in expectations across time as UNLV progresses to the status of a top Research University). This means that senior faculty have the responsibilities of prudently but progressively raising the minimum expectations for tenure (�raising the bar�).

6. Policies and Procedures General Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion - AAUP �RED BOOK� While Providing a Sense of T&P Process as Practiced at UNLV, it Has NO Legal Status in Nevada Unfortunately, No Single Document: NSHE Code for Tenure UNLV By-Laws for Promotion UNLV Senate By-Laws for Grievance (Appeals) At UNLV, like at many universities in the country, the AAUP �Red Book� provides guidelines for the processes of tenure and promotion. This document can be found at the UNLV library and in many of the departments. Unfortunately, it has no legal status in Nevada and, regrettably, there is no single document that covers both tenure and promotion. For tenure, the over-riding document is the NSHE Code (Title 2, Chapter 3). The Code is silent on the process of promotion (either to Associate or Full Professor).so the authoritative document is the UNLV By-laws. On the other hand, the UNLV By-laws do not address tenure, thus deferring back to the NSHE Code for this process. Since, as previously indicated, the two processes are linked in practice at UNLV, one needs to go to both to determine the process and criteria to be followed for a tenure and promotion candidate. If denied tenure and promotion, a candidate can appeal through a process described in the UNLV Senate By-laws. Recent changes in NSHE Code have changed the appeals process � now a grievance process outlined in the Senate By-laws. Under the Code, faculty have the right to 1) Ask for Reasons; 2) Ask for Reconsideration; and 3) Grievance. Each are described in governing documents and each have specific time-lines to be implemented. Grievances are for cases in which there were procedural irregularities or problems with due process (and/or horizontal rigor). Grievance is not designed to repeat the overall T&P review process by a new Committee.At UNLV, like at many universities in the country, the AAUP �Red Book� provides guidelines for the processes of tenure and promotion. This document can be found at the UNLV library and in many of the departments. Unfortunately, it has no legal status in Nevada and, regrettably, there is no single document that covers both tenure and promotion. For tenure, the over-riding document is the NSHE Code (Title 2, Chapter 3). The Code is silent on the process of promotion (either to Associate or Full Professor).so the authoritative document is the UNLV By-laws. On the other hand, the UNLV By-laws do not address tenure, thus deferring back to the NSHE Code for this process. Since, as previously indicated, the two processes are linked in practice at UNLV, one needs to go to both to determine the process and criteria to be followed for a tenure and promotion candidate. If denied tenure and promotion, a candidate can appeal through a process described in the UNLV Senate By-laws. Recent changes in NSHE Code have changed the appeals process � now a grievance process outlined in the Senate By-laws. Under the Code, faculty have the right to 1) Ask for Reasons; 2) Ask for Reconsideration; and 3) Grievance. Each are described in governing documents and each have specific time-lines to be implemented. Grievances are for cases in which there were procedural irregularities or problems with due process (and/or horizontal rigor). Grievance is not designed to repeat the overall T&P review process by a new Committee.

