Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Department of Classics

General Principles: In accordance with Board of Regents requirements (II.C.8), Article 7 Section 4 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, and the University Policy on Post-tenure Review, the Department of Classics, hereafter referred to as Classics, has adopted these expectations and procedures for conducting post-tenure review. Post-tenure review is a process for periodic peer evaluation of faculty performance that provides an opportunity for a long-term assessment of a faculty member’s accomplishments and future directions in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. Post-tenure review must be conducted in a manner that respects the rights of faculty members involved, including academic freedom, tenure, and due process. In addition, all those involved in the evaluation process must recognize that it is a confidential personnel matter and take appropriate steps to protect confidentiality.

Period for Review: Faculty members will be reviewed once every seven years following the receipt of tenure with the review occurring in the unit(s) that conducts their annual evaluation. Post-tenure review covers the seven-year period leading up to the review, including the six prior annual evaluation letters and activities since the last annual evaluation. The cycle is restarted if a faculty member is evaluated for promotion or is awarded a distinguished professorship.  The time period when a faculty member is on medical or familial leave or that would otherwise be excluded when computing time in rank does not count toward this period. In addition, time serving as department chair, program director, dean or associate dean, or other administrative position subject to administrative review is excluded. The review may be postponed if it falls in a year when the faculty member is on leave. Faculty members on phased retirement or whose retirement date has been approved by the university will be exempt from review under this policy. The dean of the College will notify faculty members scheduled for post-tenure review no later than March 15^th in the spring semester preceding the academic year of review. 

Unit Expectations: All tenured faculty members must meet academic responsibilities in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. Unless otherwise specified by the job description or differential allocation of effort, the ordinary allocation of effort is 40% teaching/advising, 40% scholarship, and 20% service. The Department of Classics has defined its standards and expectations for teaching/advising, scholarship, and service in its annual evaluation procedures. The expectations for post-tenure review are consistent with these standards, with overall productivity commensurate to the seven-year period under review. The following specific criteria shall apply for purposes of post-tenure review.

1. Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Teaching/Advising:

   High quality teaching is serious intellectual work grounded in a deep knowledge and understanding of the field and includes the ability to convey that understanding in clear and engaging ways.

   The record must demonstrate effective teaching, as reflected in such factors as meeting classes regularly; preparing and following clear and appropriate syllabi; designing and implementing assignments that focus on student learning; helping the department meet its instructional and supervisory needs; aiding in curriculum development; supervising undergraduate and graduate theses and participating in graduate proficiency exams; and advising students outside the classroom.

2. Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Research and Creative Activity:

   In the Department of Classics, scholarship is defined as intellectual and creative work focused upon Greek and Roman antiquity. Classical scholarship is diverse and includes but is not limited to:archaeology (including digital archaeology), art history, classical tradition, cultural studies, history, philology (including commentaries, literary translation, and literary criticism), and philosophy.

   The record must demonstrate clear evidence of an ongoing research program that has already resulted in products of high quality (as demonstrated in part by publication in sources of high quality that use critical standards for review), and that exhibits promise of continuing productivity. The results of faculty research should be presented in public forums which may take many forms, such as publication of books, individual or collaborative on-line texts/materials (when appropriate to a faculty member’s field), articles, notes, etc.; presentation of papers at international, national, regional, or local professional meetings; presentations at colloquia, round tables, etc.; contributions to creative works such as theater productions; and meaningful participation on archaeological digs.

3. Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Service:

   Service is an important responsibility of all faculty members that contributes to the University’s performance of its larger mission. In addition to institutional service, the department accepts and values scholarly service to the discipline or profession, service within the University, and public service at the local, state, national, or international level.

   The record should indicate regular and meaningful participation in activities necessary to the successful functioning of the department, College, and/or University, including regular departmental service (e.g., as undergraduate coordinator, graduate director, library liaison, member of committees such as an annual award committee, or the graduate admissions committee), and participation at departmental meetings. The record should also include contributions to the larger university community, the profession, and/or or the discipline at the local, regional, national, or international level (e.g., serving on College or University committees; or on refereeing for journals and presses; holding offices in professional organizations; conducting ad hoc fund raising; organizing conferences, lectures, or readings).

4. Ratings for Performance:

   Using the criteria described above, the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service will be rated using the terms “exceeds expectations,” “meets expectations,” or “fails to meet expectations” for the review period.

Relation to the Annual Evaluation: The post-tenure review is done by committee and is conducted separately from the annual evaluation, which is done by the chair. The post-tenure review file is incorporated into the documentation for the annual evaluation. The post-tenure review process will therefore provide the basis for the annual review in the year it is conducted. The committee report will be considered as part of the annual evaluation process and the chair will discuss the review with the faculty member in conjunction with that process. This discussion should concentrate on the future professional development of the faculty member with an aim toward enhancing meritorious work and improving less than satisfactory performance, including adoption of a performance improvement plan, if necessary. Any action on the review that is within the scope of the Faculty Evaluation Policy must be taken under that policy.

