Updated Content Type

The University of Delaware exists to cultivate learning, develop knowledge, and foster the free exchange of ideas. State-assisted yet privately governed, the University has a strong tradition of distinguished scholarship, which is manifested in its research and creative activities, teaching, and service, in line with its commitment to increasing and disseminating scientific, humanistic, artistic, and social knowledge for the benefit of the larger society. Founded in 1743 and chartered by the state in 1833, the University of Delaware today is a land-grant, sea-grant, and space-grant, and urban-grant university. 

When a faculty hiring action includes the award of tenure, an expedited tenure review process is required. This expedited review process involves a minimum of three external review letters from distinguished scholars, selected by the departmental P&T Committee, in consultation with the department chair. The letters may include evaluation letters submitted as part of the application. The candidate must provide a dossier of work for review by the department and the external reviewers. This can be an abbreviated dossier, but it must include evidence of the quality of the candidate’s teaching, research/creative activities, and service. After review and recommendation by the department P&T committee, the dossier—including the external review letters— will be sent for review to the department chair, the dean, and the provost. All expedited reviews must be completed prior to the effective hire date. In the event of an unfavorable decision by the Provost, candidates will be required to apply for the award of tenure no later than their third year.

Individuals hired on full-time temporary appointments who are appointed subsequently as primary, full-time, continuing Continuing Track faculty will have their previous time of service counted in the computation of subsequent contract renewal periods. No individual will receive a three- or five-year "rolling" contract without a full peer review.

In the event of an unsatisfactory annual evaluation during the term of a multi-year contract, a full peer review may be conducted. If a peer review confirms the unsatisfactory performance set forth in the annual evaluation, the individual will receive one full year's notice in writing of contract termination (see "Terminations and Non-Renewals" in the Faculty Handbook).

In the event of programmatic and/or budgetary reductions, individuals serving on multiple year contracts will receive one full year's notice in writing of contract termination (see "Terminations and Non-Renewals" in the Faculty Handbook).

Sabbaticals: Faculty appointed as Continuing Track faculty (see "Appointments" above) are eligible for sabbaticals at the end of the sixth year of appointment if their appointment is renewed for a three-year appointment (as stipulated in "Term and Contract Renewal" above) and with review and approval through regular University procedures. Continuing Track faculty are eligible for subsequent sabbaticals on the same schedule as tenure-track faculty. (Rev. 5/2016)

Merit Pay: Merit pay for non-tenure track faculty will be awarded on a basis consistent with the written workload agreement for such faculty. The annual evaluation of performance for purposes of merit pay will be consistent with the applicable department/college promotion and tenure criteria.  

Peer Reviews: Peer reviews shall be consistent with the applicable department/college promotion and tenure criteria and consistent with the written workload agreement for each non-tenure track faculty member.  

Career Development and Salary Adjustments: Salary adjustments for Continuing Track faculty parallel to promotional increments for associate professors are made upon contract renewal for three years at the end of the initial six-year probationary period and parallel to the promotional increment for full professors at the start of the first five- year "rolling" contract. However, individuals holding primary appointments as full-time, Continuing Track faculty (see "Appointments" above) will not be awarded promotional increments should there be a change in their academic rank. (Policy added in entirety 8/96, Vice President for Administration to reflect Collective Bargaining Agreement; revised 5/00 Vice President for Administration in consultation with AAUP; editorial correction 8/00.) (Rev. 5/2016)