7. Timing of Tenure NSHE Code � No More than 7 Years, BUT 1 Year Terminal Contract if Denied, so Year 6 is Generally Decision Year A Minimum of 3-4 Years Probation; Generally, No more than 1-2 Years (Max. 3) Towards Tenure Upon Hire NSHE Code Says May Apply Any Year; Early Tenure VERY RARE Maximum Time: The NSHE Code indicates that a candidate may not be in a tenure-track candidate for more than 7 years. It also specifies that a candidate denied tenure must be given a terminal 1-year candidate, so the tenure process must be made during the 6th year. Since the entire process (plus any possible appeals) take the most of an academic year, the process begins near the beginning of the 6th year (some departments actually start the process at the end of the 5th academic year). Mid-tenure/sub-tenure reviews are conducted during the middle of the tenure period (department-specific; some have other reviews as well). Minimum Time: Both the AAUP Guidelines and the NSHE Code indicate that the University should have a minimum of 3-4 years probation to assess the candidate�s record. Thus, no more than 1-2 Years are generally granted towards tenure upon hire (for those with previous academic experience). Note that many given such time towards tenure have later asked for more time. At that time, it is too late since the years given upon hire count towards the 7 year maximum. Full Professors or senior Associate Professors with tenure elsewhere may be hired with tenure if approved by departmental faculty, the dean, Provost, the President, and the Board of Regents. Note that any candidate may apply for tenure at the beginning of any academic year, WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PRESIDENT. It is the current position of UNLV that permission for such consideration for early tenure occurs only under exceptional circumstances.Maximum Time: The NSHE Code indicates that a candidate may not be in a tenure-track candidate for more than 7 years. It also specifies that a candidate denied tenure must be given a terminal 1-year candidate, so the tenure process must be made during the 6th year. Since the entire process (plus any possible appeals) take the most of an academic year, the process begins near the beginning of the 6th year (some departments actually start the process at the end of the 5th academic year). Mid-tenure/sub-tenure reviews are conducted during the middle of the tenure period (department-specific; some have other reviews as well). Minimum Time: Both the AAUP Guidelines and the NSHE Code indicate that the University should have a minimum of 3-4 years probation to assess the candidate�s record. Thus, no more than 1-2 Years are generally granted towards tenure upon hire (for those with previous academic experience). Note that many given such time towards tenure have later asked for more time. At that time, it is too late since the years given upon hire count towards the 7 year maximum. Full Professors or senior Associate Professors with tenure elsewhere may be hired with tenure if approved by departmental faculty, the dean, Provost, the President, and the Board of Regents. Note that any candidate may apply for tenure at the beginning of any academic year, WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PRESIDENT. It is the current position of UNLV that permission for such consideration for early tenure occurs only under exceptional circumstances.

8. Timing of Promotion(Full Professor) UNLV By-Laws: An associate professor is normally expected to be in rank for five years prior to applying for promotion to full professor In exceptional circumstances, an application may be considered earlier Amended 3/10Amended 3/10

9. Evaluation for Tenure Categories: Teaching, Research & Service Evaluation System: �Excellent�, �Commendable�, �Satisfactory� and �Unsatisfactory� Need �Excellent� in Teaching and/or Research, AND at Least �Satisfactory� in Other AS WELL AS in Service As with Annual Evaluations and Mid-tenure Reviews, the categories of Teaching, Research and Service evaluated for tenure. The same 4-step evaluation system (Excellent, Commendable, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory) is used for tenure as well. Teaching evaluations should assess performance not only in classroom lectures, but also such items as advising students (don�t believe colleagues when they say don�t do advising because �it doesn�t count�); mentoring students in independent research, clinical or field work, performances/exhibits or internships. Research evaluations should assess whether candidates are continuously involved in scholarly or creative activity documented by peer reviewed publications (and impact) or comparable productivity. Service includes University citizenship (committees at department, college, university or system levels), participation in professional societies, participation in community service, possessing personal integrity and capacity for further significant intellectual and professional achievement, and collegiality (�ability to work with the faculty and students of the member institution of the University of Nevada and the people it serves�). (More on the meaning and documentation of these three categories later) The NSHE Code indicates that a successful candidate must receive an Excellent in Teaching and/or Research and at least a Satisfactory in the other; as well as at least a Satisfactory in Service. In other words, ratings �Commendable� across the board would not merit tenure. Note that the Annual Evaluations and Mid-Tenure Reviews should indicate progress towards tenure throughout the tenure track period, so there should be no surprises, if the department is taking responsibilities seriously (if not, the candidate may be caught by the �comparable rigor� assessments). As with Annual Evaluations and Mid-tenure Reviews, the categories of Teaching, Research and Service evaluated for tenure. The same 4-step evaluation system (Excellent, Commendable, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory) is used for tenure as well. Teaching evaluations should assess performance not only in classroom lectures, but also such items as advising students (don�t believe colleagues when they say don�t do advising because �it doesn�t count�); mentoring students in independent research, clinical or field work, performances/exhibits or internships. Research evaluations should assess whether candidates are continuously involved in scholarly or creative activity documented by peer reviewed publications (and impact) or comparable productivity. Service includes University citizenship (committees at department, college, university or system levels), participation in professional societies, participation in community service, possessing personal integrity and capacity for further significant intellectual and professional achievement, and collegiality (�ability to work with the faculty and students of the member institution of the University of Nevada and the people it serves�). (More on the meaning and documentation of these three categories later) The NSHE Code indicates that a successful candidate must receive an Excellent in Teaching and/or Research and at least a Satisfactory in the other; as well as at least a Satisfactory in Service. In other words, ratings �Commendable� across the board would not merit tenure. Note that the Annual Evaluations and Mid-Tenure Reviews should indicate progress towards tenure throughout the tenure track period, so there should be no surprises, if the department is taking responsibilities seriously (if not, the candidate may be caught by the �comparable rigor� assessments).

