Faculty Appointments

Appointments and Tenure (Terms of)*

Preface
Third-Year Reviews
Tenure Reviews
PEAR Reviews
Continuing Reviews (non-PEAR)
Reappointment and Tenure Appeals
Disciplinary Procedures
Procedures for Dealing with Non-disciplinary Incapacities
Grievance Procedures
Termination of Appointments
Tenure and Terms of Service
Promotion of Tenure-Track, Tenured, and PEAR Faculty
Promotion for Continuing Faculty
Senior Faculty Development Forum
Amendment of Regulations Governing Reappointment, Tenure, Appeals and Dismissals

1. Preface

   STATEMENT ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM

   Carleton College upholds academic freedom as essential to the College’s mission to provide an exceptional undergraduate liberal arts education. It is crucial to developing the curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking that Carleton seeks to cultivate. As an institution of higher education, Carleton is dedicated to the common good. The common good relies on the unfettered pursuit of knowledge in an environment that is welcoming, respectful, and free. Academic freedom protects faculty, students, and the College as a whole from undue influences and constraints, external or internal, and preserves the free conduct of teaching, scholarship, and learning at the center of the College’s mission.

   Carleton endorses the principles and guidelines regarding academic freedom that have been developed by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) over more than a century. The AAUP, in its 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom, grounds academic freedom in credentialed expertise, asserting that professors should be free to carry out their research and teaching without fear or favor because they are experts whose professional work advances human knowledge and contributes to the common good. The educational process will sometimes be uncomfortable or unsettling, especially when pre-existing ideas and beliefs are challenged. Academic freedom includes the right to entertain and express diverse ideas and viewpoints, including those that may be surprising, controversial, or offensive. Academic freedom protects the rights of all faculty.

   The four pillars of academic freedom are as follows:

   1. Freedom of inquiry and research: faculty are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of results. Research for pecuniary return should be based on an understanding with the College.
   2. Freedom of teaching: faculty are entitled to freedom in the classroom in teaching their subject and in developing their pedagogy. Inside the classroom, professors have the authority to decide what to teach based on their academic expertise and the parameters of a particular discipline or field. They also have the prerogative to decide how to teach based on their pedagogical goals and the broader objective of helping students develop critical thinking skills.
   3. Freedom of intramural speech: faculty governance depends on academic freedom, with professors holding the primary responsibility for educational matters ranging from design and content of the curriculum to recommendations for faculty hiring and promotion. Academic freedom protects speech in the context of faculty governance.
   4. Freedom of extramural speech: faculty are private individuals and community members. As such, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline when speaking on matters of public concern. However, as associates of learned professions and employees of the College, they should remember that the public may judge their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should make an effort to indicate that they are not speaking for Carleton when engaging in extramural speech.

   As leaders of the institution, the President and Provost have a responsibility to protect academic freedom with support from the FPC, ECC, and FAC.

   Relevant AAUP documents: the 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure; the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure; and the 2007 Freedom in the Classroom Report.

   FACULTY PERSONNEL COMMITTEE

   The faculty committee charged with monitoring faculty reviews is the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC).

   The committee shall consist of five elected tenured members of the faculty, one from the social sciences, one from the natural sciences/mathematics, two from the combined divisions of humanities and arts/literature, and one who has been tenured five years or less at the time of election; and the president and provost and vice president for academic affairs, ex officio.

   The five elected members of the committee shall be elected by the voting faculty and shall serve for three-year terms. Because continuity on the committee is very important, no one should stand for election who plans to interrupt the first two years of the term with a sabbatical leave, leading an off-campus program, etc. No two elected members may be from the same department.

   There shall be no alternate members on the Faculty Personnel Committee. If a tenure candidate is from the same department as an elected Faculty Personnel Committee member, that member shall remove him- or herself during the deliberation about the candidate and shall not participate in the voting concerning the candidate. In such a case, if no other elected member of the committee is from the same division as the tenure candidate, the most recently retired Faculty Personnel Committee member from a different department in the candidate’s division shall serve as a non-voting consultant to the Faculty Personnel Committee to provide discipline-specific advice.

   CLOSE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

   In faculty personnel decisions, the College wishes to avoid all possible questions about the propriety of an individual’s serving as judge or advocate in situations involving a person with whom he or she has a close personal relationship (e.g., relationship such as spouse or parent). In a small college such as Carleton, personnel decisions may often be complicated by friendships among the parties; this is a difficulty we must live with. But close personal relationships may introduce a conflict of interest, or the potential for or the appearance of conflict of interest, that we must avoid. Therefore, a tenured faculty member who has such a relationship with someone holding an appointment in the non-tenured ranks of his or her own department 1) will not participate in the third-year or tenure reviews of that person, and 2) should discuss with the provost and department chair the appropriate level of participation in other departmental decisions or recommendations on faculty appointments or promotions. Similarly, a faculty member who has such a relationship with someone holding a PEAR or continuing appointment should not participate in the reviews of that person.  Of course, no faculty member should participate in a hiring decision involving someone with whom he or she has a close personal relationship. At the College-wide level, a faculty member should not serve on the Faculty Personnel Committee during the years when someone with whom he or she has a close personal relationship is in a tenure track position in any department in the College.

   Close professional relationships (e.g., extensive cooperative work or co-authorship) also may lead to a conflict of interest, but this is impossible to anticipate and specify in advance.

   Anyone with questions or concerns about a possible conflict of interest stemming from a close personal or professional relationship should discuss the matter with the chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee or the provost and vice president for academic affairs.

   REVIEW SCHEDULES FOR PART-TIME TENURE-TRACK, PEAR AND CONTINUING FACULTY

   In the case of part-time or joint appointments, since the accumulation of three or six full years of service might take a great deal of time, the provost, the department chair, and the faculty member in question may agree to accelerate the normal schedule of reviews. (cf. Part-Time Faculty).

   “STOPPING THE CLOCK”

   Provisions for delaying the review process during leaves of absences prior to the tenure decision are explained in the section on tenure and terms of service (See TENURE AND TERMS OF SERVICE).