Stop the Review Clock: The six-year probationary period shall be extended for one year upon a Continuing Track faculty member submitting a “Stop the Review Clock” electronic web form. This policy applies to Continuing Track faculty members who become the parent of a newborn or newly adopted child and is a primary or coequal caregiver of the child or who is granted a leave of absence pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 for a period of at least one semester. The faculty member will continue to perform faculty duties at full salary. The extension shall take effect upon submission of the “Stop the Review Clock” electronic web form by the faculty member to the chair/director. Submission of the “Stop the Review Clock” electronic web form must be made within one calendar year of the birth or adoption of the child or of the commencement of the FMLA leave. Apart from the birth or adoption of a child, a Continuing Track faculty member may extend the probationary period for any reason approved by the appropriate chair/director and dean, for example illness of the faculty member or of his/her immediate family, but may do so only twice, resulting in no more than two one-year extensions of the probationary period. A Continuing Track candidate who extends the probationary period under this provision shall be reviewed for contract renewal under the same academic standards as a candidate who has not extended the probationary period. The Continuing Track candidate shall not be penalized in any way for requesting and receiving extensions of the probationary period, whether or not the additional time is used. Extension of the probationary period does not affect the faculty member’s right to apply for contract renewal prior to the terminal year, regardless of time in rank. Stopping the review clock for one year postpones any subsequent second-year or fourth-year review.

1. Quorum - defined in Constitution.

2. Order of Business - defined in Constitution.

3. Standing Committees (passed by Senate on December 14, 1970).

There shall be the following standing committees of the Senate:   

•   Committee on Academic Appeals

•   Academic Priorities and Presidential Advisory Review Committee

•   Budget Committee

•   Committee on Committees and Nominations

•   Committee on Cultural Activities and Public Events

•   Committee on Diversity and Inclusion

•   Coordinating Committee on Education

•   Executive Committee

•   Committee on Faculty Welfare and Privileges

•   Committee on General Education

•   Committee on Graduate Studies

•   Committee on Instructional, Computing, and Research Support Services

•   Committee on International Studies

•   Library Committee

•   Committee on Promotions and Tenure

•   Committee on Research

•   Subcommittee on Retiring, Retired, and Emeriti Faculty

•   Committee on Rules

•   Committee on Student and Faculty Honors

•   Committee on Student Life

•   Committee on Undergraduate Studies

Purpose

Annual evaluations provide administrators, faculty, professionals, and staff an opportunity to meet with their immediate supervisors for a personal review of activities and accomplishments and a planning session for future objectives and goals. Leadership at the unit level can have a most direct and significant effect.

Peer evaluations, which come less frequently, attempt to put wider resources into the review processes, resources that are represented by one's colleagues and their collective experience and wisdom. Since promotion and tenure recommendations are heavily dependent on peer evaluations, it is essential that candidates have early indications from their colleagues regarding their progress in the areas of teaching, research/creative/scholarly activity, and service. The chair's role in these latter activities is to facilitate and coordinate the processes and to provide leadership wherever appropriate.

Annual Evaluation of Faculty

The intent of the annual evaluation procedure is to:

• Provide the faculty member and the chair with an opportunity for personal review
• Provide an accurate means of planning and evaluation of a faculty member's professional growth and development
• Provide each faculty member and the University with timely and documented information concerning the faculty member's achievements and goals.

In addition to the above, these appraisals form the basis for merit pay increases. Annual appraisals are not intended to take the place of either development or committee evaluations for promotion or tenure or of the periodic peer review of faculty.

Each year, the department chair meets in person with each faculty member in the department, including permanent part-time faculty, to discuss the faculty member's development during that year and plans for the coming year. The period covered in this meeting is the twelve-month period of time since the last appraisal.

Prior to their annual meeting, the chair and the faculty member complete a draft of the Faculty Appraisal and Planning Form. During the discussion, the faculty member is shown a copy of the mid-ratings (median) for the entire department as established by the chair's preliminary evaluation of the department's faculty. In some cases, the rating of an individual faculty member may be changed as a result of this discussion. After all faculty have met with the chair, final mid-ratings (median) for the entire department are calculated and recorded on each faculty member's form. If the faculty member takes exception to any of the chair's ratings, the faculty member's rating for that item is also recorded on the form. After the interview has been completed, the chair and the faculty member sign the final copy. The faculty member's signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with the appraisal, but simply that it was discussed in detail with the chair.