10. Evaluation for Promotion Essential Criteria for Associate Professors and Full Professors Possess Terminal Degree Demonstrated Effectiveness as Teacher Continuing Satisfactory Productivity in Creative or Research Activity Both Associate and Full Professors must meet Essential Criteria. The major difference is that for promotion to Full Professor, the input by external referees must be made (2 provided from candidate; 2 provided from department) and the full CV must be submitted (full body of career work assessed; national/international reputation required). Some departments also require external referees for promotion to Associate Professor (may be a wise idea to demonstrate impact of research; see below). Both Associate and Full Professors must meet Essential Criteria. The major difference is that for promotion to Full Professor, the input by external referees must be made (2 provided from candidate; 2 provided from department) and the full CV must be submitted (full body of career work assessed; national/international reputation required). Some departments also require external referees for promotion to Associate Professor (may be a wise idea to demonstrate impact of research; see below).

11. Evaluation for PromotionAdditional Criteria Associate Professor Demonstrated Success as a Counselor of Students Continued Evidence of Participation in Professional or Academic Organizations Full Professor Demonstrated Success as a WISE Counselor of Students Evidence of Leadership in Professional or Academic Organizations The principal differences between the first two �Additional Criteria� is that the Full Professor is expected to have gained considerable amount of experience and leadership skills. While an Associate Professor is expected to counsel students appropriately (even if it takes some research with peers and/or other university units to find the correct answers), whereas the Full Professor is expected to possess the wisdom gained through counseling experience. Likewise, Associate Professors are expected to be members and active participants in professional and academic organizations, while a Full Professor is expected to demonstrate leadership in such organizations.The principal differences between the first two �Additional Criteria� is that the Full Professor is expected to have gained considerable amount of experience and leadership skills. While an Associate Professor is expected to counsel students appropriately (even if it takes some research with peers and/or other university units to find the correct answers), whereas the Full Professor is expected to possess the wisdom gained through counseling experience. Likewise, Associate Professors are expected to be members and active participants in professional and academic organizations, while a Full Professor is expected to demonstrate leadership in such organizations.

12. Evaluation for PromotionAdditional Criteria (Continued) Associate Professor Record of Contributions to University Community Collegiality Other Accomplishments of Relevance Full Professor Significant Record of Contributions to University Community Continued Collegiality Other Significant Accomplishments of Relevance The principal difference between the expectation for the third and fifth Additional Criterion for Associate and Full Professors is the amount and significance of the record of contributions to the University Community (i.e. senior faculty are expected to have greater leadership responsibilities as a University Citizen). �Other accomplishments of relevance� are other contributions of the individual to the university community.The principal difference between the expectation for the third and fifth Additional Criterion for Associate and Full Professors is the amount and significance of the record of contributions to the University Community (i.e. senior faculty are expected to have greater leadership responsibilities as a University Citizen). �Other accomplishments of relevance� are other contributions of the individual to the university community.

13. Concept of Collegiality �the demonstrated ability to work productively with colleagues, staff and students� (UNLV By-laws) �ability to work with the faculty and students of the member institution in the best interests of the University of Nevada and the people that it serves, and to the extent that the job performance of the academic faculty member�s administrative unit may not be otherwise affected� (NSHE Code) The concept of collegiality should be distinguished from congeniality. In terms of the tenure and promotion decision, collegiality has been generally defined as �the demonstrated ability to work productively with colleagues, staff and students� (UNLV By-laws) or the �ability to work with the faculty and students of the member institution in the best interests of the University of Nevada and the people that it serves, and to the extent that the job performance of the academic faculty member�s administrative unit may not be otherwise affected� (NSHE Code). Collegiality is a criterion that is almost solely determined by experiences and observations of the faculty. In litigation, tenure denial cases involving collegiality are the ones that are seldom, if ever, overturned (juries may not be able to distinguish the subtleties of criteria related to teaching or research, but they tend to understand if somebody is disruptive to the workplace culture or responsible for creating a hostile work environment ). Note that collegiality is not the same as congeniality. Somebody may have a difficulty personality but be able to work productively with others. On the other hand, somebody who is congenial (he is a �good guy�; she is �popular�; etc.) should not be tenure/promoted simply because everybody likes (and/or feels sorry for) him/her when s/he may not be effective professionally. The concept of collegiality should be distinguished from congeniality. In terms of the tenure and promotion decision, collegiality has been generally defined as �the demonstrated ability to work productively with colleagues, staff and students� (UNLV By-laws) or the �ability to work with the faculty and students of the member institution in the best interests of the University of Nevada and the people that it serves, and to the extent that the job performance of the academic faculty member�s administrative unit may not be otherwise affected� (NSHE Code). Collegiality is a criterion that is almost solely determined by experiences and observations of the faculty. In litigation, tenure denial cases involving collegiality are the ones that are seldom, if ever, overturned (juries may not be able to distinguish the subtleties of criteria related to teaching or research, but they tend to understand if somebody is disruptive to the workplace culture or responsible for creating a hostile work environment ). Note that collegiality is not the same as congeniality. Somebody may have a difficulty personality but be able to work productively with others. On the other hand, somebody who is congenial (he is a �good guy�; she is �popular�; etc.) should not be tenure/promoted simply because everybody likes (and/or feels sorry for) him/her when s/he may not be effective professionally.