2. Tenure-Track Third-Year Reviews

   PURPOSE

   During the third year of service of a faculty member on a tenure-track appointment, the FPC, the provost and the department conduct a thorough evaluation of the faculty member’s work. This evaluation of progress after the first years of service provides the principal evidence used in deciding whether the faculty member should be reappointed and, in addition, provides the candidate with guidelines for priorities and improvements in his or her teaching and scholarly work following the review. A decision to reappoint after three years is not a prejudgment of a later tenure decision. Unless otherwise specified in the contract letter, a tenure-track faculty member hired before completing the Ph.D. or comparable terminal degree must complete all requirements for that degree prior to September 30 of his or her third year of teaching at Carleton. Failure to complete the degree by September 30 of the third year of service will result in cancellation of the review and non-renewal of the faculty member’s contract.

   PROCEDURES

   Since a departmental assessment of a faculty member is generally the most important factor taken into account by the provost and the president, the review process is departmentally based. The departmental assessment is arrived at by the chair and the tenured members of the department; other members of the department and any other members of the faculty may make their views known directly to the provost if they wish. The provost shall be responsible for ensuring that the procedures for evaluation are known to the faculty member before the review begins, are agreed upon by the department, are consistent with the review considerations of the College, and are thoroughly and fairly administered. Tenured members of the department on leave are expected to make prior arrangements with the provost, the department chair and the candidate for participation in the third-year or tenure review.

   When a department has fewer than three tenured members (or in other exceptional circumstances), a Special Review Committee will be formed. This committee will function as the tenured members of a department for purposes of personnel evaluation and recommendation. The chair of the committee will conduct annual end-of-year conversations with the candidate. The committee will normally be formed when a faculty member is hired and will normally continue in existence through both the third-year review and the tenure review. The provost and vice president for academic affairs will appoint the committee in consultation with the candidate and his or her department chair and with the advice of the Faculty Personnel Committee; the composition of the Special Committee will be reassessed at the end of the third-year review. A Special Committee will consist of at least three tenured members of the faculty, but could have more participants if appropriate.

   If a candidate has participated in cross-disciplinary curricular activities, such as a minor, an Area Studies Program, etc., or has team taught with someone outside the candidate’s own department, a letter of evaluation may be solicited by the provost and vice president for academic affairs from the appropriate person, such as the director of the Area Studies Program or the co-teacher. Appropriate people from whom to solicit such letters will be identified by the provost, in consultation with the candidate, and with the advice and consent of the Faculty Personnel Committee. Such letters will be included in the candidate’s dossier when it is sent to the department for review.

   In making its assessment the department shall thoroughly review and appraise the quality of the faculty member’s teaching. Each department member should gather evidence from:

   1. repeated personal visits to the faculty member’s classes (and, if applicable, laboratories, studios, rehearsals, etc.), as agreed upon by the candidate, the provost, and the department before the commencement of the third-year or tenure review. For third-year reviews these visits should normally occur during winter or spring of the candidate’s second year of teaching or fall of the candidate’s third year of teaching. For tenure reviews these visits should normally occur during fall, winter, or spring of the academic year prior to the tenure review. As soon as is convenient, the individual members of the department should discuss their observations of the faculty member’s teaching with him or her and make recommendations if these are warranted;
   2. student evaluation forms supplied by the Provost (see below);
   3. a career prospectus provided by the candidate;
   4. and other sources agreed to by the candidate and the department as may be appropriate.

   The tenured members of the department shall read and review the candidate’s scholarly writing (or other creative work or research as appropriate to the discipline), published and unpublished.

   In addition, the faculty member being evaluated may submit any relevant supporting evidence in his or her own behalf.

   The College encourages the involvement of students in its faculty and curricular decisions. Students take part in the hiring process within departments and in the review and evaluation of courses, programs and departments through the departmental curriculum committees, the Education and Curriculum Committee, departmental reviews and other departmental and College-wide committees. All instructors have the right, and are encouraged, to secure student evaluations of their own courses.

   In formal reviews for tenure or reappointment, student involvement comes through the use of special student evaluation forms distributed and processed by the provost. For this evaluation, a list of twenty to thirty names of current and recently graduated students is solicited from the faculty member concerned. A second list of names is obtained by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment through a random sample, with appropriate mechanisms to make the sample broadly representative of the diversity of students who have taken the faculty members’ courses. (Any student who has been the subject of a judicial proceeding involving the faculty member being evaluated will be barred from participating in this review at the latter’s request.) After showing the covering letter and the evaluation form to the faculty member being evaluated, the provost and vice president for academic affairs writes to each student whose name appears on the lists, requesting the student’s evaluation of the faculty member. Evaluations from current students are normally sought when students are away from the campus.

   After the evaluations have been received, the provost prepares a copy of the letters, deleting the student’s name and address and other material in the letter that is not appropriate to the review. The concerned faculty member is then given the opportunity to read the edited letters in a manner approved by the provost’s office. At a later date, the faculty member meets with the provost to discuss the letters. The edited letters are also made available to the tenured members of the department and to the Faculty Personnel Committee. Only the provost and the president see the full letter from each student.

   Student evaluations provide evidence to assist all participants in the process in making their decision. Used with sensitivity, they ought also to provide valuable assistance to the faculty member in evaluating his or her own teaching.

   Once the above evidence has been gathered, tenured members of the department shall meet together to discuss and arrive at a departmental recommendation, basing their deliberations on this evidence and also upon their own knowledge of the candidate. The chair of the department shall then write a letter to the provost summarizing the discussion and communicating the departmental recommendation together with the reasons for that recommendation. A copy of this letter is also to be sent to each tenured member of the department, but it should not be shared with the candidate. In addition, each tenured member shall convey his or her own evaluation of the candidate in a formal letter to the provost, with a copy to every tenured member of the department. No tenured member’s letter should be shared with the candidate.