The data required at the top of the form are self-explanatory. Full-time is checked if the person is full-time with the University and if all University responsibilities are being evaluated in the appraisal and planning form even though the individual may not be 100 percent funded by the department. Part-time personnel, or personnel whose appraisals and planning form covers only part of their University responsibilities, are designated by indicating the proportion that is devoted to the department and is being appraised. For faculty with joint appointments, their appraisals and plans are combined on one form, after the evaluating chair has consulted with the second chair. Otherwise, two separate forms, based on separate evaluations and requiring separate interviews must be prepared.

For each of the three areas, teaching, research/creative/scholarly activity, and service, the percent of the faculty members effort assigned to that area is indicated. These percentages are very important because readers, in interpreting these appraisals, weigh each area according to the percent of effort assigned to that area for the individual faculty member.

For each area or item, the chair writes a narrative appraisal of the faculty member's relevant activities and then rates the person's performance on that activity. The criteria to be used as the bases for these judgments are the criteria for performance of faculty members at each rank as codified under the promotion criteria accepted by the department, college, and University promotion and tenure committees, and by the Provost's office, and should take account of the individual faculty member's particular responsibilities

A 9-point scale for the ratings anchored at the end points with the terms unsatisfactory and outstanding is utilized. N/A (Not Applicable) should be used only in those cases where there is no requirement for that individual to engage in that particular activity. In other cases, N/R (Not Rated) may be used. For example, a new Ph.D. might be given N/R in research/creative/scholarly activity because that individual's research program is too new to be evaluated meaningfully, but should not be given N/A because assistant professors, even new ones, are expected to engage in research/creative/scholarly activity.

Faculty members may add other materials to support their ratings on their activities, especially where they believe that a different appraisal should have been given. Chairs also may add materials they consider appropriate. Along with a copy of the Faculty Appraisal and Planning Form, copies of additional materials should be provided to the faculty member, the chair/department, the dean, and the provost.

It is recognized that no chair or any single individual can duplicate the judgment of several committees, nor can performance during a single year determine one's promotion, nor can these procedures match the extensive and intensive evaluation that takes place when a person comes up for promotion. Faculty appraisal and planning sessions provide an opportunity: 1) for faculty members to inform their chairs more completely and accurately about their activities; 2) for chairs to give the faculty their best judgments on how well the faculty have fulfilled their responsibilities during the year prior to appraisal; and 3) for the faculty member and chair to discuss the faculty member's plans for the coming year. The intent is to determine mutually acceptable goals that develop the faculty member's strength or correct any weaknesses.

Peer Evaluation of Faculty

On recommendation of the Faculty Senate and approval by the administration, "faculty members at all ranks should be subject to periodic reviews at reasonable intervals of time." The intervals are at least every two years for instructors and assistant professors, every three to five years for tenured associate professors, and every five to seven years for full professors. These reviews are to be conducted by duly established committees of faculty.

In addition, the department chairperson reviews annually each department member on a Faculty Appraisal Form. This review is discussed with the faculty member, and the form is signed by both the faculty member and the department chairperson.  

Principles Guiding the Peer Evaluation of Faculty Members: Faculty members at all ranks shall be subject to periodic reviews at reasonable intervals of time.

Reviews of individual faculty members will normally originate with the individual department. (Since the academic organization of the University varies, references to department should sometimes read division or college, and references to chairperson should sometimes read director or dean.) Such reviews should involve a substantial number of faculty members but not the chairperson.

Faculty members under review have the right to supply such evidence that they feel may be necessary to a fair evaluation of their merits. This should not preclude departments or others properly involved in the review process from soliciting and using other evidence, but in every such instance, the faculty member should be informed of the source of that evidence.

Appropriate administrative officers may make independent evaluations within the review process.

Upon completion of the review, the faculty member will be apprised of the results. Faculty members shall be required to include their contract renewal reviews as part of their dossier for promotion and tenure; this should include the evaluations or reviews conducted by the established committees of the faculty and by the corresponding administrative office (e.g., department chair). (Rev. 5.10.07)

Faculty members are fully entitled to the rights of appeal. Reviews of individual faculty would not be a substitute for competency hearings of tenured faculty. They may serve, however, as a basis for instituting such hearings. In the event of a competency hearing, due process would be observed, with the burden of proof residing with those instituting the hearing.