14. Concept of Collegiality(Continued) IS NOT Congeniality IS NOT Incompatible with Academic Freedom Non-collegial Behavior is Hostile, Destructive, Abusive, Disruptive, and Unproductive for Others Non-collegial Behavior Generally Must be Repeated* (and Warned Against) to be Considered in T&P Decisions The concept of collegiality has little to do with a person�s personality or his/her freedom to express opinions. In fact, some very productive individuals may be aggressive, with personalities that could be considered somewhat abrasive. The ability to express creative ideas, even unpopular ones, is the hallmark of academic freedom. Thus, we seek to protect productive individuals and new ideas, regardless of popularity. On the other hand, non-collegial behavior is hostile, destructive, disruptive, and unproductive, so it must be discouraged. Examples of non-collegial behavior among faculty members may include: frequent incidents of verbal abuse, threats and harassment, particularly when directed at individuals who are (or are perceived to be) subordinate in the power structure (e.g. students, support staff, junior faculty); patterns of a single individual disrupting meetings to the point that colleagues refuse to serve on the same committees; extreme activities that are disruptive to the educational process (e.g. shouting streams of obscenities outside of classroom); maliciously generating/spreading false rumors about colleagues (i.e. slander or libel); deliberately violating process and procedures of the institution; etc.. Moreover, collegiality/non-collegiality as a tenure and/or promotion issue is not established by a single incident (unless it is an egregious, criminal act*), it is based on a pattern of negative behavior. To be considered in a tenure and/or promotion decision, non-collegial behavior would have to persist despite written warnings to cease. Patterns of this sort of negative, non-collegial behavior should not be condoned in higher education when one decides whether to award life-long tenure. *Of course, if the behavior is a criminal offense, Chapter 6 actions may be taken and termination may be immediate.The concept of collegiality has little to do with a person�s personality or his/her freedom to express opinions. In fact, some very productive individuals may be aggressive, with personalities that could be considered somewhat abrasive. The ability to express creative ideas, even unpopular ones, is the hallmark of academic freedom. Thus, we seek to protect productive individuals and new ideas, regardless of popularity. On the other hand, non-collegial behavior is hostile, destructive, disruptive, and unproductive, so it must be discouraged. Examples of non-collegial behavior among faculty members may include: frequent incidents of verbal abuse, threats and harassment, particularly when directed at individuals who are (or are perceived to be) subordinate in the power structure (e.g. students, support staff, junior faculty); patterns of a single individual disrupting meetings to the point that colleagues refuse to serve on the same committees; extreme activities that are disruptive to the educational process (e.g. shouting streams of obscenities outside of classroom); maliciously generating/spreading false rumors about colleagues (i.e. slander or libel); deliberately violating process and procedures of the institution; etc.. Moreover, collegiality/non-collegiality as a tenure and/or promotion issue is not established by a single incident (unless it is an egregious, criminal act*), it is based on a pattern of negative behavior. To be considered in a tenure and/or promotion decision, non-collegial behavior would have to persist despite written warnings to cease. Patterns of this sort of negative, non-collegial behavior should not be condoned in higher education when one decides whether to award life-long tenure. *Of course, if the behavior is a criminal offense, Chapter 6 actions may be taken and termination may be immediate.