Joint Appointments: The faculty member will provide both units with copies of the Faculty Member’s Statement section of the Post-Tenure Review File (reflecting the representative effort in each unit) and a current curriculum vitae. The review goes forward with each unit preparing a separate committee evaluation summary and considerations by each chair and/or director to the dean. Each unit will submit their review materials directly to the College Dean’s Office. In the case of a jointly appointed faculty and unclassified academic staff member outside of the College, the primary unit is responsible for the administrative protocols of engaging the secondary unit in the solicitation and collection of feedback relative to the evaluation of performance expectations in the secondary unit.

Review Committee: Post-tenure review is conducted by the Post-tenure Review Committee, which shall consist of three tenured faculty members selected in accordance with the unit’s by-laws. No person may serve on the committee if his or her spouse or partner is scheduled for review. If the chair/director is the spouse or partner of the faculty member under review, the “Chair or Director Evaluation Summary” shall be conducted by the Divisional Associate Dean. A committee member who believes that there may be a conflict of interest should withdraw from the committee. If a faculty member who is undergoing review believes that there is a conflict of interest, he or she may object to the inclusion of a member. If the member declines to withdraw, the remaining committee members shall consider the basis for the alleged conflict and decide the matter. If a committee member withdraws or is removed based on a conflict of interest, the chair will name a replacement.

Preparation of the Post-Tenure Review File: The Post-tenure review will be conducted on the basis of a file that summarizes a faculty member’s teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. In contrast to evaluation for promotion and tenure, copies of publications and original student evaluations are not required. Also, outside reviews of scholarship should not be submitted. Using the Faculty Member Statement, the faculty member under review shall provide a brief narrative statement of his or her accomplishments in teaching/advising, scholarship, and service during the review period as they relate to his or her long-term career path and goals. In addition, the faculty member shall submit a current curriculum vitae and a list of additional activities not covered on the curriculum vitae. The chair will furnish copies of the faculty member’s annual evaluation letters for the six years during the review period.

Evaluation and Report: The committee will review the file and evaluate the faculty member’s overall performance and his or her contributions in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Applying the expectations defined above, the committee will determine whether the faculty member’s performance in each area, as well as whether his or her overall performance exceeds expectations, meets expectations, or fails to meet expectations. In making its evaluations, the committee must bear in mind that (1) faculty members have differing responsibilities and make different kinds of contributions to the mission of the Department of Classics the College, and the University; (2) a faculty member’s activities vary over time according to his or her strengths, interests, and career path; and (3) innovative work may take time to reach fruition and may sometimes fail. Using the Unit Committee Report, the committee will prepare a written report summarizing its evaluation. The report should provide a narrative description of the faculty member’s activities, an explanation of the committee’s ratings, and recommendations or suggestions for acknowledgement of contributions and future development of the faculty member. The committee will provide a copy of the report to the faculty member, who may submit a written response for inclusion in the post-tenure review file before it is forwarded to the chair.

Consideration by the Chair/Director: The committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to the chair. Using the Chair/Director Evaluation Summary, if the chair agrees with the report, he or she will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the post-tenure review file. If the chair or director disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, he or she shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the committee. The chair may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the chair disagrees with a positive evaluation by the committee, the faculty member may submit a written response. The chair will forward the file to the dean of the College no later than noon, on the second Friday of March.

Consideration by the Dean: The faculty member’s post-tenure review file, including the unit committee’s report (along with any faculty response) and the chair’s agreement or disagreement (along with any faculty response), is forwarded to the dean. The dean will consider the report and using the Dean’s Evaluation Summary, express his or her agreement or disagreement in the same manner as the chair. Following the completion of review by the dean, if the dean agrees with the report, he or she will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the file. If dean disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, he or she shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the unit committee. The dean may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the dean disagrees with a positive evaluation by the unit committee, the faculty member may submit a written response. The dean will forward a summary of post-tenure review outcomes and copies of the post-tenure review files to the Provost, to ultimately be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.

Appeals: Following the completion of the review by the dean, if a disagreement between the committee and the chair or dean cannot be resolved or if the faculty member wishes to appeal an evaluation of “fails to meet expectations” in the overall evaluation or any category of responsibility, the matter will be handled as an appeal under the Department of Classics annual Faculty Evaluation Policy.

Report to the Provost: The dean will provide a summary of the results in the College and copies of the post-tenure review file to the Provost.The post-tenure review file will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.