   Once a departmental recommendation has been made, the provost, president, and two elected faculty members from the Faculty Personnel Committee review the departmental letters (including those of the individual tenured members), the student letters, and the material submitted by the candidate in his or her own behalf, along with any other materials the provost considers relevant.

   The provost meets in strict confidence with the entire Faculty Personnel Committee to summarize and discuss his or her perceptions of the review. After the Faculty Personnel Committee’s discussion, the provost and president meet to make a preliminary decision about reappointment.

   If the provost and president’s preliminary decision differs from the majority recommendation of the department, then the provost and president shall convene a meeting to consult about that decision with the available tenured members of the department.

   If the provost and president have made a positive final decision regarding reappointment, the provost shall draft a letter summarizing the review, including the student letters and the department letters. The draft is shared and discussed with the entire Faculty Personnel Committee. The provost then shares the draft with the department or review committee chair. The chair may supply written feedback on the letter within 24 hours, and then the provost will meet with the candidate and department chair to discuss the substance of the provost’s letter. The candidate and department chair will have the opportunity to read a copy of the draft letter at least 48 hours prior to their meeting with the provost. During that meeting, they will have the opportunity to suggest revisions to the letter. The provost will send the final version of the letter to the candidate and the chair. The chair will make the letter available to all tenured members of the department or review committee. This letter will be the only written record to carry forward from the third-year review to the candidate’s tenure review.

   If the provost and president have made a negative final decision regarding reappointment, the candidate is informed of that decision in writing by the provost and vice president for academic affairs and, if he or she so requests, told in writing the reasons for that decision, within three weeks of requesting such a letter.

3. Tenure Reviews

   CONSIDERATIONS

   Carleton is primarily a teaching institution. Thus, demonstrated excellence in teaching is the most important concern in the consideration of a candidate for tenure. At the same time, teaching effectiveness and the quality of a faculty member’s interaction with students and colleagues over the long term of a career depend on a commitment to and a capacity for scholarship and continuing intellectual growth. Accordingly, the following will be considered as evidence of such commitment to and promise of sustained intellectual growth: scholarly publications, creative work, presentations at professional meetings, and contributions to the discipline and to the College’s intellectual life. Other factors that enter into a decision on tenure include the faculty member’s contributions to his or her department, to the College outside the classroom, and to the academic community at large.

   Contributions to the tenure decision are made by students, faculty colleagues, outside evaluators, the provost, and the president. A decision to grant tenure remains a matter of judgment by the relevant individuals at the College, based on their reading of the evidence and projection of the candidate’s future performance. The decision is reached after careful attention to the procedures authorized in PROCEDURES below.

   Variations among the academic disciplines, in the modes both of teaching and scholarship, imply that there be flexibility in the manner of evaluating academic and scholarly performance. Recognizing this, the College strives to develop and implement effective and fair procedures appropriate to the candidate’s discipline and/or the candidate’s special faculty role, if such should exist. In the letter of appointment or reappointment, a faculty member shall be advised of any special considerations affecting reappointment and the tenure recommendation in his or her particular case.

   The College has not fixed a maximum percentage, or quota, of the faculty to be allowed to hold tenured positions.

   PROCEDURES

   Since a departmental assessment of a faculty member is generally the most important factor taken into account by the provost, the president, and the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC), the review process is departmentally based. The departmental assessment is arrived at by the chair and the tenured members of the department; other members of the department and any other members of the faculty may make their views known directly to the provost if they wish. The procedures for the tenure review include those in the third-year review process (see above) with several additions.

   The tenured members of the department read and review the candidate’s scholarly writing, research, or other work appropriate to the discipline, and the provost’s third-year review letter in order to evaluate the promise of sustained intellectual growth. In addition, four scholarly reviewers outside the College are asked to appraise the quality of the candidate’s scholarly (or other creative) work and, at his or her option, course syllabi and its indication of the potential for a long-term career in teaching and scholarship. Three of these reviewers are chosen by the provost from a list of at least ten agreed upon by the department chair and the faculty member being evaluated. In most cases, potential reviewers who have been involved in the tenure candidate’s career in the following ways should not be solicited to review the candidate’s scholarly or creative work:

   1. served as the tenure candidate’s dissertation advisor,
   2. served on the tenure candidate’s dissertation committee,
   3. collaborated closely on a publication or creative work that will be part of the candidate’s file,
   4. previously written a letter on behalf of the candidate as part of the candidate’s initial application to Carleton College.

   The fourth outside reviewer is selected from a list of at least four names prepared by the provost and vice president for academic affairs. Names on this list are arrived at by the provost in consultation with one or several acknowledged experts in the candidate’s areas of specialization. The list is submitted to the candidate who, with the department chair, may strike the names of individuals included on this list who they believe might not be best able to judge the candidate’s work. The provost then selects the reviewer. The reviews, having advisory status, are submitted to the provost and to the department. The candidate may read the letters with identifying marks omitted.

   Once a departmental recommendation concerning tenure has been made, the provost submits the departmental letters, along with the complete file of materials considered by the department, to the Faculty Personnel Committee. The provost may also, at his or her discretion, make available to the committee any other materials in his or her possession relevant to its deliberations. Any such written documents specific to the candidate’s case which the provost distributes to the committee will also be shared with the tenured members of the department. The members of the committee, both the elected faculty and the president and the provost, meet in confidence to examine and discuss fully each tenure candidacy. During the deliberations, the committee shall meet with the candidate’s department chair or the chair of the candidate’s special review committee. The committee may convene a meeting to consult with all available tenured members of the department if it deems such a meeting desirable and appropriate. After further deliberations, if the committee anticipates an advisory recommendation that differs from the majority recommendation of the candidate’s department, it shall convene a meeting to consult with all available tenured members of the department. In each case, the committee will make clear why the meeting has been called.

   Members of the Faculty Personnel Committee, including the president and the provost and vice president for academic affairs, vote formally on the case by a show of hands. The vote taken will be of an advisory nature to the president and the provost, who in turn make recommendations to the Board of Trustees, which is empowered to make the final decision on tenure recommendations.