15. Tenure & Promotion ProcessGeneral Candidate Prepares T&P Package after 5th Academic Year; Pre-tenure Review �-way through (generally, 3rd year) Departmental and College By-laws Outline Guidelines for the Process, BUT Not Binding on Subsequent Administrative Levels Faculty Input is Key at Each Level that Reviews T&P Records, but Administrators Make Recommendations Candidates generally prepare T&P package at the end of their 5th academic year at UNLV. Note that individuals hired in the Spring Semester must submit after only 4 � years due to prescribed schedule of process. Some departments have candidates submit at the end of the Spring, others early in the Fall semester Note also that all candidates should have a comprehensive pre-tenure review approximately half-way through their tenure track period to indicate their progress towards tenure. Annual Evaluations also provide indication of whether the candidates are making satisfactory progress towards tenure, and, if not, what needs to be done. There are by-laws at the departmental and college levels that govern the specifics of the tenure/promotion process for the candidate�s unit. Therefore, it is a good idea to review guiding documents. However, these by-laws do not bind decision-makers in subsequent administrative levels (e.g. departmental by-laws do not bind college and college by-laws do not bind University). The decision-makers at higher levels are looking for comparable rigor rather than discipline-specific details concerning criteria or documentation of teaching, research and service, so the specificity of departmental or college by-laws are not missed in this process. At the department, college, and university level, faculty make key inputs. However, administrators must make the specific recommendations (and documentation of the sense of the faculty feelings about the candidate�s records and their reasons). Candidates generally prepare T&P package at the end of their 5th academic year at UNLV. Note that individuals hired in the Spring Semester must submit after only 4 � years due to prescribed schedule of process. Some departments have candidates submit at the end of the Spring, others early in the Fall semester Note also that all candidates should have a comprehensive pre-tenure review approximately half-way through their tenure track period to indicate their progress towards tenure. Annual Evaluations also provide indication of whether the candidates are making satisfactory progress towards tenure, and, if not, what needs to be done. There are by-laws at the departmental and college levels that govern the specifics of the tenure/promotion process for the candidate�s unit. Therefore, it is a good idea to review guiding documents. However, these by-laws do not bind decision-makers in subsequent administrative levels (e.g. departmental by-laws do not bind college and college by-laws do not bind University). The decision-makers at higher levels are looking for comparable rigor rather than discipline-specific details concerning criteria or documentation of teaching, research and service, so the specificity of departmental or college by-laws are not missed in this process. At the department, college, and university level, faculty make key inputs. However, administrators must make the specific recommendations (and documentation of the sense of the faculty feelings about the candidate�s records and their reasons).

16. Tenure & Promotion Process(Continued) T&P Package to Department Personnel Committee, Faculty, then Chair (Recommendation & Letter to Candidate) College Personnel Committee, then Dean (Recommendation & Letter to Candidate) Faculty Senate Tenure & Promotion Committee, then Provost (Recommendation & Letter to Candidate) President Makes Decision The entire T&P package prepared by the candidate is reviewed by a departmental personnel or T&P committee. This committee is generally elected and may or may not be rank-specified (e.g. tenured only, rank-independent, or rank diversified, depending on departmental by-laws). The committee makes recommendations to the faculty for voting and the faculty members eligible to vote may or may not be rank-specified (generally tenured only). The chair takes the votes and reasons from the department and expresses them in his/her section of the T&P form. The chair may choose to make a contradictory recommendation from that of the department, but both the departmental and his/her position and reasons should be clear on the department page of this form (generally completed before the end of September). The chair will then send a letter to the candidate expressing his/her overall recommendation (to support or deny tenure/promotion). The college personnel committee reviews the full T&P package, and may interview an advocate for the candidate and the departmental chair. The committee looks at comparable rigor across the college and votes. The dean takes the vote, reasons and expresses them in his/her section of the T&P form. The dean may choose to make a contradictory recommendation from that of the college committee, but both the college and his/her position and reasons should be clear on the college page this form (generally completed before the end of October). The dean will then send a letter to the candidate expressing his/her overall recommendation (to support or deny tenure/promotion). The Faculty Senate Academic Freedom, Tenure and Promotion Committee review the T&P form and any letters from external referees (the only documents coming forward), with particular focus on comparable rigor across the University. This Committee will make recommendations to the Provost. The Provost will make a recommendation to the President on the T&P form (generally before Spring semester) and will send a letter to the candidate expressing his/her overall recommendation (to support or deny tenure/promotion). The President will review all recommendations on the T&P form and make the final decision. The entire T&P package prepared by the candidate is reviewed by a departmental personnel or T&P committee. This committee is generally elected and may or may not be rank-specified (e.g. tenured only, rank-independent, or rank diversified, depending on departmental by-laws). The committee makes recommendations to the faculty for voting and the faculty members eligible to vote may or may not be rank-specified (generally tenured only). The chair takes the votes and reasons from the department and expresses them in his/her section of the T&P form. The chair may choose to make a contradictory recommendation from that of the department, but both the departmental and his/her position and reasons should be clear on the department page of this form (generally completed before the end of September). The chair will then send a letter to the candidate expressing his/her overall recommendation (to support or deny tenure/promotion). The college personnel committee reviews the full T&P package, and may interview an advocate for the candidate and the departmental chair. The committee looks at comparable rigor across the college and votes. The dean takes the vote, reasons and expresses them in his/her section of the T&P form. The dean may choose to make a contradictory recommendation from that of the college committee, but both the college and his/her position and reasons should be clear on the college page this form (generally completed before the end of October). The dean will then send a letter to the candidate expressing his/her overall recommendation (to support or deny tenure/promotion). The Faculty Senate Academic Freedom, Tenure and Promotion Committee review the T&P form and any letters from external referees (the only documents coming forward), with particular focus on comparable rigor across the University. This Committee will make recommendations to the Provost. The Provost will make a recommendation to the President on the T&P form (generally before Spring semester) and will send a letter to the candidate expressing his/her overall recommendation (to support or deny tenure/promotion). The President will review all recommendations on the T&P form and make the final decision.

17. Process If Tenure Denied After Provost�s Letter � 15 days to Request Reasons; Administrator has 15 days to Respond May Ask for Reconsideration (New Evidence Responding to Reasons) Reconsideration Goes through Administrative Chain President has Final Decision The NSHE Code allows a candidate who is denied tenure/promotion to request reasons for recommendations for denial from the lowest level administrator recommending against tenure/promotion. Once reasons have been received, the candidate may request reconsideration of the recommendation (should have new evidence to prevail). The reconsideration goes through the administrative chain of command. The President has the final decision. The NSHE Code allows a candidate who is denied tenure/promotion to request reasons for recommendations for denial from the lowest level administrator recommending against tenure/promotion. Once reasons have been received, the candidate may request reconsideration of the recommendation (should have new evidence to prevail). The reconsideration goes through the administrative chain of command. The President has the final decision.

18. Process If Tenure Denied(Continued) UNLV By-Laws Allows Appeal to Grievance Committee Faculty Senate By-Laws Detail Process � Elected Committee Conducts Hearings Recommendation to Provost, Who Makes Recommendation to President President Makes Final Decision If reconsideration does not lead to tenure/promotion, UNLV By-Laws allows the candidate to make an appeal to the Senate Grievance Committee. The process for this appeal is outlined in the Faculty Senate By-Laws. The Faculty Senate Grievance Committee will review information submitted from candidate and representative from administration who recommended denial. A hearing is held and recommendations are made to the Provost. The Provost makes recommendations to the President, who makes the final decision. Remember that denial of tenure does not mean the end of a professional career; there may be a better fit elsewhere. For example, a faculty member who enjoys and excels at teaching but doesn�t like research may find a very productive career in an institution devoted solely to teaching. Conversely, a faculty member who enjoys and excels at research but doesn�t enjoy teaching may find a very productive career in a research institution, a �think tank� or private enterprise. If reconsideration does not lead to tenure/promotion, UNLV By-Laws allows the candidate to make an appeal to the Senate Grievance Committee. The process for this appeal is outlined in the Faculty Senate By-Laws. The Faculty Senate Grievance Committee will review information submitted from candidate and representative from administration who recommended denial. A hearing is held and recommendations are made to the Provost. The Provost makes recommendations to the President, who makes the final decision. Remember that denial of tenure does not mean the end of a professional career; there may be a better fit elsewhere. For example, a faculty member who enjoys and excels at teaching but doesn�t like research may find a very productive career in an institution devoted solely to teaching. Conversely, a faculty member who enjoys and excels at research but doesn�t enjoy teaching may find a very productive career in a research institution, a �think tank� or private enterprise.