   If the president and provost’s decision differs from the majority recommendation of the department, then they shall convene a meeting with all the available tenured members of the department to inform them of that decision. At this meeting, the president and provost will inform the department whether their decision differs from the Faculty Personnel Committee’s advisory recommendation. The faculty member under review shall be informed of the final decision in writing by the provost and vice president for academic affairs, and, if he or she so requests, told in writing the reasons for that decision, within three weeks of requesting such a letter.

   Every substantive aspect of the deliberations by the Faculty Personnel Committee, department, and the provost and president on each tenure candidate shall be kept in strict confidence.

4. PEAR Reviews

   Third-Year Reviews for faculty members in the Department of Physical Education, Athletics, and Recreation will follow a format similar to that for tenure-track faculty undergoing third-year review (see Section 2 above) with the following modifications. All senior faculty members in the department participate in the departmental assessment of the candidate undergoing review and will visit classes, practices, and competitions. In addition to the polling outlined above, all graduates and undergraduates who were on the relevant faculty member’s varsity team(s) during the review period will be polled. 

   Sixth-Year Reviews for faculty members in the Department of Physical Education, Athletics, and Recreation will follow a format similar to that for tenure-track faculty undergoing tenure review (see Section 3 above) with the following modifications. All senior faculty members in the department participate in the departmental assessment of the candidate undergoing review and will visit classes, practices, and competitions. In addition to the polling outlined above, all varsity graduates and undergraduates who were on the relevant faculty member’s team(s) during the review period will be polled. The Provost will solicit letters from three external reviewers selected from a list agreed upon by the faculty member and chair of the PEAR department. An extra-departmental letter from a staff member in the Admissions Office will also be solicited. If the provost and the president have made a positive final decision regarding reappointment, the provost will draft a letter summarizing the review, following the procedures spelled out in Section 2 (above). Prior to the sixth year review, departmental chairs shall annually review and discuss with faculty members of their departments the latter’s performance and professional development.

   Continuing Reviews for faculty members in the Department of Physical Education, Athletics, and Recreation will follow a format similar to that of the sixth-year review (see Section 5 above) with the following modifications. A sub-set of three senior faculty members in the department proposed by the Chair and the faculty member undergoing review participate in the departmental assessment of the candidate. The Provost will solicit letters from two external reviewers. Continuing reviews will normally be conducted in the faculty member’s twelfth year, and following that, every ten years following a successful review resulting in reappointment.

5. Continuing Reviews (non-PEAR)

   Faculty on continuing contracts undergo reviews conducted primarily by the department in which they are appointed with participation by a member of the FPC and consultation with the Provost. The goal is to assess the faculty member’s performance in his or her job based on evaluation of all relevant aspects of that specific position. A plan for conducting the review will be developed along with the candidate, department chair, and the provost.  The review will include evaluation of the faculty member’s teaching through submission of a prospectus, polling of students and graduates, class visits, course materials, and other materials agreed upon by the candidate, department chair, and provost. The actual decision to reappoint a candidate is made by the Provost based on the outcome of a review, enrollments and college needs and priorities. For continuing faculty members with full-time appointments, reviews will normally occur in the third year, sixth year, twelfth year, and following that, every ten years following a successful review resulting in reappointment.

6. Reappointment and Tenure Appeals

   A candidate for reappointment or for tenure, feeling either unjustly treated because a violation of his or her academic freedom or improper discrimination has occurred or unjustly judged because established procedures have not been followed, may lodge an appeal and request a hearing with the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC). In investigating appeals the FAC will be guided by the standards set forth in the American Association of University Professors’ 1940 “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” with 1970 Interpretive Comments and its 1989 “Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments.”

   Insofar as the candidate believes a violation of his or her academic freedom or improper discrimination has occurred and is considering a formal appeal, the FAC:

   1. Will receive from the candidate, within thirty days of a negative decision regarding reappointment or tenure unless a time extension is granted by the chair of the FAC, a written notification that the candidate has met with the provost and the president to hear the reasons for the decision not to recommend reappointment or tenure and that a formal appeal is being considered. The chair of the FAC and the candidate will discuss the candidate’s concerns and the chair of the FAC will inform the president and the provost that a formal appeal is being considered. Every substantive aspect of the informal process will be kept in strict confidence. The committee (or its designees, chosen in consultation with the candidate, the provost and the president) will investigate informally the areas of concern. In the informal investigation, the candidate will be permitted to have an advisor, chosen in agreement with the chair of the FAC, from the Carleton faculty. In conducting the informal investigation, the committee (or its designees) will involve the candidate and others as appropriate, such as the tenured members of the candidate’s department and the FPC. The committee (or its designees), but not the candidate or the advisor, may also examine any documents in the candidate’s dossier reviewed by the FPC, and these will be made available by the provost. The committee (or its designees) will convene a meeting to discuss the results of their investigation with the candidate, the candidate’s advisor, the provost and president of the College, and the chair of the FAC. The provost and the president of the College will consult with the chair of the candidate’s department and the chair of the FAC prior to finalizing any resolution resulting from the informal investigation. If the matter cannot be settled to the candidate’s satisfaction by informal methods:
   2. Upon receipt by the Faculty Affairs Committee from the candidate of a written appeal citing the alleged violations, within ninety days of the negative decision unless a time extension is granted by the chair of the FAC, the chair of the FAC will inform the provost and the president that a formal appeal has been received. Before the appeal can proceed the candidate must request and receive a letter of reasons from the provost for the decision not to recommend reappointment or tenure. When this letter is received by the candidate, the committee shall convene a formal hearing on the appeal. Given the current FAC Chairs’ role in the informal appeal process, the formal appeal committee will be chaired by the most recent former FAC Chair who is available and eligible (See FACULTY PERSONNEL COMMITTEE and CLOSE PERSONAL RELATONSHIPS).

   3. The formal hearing will follow the procedures recommended in the relevant sections of the AAUP 2015 “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure”, section 5c, nos.2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15.