19. Documentation of Productivity Discipline-Specific Weight of Evidence Teaching � Classroom, Mentoring, Advising; Measures/Documentation Research/Creative Activity � Also Needs Documentation; Discipline-Specific Criteria; Focused Scholarship with Impact on Discipline. All aspects of teaching, research and service productivity must be provided by candidate (advice/mentoring from colleagues, chairs, deans, Provost; not just �war stories�, but thoughtful mentoring and deliberations). Most of the evidence should represent discipline-specific weight of evidence. For teaching: You cannot just assert that you are an excellent teacher without evidence. Student evaluations provide one measure, but not the only one (or the best). You may want to document other measures (some colleges have some as formal measures): peer reviews; teaching portfolios; evidence of innovative teaching (e.g. TLC training, technology in the classroom, application of �Best Teaching Practices�); evidence of effective mentoring and advising; application of assessment of teaching effectiveness and feedback; and scholarship in teaching in the discipline. For Research: Research/Creative Activity needs documentation, generally by peer reviewed publications, performances, or exhibits. Cannot just count publications (number and type are quite discipline-specific; some disciplines are conducive to large numbers of journal articles while others produce a few books, etc.), so the department and, to a lesser extent, the college needs to assess the quality and significance of the corpus of the candidate�s work. Focused research that builds a reputation for expertise (and student involvement) and produces products with great impact are the best evidence for research productivity. Differential assessments of the value of publications based upon journal �tier� or number and position of multiple authors are not as valuable as an evaluation of the impact of all of the work (could be measured by Citation Index data and/or evaluation of significance of work by departmental faculty or external referees). All aspects of teaching, research and service productivity must be provided by candidate (advice/mentoring from colleagues, chairs, deans, Provost; not just �war stories�, but thoughtful mentoring and deliberations). Most of the evidence should represent discipline-specific weight of evidence. For teaching: You cannot just assert that you are an excellent teacher without evidence. Student evaluations provide one measure, but not the only one (or the best). You may want to document other measures (some colleges have some as formal measures): peer reviews; teaching portfolios; evidence of innovative teaching (e.g. TLC training, technology in the classroom, application of �Best Teaching Practices�); evidence of effective mentoring and advising; application of assessment of teaching effectiveness and feedback; and scholarship in teaching in the discipline. For Research: Research/Creative Activity needs documentation, generally by peer reviewed publications, performances, or exhibits. Cannot just count publications (number and type are quite discipline-specific; some disciplines are conducive to large numbers of journal articles while others produce a few books, etc.), so the department and, to a lesser extent, the college needs to assess the quality and significance of the corpus of the candidate�s work. Focused research that builds a reputation for expertise (and student involvement) and produces products with great impact are the best evidence for research productivity. Differential assessments of the value of publications based upon journal �tier� or number and position of multiple authors are not as valuable as an evaluation of the impact of all of the work (could be measured by Citation Index data and/or evaluation of significance of work by departmental faculty or external referees).

20. Integrated Teaching/Research/Service Boyer�s Concept of Scholarship: Scholarship of Discovery Scholarship of Integration Scholarship of Application Teaching Scholarship ASU � Integrated Model Ernest Boyer (Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate; 1990; Princeton University Press): Valued scholarship not only involves �basic research� or scholarship of discovery. It is also the scholarship of integration (assembling the findings of others into new constructs/models); scholarship of application (theory to practice); and scholarship of teaching (research better ways to communicate ideas to students in the discipline). At UNLV, we value all, but there must be documented transmission of results of all types of scholarship through (peer reviewed) professional journals/presentations, etc. Some universities such as ASU recognizes the integrated nature of teaching, research, and service. Useful to see diversity and gradient of integrated activities.Ernest Boyer (Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate; 1990; Princeton University Press): Valued scholarship not only involves �basic research� or scholarship of discovery. It is also the scholarship of integration (assembling the findings of others into new constructs/models); scholarship of application (theory to practice); and scholarship of teaching (research better ways to communicate ideas to students in the discipline). At UNLV, we value all, but there must be documented transmission of results of all types of scholarship through (peer reviewed) professional journals/presentations, etc. Some universities such as ASU recognizes the integrated nature of teaching, research, and service. Useful to see diversity and gradient of integrated activities.

21. ASU Integrated Model