      An appeal upheld on the grounds that academic freedom has been violated or improper discrimination has occurred normally leads to a reversal of the original decision. In the event that the president and the provost and vice president for academic affairs decide to sustain the original decision, they shall provide to the Committee in writing the reasons for their action, and the committee shall have an opportunity to reply.

   Insofar as the candidate believes that he or she has been unjustly judged because established procedures have not been followed and is considering a formal appeal, the Committee:

   1. will receive from the candidate, within thirty days of a negative decision regarding the candidate’s reappointment or tenure unless a time extension is granted by the chair of the FAC, a written notification that the candidate has met with the provost and the president to hear the reasons for the decision not to recommend reappointment or tenure and that a formal appeal is being considered, and will investigate the matter with the candidate informally as set forth above. If the matter cannot be settled to the candidate’s satisfaction by informal methods:
   2. upon receipt by the Faculty Affairs Committee from the candidate of a written appeal citing the alleged violations, within ninety days of the negative decision unless a time extension is granted by the Chair of the FAC, the Chair of the FAC will inform the provost and the president that a formal appeal has been received. Before the appeal can proceed the candidate must request and receive a letter of reasons from the provost for the decision not to recommend reappointment or tenure. When this letter is received by the candidate, the Committee shall convene a private, formal hearing on the appeal. Given the current FAC Chairs’ role in the informal appeal process, the formal appeal committee will be chaired by the most recent former FAC Chair who is available and eligible (See FACULTY PERSONNEL COMMITTEEE and CLOSE PERSONAL RELATONSHIPS). 
   3. The formal hearing will follow the procedures recommended in the AAUP 2015 “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” section 5c, nos. 2, 6-7, 9-11, 13-15. In this hearing, the candidate will be permitted to have an advocate chosen in agreement with the FAC Chair from the Carleton faculty. The advocate, but not the candidate, may examine in strict confidence any documents in the candidate’s dossier reviewed by the FPC, and these will be made available by the provost. No party will be represented by legal counsel during the formal hearing.
   4. The Faculty Affairs Committee will determine whether the decision was the result of adequate consideration under the relevant standards and procedures of Carleton College (as set forth above), with the understanding that the Committee is not reviewing the merits of the case on substantive grounds. The decision must have been based on:
      1. consideration of all the evidence provided for above (although the omission of relevant and proper evidence or standards will not be grounds for a reconsideration unless there is a reasonable likelihood that omission of such evidence or standards materially affected the decision);
      2. consideration which excluded irrelevant and improper evidence, standards, or procedures (although the inadvertent introduction of irrelevant or improper evidence or standards will not be grounds for a reconsideration unless there is a reasonable likelihood that such evidence or standards materially affected the decision); and
      3. adequate deliberation over the evidence in light of the relevant standards and procedures of the College.
   5. The Faculty Affairs Committee will direct reconsideration by the College and, if appropriate, the department when it finds in favor of the appellant. When the Committee finds in favor of the Appellant, it will indicate in what respects the consideration was found to have been inadequate.
   6. The Faculty Affairs Committee shall provide copies of its report to the faculty member, the department or departments involved, the president of the College, and the provost and vice president for academic affairs.

   In all appeals made under the provisions set forth in this section, the burden of proof of the allegations shall rest with the faculty member who lodges the appeal.

7. Disciplinary Procedures

   Disciplinary action against a faculty member should be primarily concerned with violations of the essential rights, freedoms, and responsibilities of teaching and inquiry. The following shall be adequate causes for disciplinary action: the failure to fulfill academic obligations; the physical interference with members of the academic community exercising their rights of free inquiry and expression; disruption of teaching, research or other legitimate College business; violation of the College’s statement on consensual relations; and/or any other unprofessional behavior that renders a faculty member unfit in his or her professional capacity as a Carleton faculty member.

   Sexual harassment, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct, as defined under the Carleton College Policy Against Sexual Misconduct, will also be cause for disciplinary action. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Handbook, or the AAUP Regulations referenced herein, any report(s) (individually or collectively) that include such allegations against a faculty member will be handled in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph and Carleton’s Policy Against Sexual Misconduct, including (but not limited to) provisions regarding determination of responsibility, hearings, sanctioning, and appeals. In any sexual misconduct complaint against a faculty member, a panel of Decision-Makers, one of whom is the Hearing Officer, hears a Formal Complaint that proceeds to a hearing. If the Respondent is a staff member, the panel will consist of the Hearing Officer and two other Decision-Makers who may be Carleton faculty or staff. If the Respondent is a faculty member, the panel will consist of the Hearing Officer and two other Decision-Makers who may be Carleton faculty or staff, but at least one of whom will be a faculty member. These Decision-Makers/Adjudicators will apply a preponderance of the evidence standard in reaching a decision as to responsibility. If any report(s) are determined not to fall under the purview of the Policy Against Sexual Misconduct, including during or following the complaint resolution process, disciplinary action may be taken in accordance with the faculty disciplinary procedures set forth in this Handbook.

   The preparation of charges regarding disciplinary action:

   1. Any charge that could lead to disciplinary action against a faculty member is a matter of utmost gravity and the decision to press charges must be weighed with a jealous regard for the academic freedom of all parties directly concerned and, indeed, for the entire academic community.
   2. All charges regarding disciplinary action against a faculty member who has tenure or whose term appointment has not expired, wherever they may originate, should be prepared by the president of the College or by his or her designated representative and set forth with a proposed sanction in a formal communication to the faculty member being charged. All cases involving a severe sanction (see SANCTIONS below) will be heard by the Faculty Judiciary Committee. The president or the designated representative should proceed with all reasonable dispatch in the handling of cases involving possible disciplinary action.
   3. If the President or the designated representative thinks that a minor sanction (see SANCTIONS, below) should be imposed on a faculty member, that person will notify the faculty member of the reasons for the proposed charges and/or sanction and provide an opportunity for the faculty member to contest the sanction. If a faculty member believes he or she has not been treated fairly, the faculty member may appeal the matter on substantive or procedural grounds to the Faculty Affairs Committee for final adjudication of the matter.

   HEARING PROCEDURES:

   1. In hearing a case involving possible severe sanctions, the Faculty Judiciary Committee will follow the procedures set forth for such hearings in the AAUP 2015 “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” section 5 and 6.* This hearing will deal with the substantive issues of the case and the appropriateness of the proposed sanction. In all such cases the burden of proof shall rest with the College, as stated in 5 (c) 8* of that document.
   2. After all parties have been heard and all relevant evidence has been gathered, the hearing committee shall make explicit its decision with respect to the charges and sanctions brought against the faculty member in a written report to the president. The faculty member shall also be notified in writing of the Faculty Judiciary Committee’s findings, and both parties shall be given a transcript of the proceedings on which the Faculty Judiciary Committee’s recommendation is based. Should the Faculty Judiciary Committee determine that the sanction proposed by the president in the initial communication of charges brought against a faculty member is inappropriate but that disciplinary action is warranted, it should include in its decision an alternative sanction with a statement of reasons for that recommendation.
   3. If the president rejects the decision of the Faculty Judiciary Committee, he or she will state the reasons for doing so, in writing, to both the faculty member and the Faculty Judiciary Committee. The president will provide an opportunity for response before transmitting the case to the Board of Trustees.
   4. If the faculty member disagrees with the decision of the Faculty Judiciary Committee the president will, on request of the faculty member, transmit the record of the case to the Board of Trustees.
   5. In the event that a disciplinary case is referred to the Board of Trustees by action taken above, the Board’s review will be based on the record of the Faculty Judiciary Committee hearing, and the Board will provide opportunity for argument, oral or written or both, by the principals at the hearings or by their representatives. The decision of the Faculty Judiciary Committee will either be sustained or the proceeding returned to the committee with specific objections. The committee will then reconsider the case, taking into account the stated objections and receiving new evidence if necessary. The Board of Trustees will make a final decision only after study of the committee ‘s reconsideration.
   6. A faculty member facing disciplinary action shall not be suspended by the president of the College during the proceedings involving him or her unless the continued service of the faculty member poses an immediate and serious danger to the College or any member of the College community. Furthermore, a faculty member facing charges shall have the right to request a suspension of some or all of his or her teaching duties for a reasonable time in order to prepare his or her defense. However it originates, suspension during the hearing procedures shall be with pay.
   7. A faculty member found guilty of the charges brought against him or her will be so notified in writing.

   SANCTIONS

   The following are examples of the range of appropriate sanctions:

   Minor Disciplinary Sanctions:

   1. Oral reprimand
   2. Written reprimand

   Severe Disciplinary Sanctions:

   1. Suspension without pay for a specified period of time
   2. Dismissal

   COMPOSITION OF THE FACULTY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

   This committee shall consist of five members of the faculty and five faculty to serve as alternates, each group of five to include at least two women, two men, one non-tenured, one minority (minority to mean African American, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American). All faculty members regardless of other elective or appointive committee positions, with the exception of membership on the Faculty Affairs Committee, are eligible to serve. Selection of the committee is by nomination and election by a majority of those present and voting at the faculty’s annual elections meeting. Members shall serve for a term of three years.

   The proceedings of all disciplinary procedures will be treated as confidential by the College.

   *AAUP 2015 “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” pp. 79-90. The committee cited in 5 (b) 2 is the Faculty Affairs Committee. The committee cited in 5 (c) is the Faculty Judiciary Committee.

8. Procedures for Dealing with Non-disciplinary Incapacities

   It may be necessary for the College to take action against a faculty member who claims normal faculty status but is unable to fulfill professional responsibilities due to such factors as medical incapacity or professional incompetence. Every effort shall be made to find a mutually acceptable resolution of any such allegations. If the College and the faculty member cannot reach agreement, action against the faculty member may be undertaken following the procedures presented in the sections above.

9. Grievance Procedure

   The Faculty Affairs Committee will act as a grievance committee in accordance with section 16 of the AAUP “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure*” if any faculty member feels that he or she has cause for grievance in any matter not covered under DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES.

10. Termination of Appointments

    Except in the case of appointments for one year or less, a faculty member not on tenure will be notified by October 1 if his or her services are not needed for the following academic year.

    Dismissal for cause shall follow the procedures set forth in REAPPOINTMENT AND TENURE APPEALS above.

    Termination in extraordinary circumstances because of financial exigency shall follow the relevant procedures recommended by the AAUP Redbook, 2015 edition “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” pp. 79-90, especially 4(c), pp. 81-82; also AAUP 1978 “On Institutional Problems Resulting from Financial Exigency: Some Operating Guidelines,” pp. 147-148.)

    *AAUP “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure 2015 edition, pp. 79-90. The committee cited in 5 (b) 2 is the Faculty Affairs Committee. The committee cited in 5 (c) is the Faculty Judiciary Committee.

11. Tenure and Terms of Service

    1. A tenure-track faculty member whose initial appointment at Carleton is at the rank of professor is normally considered to be on tenure if reappointed after completion of two academic years of service at that rank at Carleton.
    2. An associate professor is normally considered to be on tenure if appointed after completion of six academic years of service at Carleton in any rank.
    3. An assistant professor is normally considered to be on tenure if appointed after completion of seven academic years of service at Carleton.
    4. A faculty member on a tenure track appointment who has not finished all requirements for the terminal degree by September 30 of the second year of teaching at Carleton will have the formal review process delayed for one year.
    5. A faculty member on a tenure-track appointment who is granted a year’s sabbatical or other professional leave prior to a tenure decision is entitled to a one-year delay in the review process. Similarly, anyone on a tenure-track appointment who takes a year’s leave of absence for childbearing or childrearing is entitled to a one-year delay in the review process. Arrangements for a delay based on fewer than three terms or more than three terms of leave are negotiable. All arrangements must be discussed with the provost and vice president for academic affairs and the chair of the faculty member’s department.
    6. Any exceptions to these tenure provisions will be specifically stated in writing in particular cases, following consultation with the department in which the appointment is made.
    7. The rights and responsibilities of tenure start at the beginning of the academic year following notification of a positive tenure decision.

12. Promotion of Tenure-Track, Tenured, and PEAR Faculty

    1. PROMOTION TO ASSISTANT PROFESSOR – Instructors are automatically promoted to the rank of assistant professor upon receipt of the Ph.D. (or equivalent degree in certain fields).
    2. PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR – Assistant professors are recommended by the president and provost to the Board of Trustees for promotion to associate professor to take effect concurrently with their tenure or sixth-year appointment.
    3. PROMOTION TO FULL PROFESSOR (Tenured faculty) – Promotion to full professor is a college-wide recognition of the post-tenure accomplishments of its faculty. Consideration for promotion focuses on a candidate’s intellectual engagement and achievement in teaching, scholarship and/or creative work, and service, and on the promise of continuing contributions to the College.
    1. By the end of the second year following the granting of tenure, the faculty member will write a biennial report summarizing recent professional activities and plans for future development. A conversation among the candidate, the provost, and the available full professors of the department will follow soon thereafter to ensure good communication about appropriate levels of support for teaching, service, and scholarship. A conversation will also take place among the candidate, the provost, and the available full professors of the department after the submission of the fourth year biennial report. At the end of the sixth year, the candidate will submit an expanded biennial report and a current c.v.
    2. During the fall term of the seventh year following the granting of tenure, the available full professors in the candidate’s department will read and discuss the candidate’s biennial reports and c.v. Full professors in the candidate’s department will submit a joint letter reflecting the departmental perspective(s) on the candidate’s professional activities after having consulted with the candidate, all tenured faculty in the department and appropriate other faculty.
    3. Before making decisions, the provost and the president will review and discuss the biennial reports, the c.v., and the departmental letter with two full-professor members of the Faculty Personnel Committee. If there are unanswered questions or serious reservations concerning the candidate’s promotion, then the provost and the president shall convene a meeting to discuss the candidate’s case with the two FPC members and all the available full-professor members of the department. If the provost and the president make a positive decision, they will recommend the candidate’s promotion to the Board of Trustees.

    NOTE:  For faculty tenured in 2014 or after (and those tenured from 2011-2013 who choose this option), the following procedure will apply:

    C.     PROMOTION TO FULL PROFESSOR (Tenured faculty) – Promotion to full professor is a college-wide recognition of the post-tenure accomplishments of its faculty. Consideration for promotion focuses on a candidate’s intellectual engagement and achievement in teaching, scholarship and/or creative work, and service, and on the promise of continuing contributions to the College.

    1. By January 1 of the third year after tenure, the faculty member will write a Post-Tenure Prospectus, and a subsequent First Post-Tenure Meeting will follow as soon as possible thereafter.  The Post-Tenure Prospectus should include both reflections on accomplishments (in teaching, research, creative work and service), and plans for the near future. It should include a current c.v.  It should speak to the faculty member’s research or creative agenda, and should include a basic timeframe that will be followed for pursuing research, writing, and presenting scholarly and/or creative work. The Prospectus will outline expected changes, developments or enhancements to pedagogy, curricular development, etc.  It should reflect the nature of the service work done by the candidate for promotion not only within the college and community, but also at the broader level of professional service (such as membership or leadership in professional organizations, etc.)  Candidates will submit a portfolio of supplemental materials, like syllabi, scholarship, etc.
    2. The First Post-Tenure Meeting should include all full professors in the faculty member’s department, or on his/her review committee, and will be called by the provost, who will also be present. During the meeting, the full professors of the department/committee, the provost, and the candidate will engage in a discussion of the Post-Tenure prospectus. They will give feedback on the feasibility of the candidate’s plans. Together, the candidate, provost, and department members should identify additional resources (if any) that are needed to accomplish those plans.  Written feedback will be provided to the candidate, the provost, and the department in the form of an outline of notes from the meeting taken by the chair of the department (if a full professor) or another full professor designated by the provost. These will not be prescriptive, but will rather serve as a written record of the conversation that was held. All members of that meeting will sign off on the notes to ensure that they adequately and accurately reflect the conversation.
    3. During the fall term of the seventh year following the granting of tenure the faculty member will normally submit a Prospectus for Promotion to Full Professor.  It will follow the same outline as the Post-Tenure Prospectus, but also will include specific reflection on how the candidate has progressed relative to the plans outlined in the Post-Tenure Prospectus and in the subsequent First Post-Tenure Meeting.  With their Prospectus for Promotion to Full, candidates will submit a portfolio that includes materials such as syllabi, scholarly publications, creative work, conference papers, etc.
    4. The full professors in the candidate’s department or review committee will meet with the candidate during the Fall of the candidate’s seventh year to discuss the Prospectus for Promotion to Full. This meeting is meant to ensure the collaborative and constructive nature of the review process and to discuss the candidate’s contribution to the department’s overall curriculum. The department will review the candidate’s scholarship or creative work so that they will be able to help the FPC contextualize the candidate’s scholarly work.
    5.  Following that meeting, the chair of the department (if a full professor) or another full professor designated by the provost, will prepare a letter, signed by all full professors in the department, summarizing the department’s views on the Prospectus and dossier, and they will submit that letter to the provost. At the provost’s discretion, the candidate and the provost may meet to discuss the candidate’s Prospectus. 
    6. Before making decisions, the provost and the president will review and discuss the prospectus and dossier, the c.v., and the departmental letter with two full-professor members of the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC). If there are fewer than two full professors currently on the FPC, former members of the FPC will be asked to help evaluate the materials, to ensure that there are always at least two faculty representatives involved in this process. If there are unanswered questions or serious reservations concerning the candidate’s promotion, then the provost and the president shall convene a meeting to discuss the candidate’s case with the two FPC members and all the available full-professor members of the department or review committee. If the provost and the president make a positive decision, they will recommend the candidate’s promotion to the Board of Trustees.

    When a department has fewer than two full professors (or in other exceptional circumstances such as joint appointments), a Special Promotion Committee will be formed. This committee will function as full professors of a department for purposes of recommendation for promotion. The committee will normally be formed when a faculty member is awarded tenure. The provost and vice president for academic affairs will appoint the committee in consultation with the candidate and his or her department and/or program chair and with the advice of the Faculty Personnel Committee.

    In the event of a decision to delay promotion, the provost will meet with the candidate and a full professor representing the department (usually the chair) to discuss the reasons for the delay and to formulate a revised plan. The candidate will be reconsidered for promotion the following year or later, as determined by the candidate in consultation with the provost.

    Modification of timing: The above schema is to be considered normal. In exceptional circumstances, should the candidate, the provost, or the department wish to propose early or late consideration, such a request could be made. The timing for early consideration, for example, would involve the submission of the sixth-year report at the end of the fifth year.

    D. PROMOTION TO FULL PROFESSOR (PEAR) – PEAR faculty may be considered for promotion to full professor following the faculty member’s first successful review in the rank of associate professor, typically after six years at that rank.

13. Promotion for Continuing Faculty

    Following the successful completion of the faculty member’s second review, faculty on continuing contracts holding a PhD may be considered for promotion to Senior Lecturer. Those without a PhD may be considered for promotion to Lecturer following successful completion of the faculty member’s second review, and may be considered for promotion to Senior Lecturer following successful completion of their first review at the rank of Lecturer, typically after six years at that rank.

14. Senior Faculty Development Forum

    The Senior Faculty Development Forum is a program intended for faculty who have earned the rank of Full Professor.

    According to the College’s mission statement, the program of Carleton College is “to provide an exceptional undergraduate liberal arts education.” The principal responsibility for achieving that purpose rests with the faculty. In order to be effective educators, faculty members need to grow and develop, as teachers, scholars, and citizens, throughout their careers. Every Carleton faculty member is required to submit a biennial report to the College president and provost and vice president for academic affairs, and considerable self-assessment often accompanies the writing of these reports. Faculty undergoing formal third-year and tenure reviews write an extended Prospectus. Beyond that, for faculty members on tenure, the College has in place two programs, one that leads to promotion to Full Professor (described in PROMOTION OF TENURE-TRACK AND PEAR FACULTY) and the Senior Faculty Development Forum.

    The Senior Faculty Development Forum provides a regular opportunity for faculty who are Full Professors to reflect on teaching, scholarship, creative and service activities and to plan a course of professional development for the future in an atmosphere of collegial and institutional support. During a long career, senior faculty will all have important questions about a variety of issues related to scholarly, creative and teaching work and about how this work relates to the larger field of study. The Forum places its emphasis on allowing senior faculty to pursue these questions through a combination of discussions on campus and sustained, intentional interaction with colleagues from outside of the College. Because a professor should have the freedom to determine the direction and nature of personal scholarship and creative endeavors, this process of reflection on the direction of one’s career is self-directed, incorporates the benefits of the outside reviewers’ role and provides a sense of structure.
    

    The Forum includes self-assessment, conversations with disciplinary colleagues outside the College, and a report to the provost and vice president for academic affairs and president (in lieu of the biennial report). The Senior Faculty Development Forum is managed by the coordinator of the Perlman Center for Learning and Teaching who will provide advice and assistance to individual faculty.

    The Senior Faculty Development Forum consists of the following steps:

    • The professor selects two to three colleagues from outside of the College. These could be faculty from other institutions, former students, or people from related professions. These colleagues would receive a small stipend for their efforts from the provost’s office.
    • The professor prepares a short version of a career prospectus (much shorter than is required for third-year review and tenure) posing specific questions about scholarly and creative work, teaching and service, and the arc of one’s career to the outside colleagues. This should be both retrospective, and prospective, outlining plans for new projects and areas for development. It might include suggestions of ways the College could provide assistance. A current C.V. and a work sample, if appropriate, would be included in the materials sent to outside colleagues.
    • These outside colleagues would respond either with a letter or with sustained conversations with the professor.
    • In lieu of the biennial report, the professor would summarize the experience in the senior faculty development forum at the end of the year, identifying what had been gained. This summary would be submitted to the provost amd vice president for academic affairs and the president.
    • Faculty members participating in the forum would meet as a group two to three times during the year at sessions conducted by the coordinator of the Perlman Center for Learning and Teaching. These sessions would be designed to facilitate this process of professional reflection and encourage the exchange of ideas among senior faculty.

    Under normal circumstances, all tenure-track and PEAR faculty would be expected to participate in the Senior Faculty Development Forum at intervals of seven to ten years after promotion to Full Professor. There is considerable flexibility in the scheduling that allows for individual circumstances. Ideally, participation would be timed to coincide with appropriate developments in the professor’s career–sabbaticals, intervals between major projects, etc. The timing of each faculty member’s specific participation and the specifics of the individual’s process would be negotiated with the coordinator of the Perlman Center for Learning and Teaching and the provost and vice president for academic affairs. Thus, individual faculty members may propose an alternative process to the one described here.

    During the year of participating in the senior faculty development forum, the provost and vice president for academic affairs will provide a small supplement ($500) to the professor’s PDA to be used in support of activities that particularly foster this process of reflection. It is expected that faculty participating in the Faculty Development Forum may be in a particularly strong position to submit applications for FDE grants and/or Targeted Opportunity grants; the provost and president will take Senior Faculty Development Forum participation into account (as one of many factors) as they review these proposals.

15. Amendment of Regulations Governing Reappointment, Tenure, Appeals and Dismissals

    Amendment of the procedures set forth in the sections above shall be the province of the Faculty Affairs Committee, acting either upon its own initiative, that of the Trustees, of the Faculty Personnel Committee or of the provost and vice president for academic affairs. No action of the Faculty Affairs Committee respecting these provisions shall be binding without the express approval of the faculty and the concurrence of the Board of Trustees.

For: Faculty

Last Reviewed: February 15, 2024

Maintained by: Office of the Provost

List all Policies & Guidelines for Faculty Appointments