Periods of Peer Evaluation: Instructors and assistant professors will be reviewed at least every two years but normally no more often than once a year. Not later than the sixth year of service, assistant professors must be reviewed for promotion.

Tenured associate professors should be reviewed at least once within every three to five year period of service but normally not more often than every two years. Non tenured associate professors should be reviewed in the year prior to their eligibility for tenure.

Full professors should be reviewed at least once every five to seven year period of service, but normally not more often than every two years.

Department Responsibility: The department chairperson organizes and coordinates reviews of faculty.

Reviews of instructors and assistant professors should be conducted with the participation of associate and full professors in the department. In no case should faculty members be reviewed without the participation of at least two members of their department, one of whom, if possible, must be a rank at least one step higher than the person under review.

Associate professors should be reviewed by professors in the department. In those departments where fewer than two professors are available to conduct such a review, the chairperson of the department may request professors from other related departments to serve on the review body.

Full professors should be reviewed by a committee of at least three of their peers. In small departments, professors from other related departments may be asked to serve at the request of the chairperson.

These provisions specify minimum requirements. A department may choose to constitute the whole department, or any other designated authority, to serve as a review body. A department may choose to include in the review body faculty members at the same rank or lower rank of the person being evaluated so long as such persons do not constitute a majority of the body.

Submission and Evaluation of Documents and Other Evidence: The faculty member under review should assemble a dossier of materials that he or she regards as appropriate and convincing evidence of his or her abilities in the three major areas of evaluation (see below). The faculty member should be notified of the date that the dossier is required by the chairperson. This date should be in sufficient time before the review date, which should also be specified.

The review body or the chairperson of the department may request additional evidence from (a) the faculty member under review; (b) other sources within the University, such as experts in related fields, committee chairpersons, and colleagues; (c) similar sources outside the University. In all instances under (b) and (c), the faculty member should be informed that such evidence is being requested. If any evidence is requested in confidence, the faculty member must be told the source of such confidential information. He or she may then communicate to the review committee in writing his or her position as to the qualifications of that source.

The review body should evaluate the evidence and the faculty member's abilities in each of the three major areas. A report summarizing the reasons for or against a favorable judgment should then be forwarded to the dean of the college along with the chairperson's independent evaluation. A copy of the report of the review body, of the chairperson, and of any other administrator may be delivered to the faculty member under review upon request.

Administrative Evaluations: Appropriate administrative officers, such as chairpersons, deans, provost, vice-provost, and president may review the dossier of each faculty member reviewed whenever a recommendation for sabbatical, promotion, and/or tenure is made by the department, or whenever there is a significant and substantial change in the status or conditions of employment of any faculty member. Further evidence may be solicited in accordance with the same procedures stipulated under "Submission and Evaluation of Documents and Other Evidence" above.

Reporting Results of Reviews: Each faculty member is entitled to a personal interview with the chairperson of the department and, upon request, a written report of his or her review. Wherever possible, the interview and report should carry specific indications where evidence has been satisfactory or, when it has not been, specific recommendations for improvement before the next review.

Appeals: A faculty member may appeal the decision of the review body by requesting another review within a semester of the first review, and he or she may request a new committee. This request may be rejected by the department, but is subject to appeal to the appropriate college and University committees.

Modified and approved by Provost and AAUP 12/3/04 

Changes in grade, in most cases, are initiated by the instructor of the course. A change in a permanent grade must also have the approval of the dean of the college where the course is offered if the dean does not approve the change. Occasionally, a change of grade may be initiated by a department chair but only when the course instructor has left the University and cannot be located or is deceased.

4.4.11 Promotion Dossiers

It is the individual's responsibility to present the best case for promotion since he or she is most clearly involved in the outcome. It is extremely important that the dossier be well organized and carefully prepared because superfluous or confusing information may obscure more than it enhances one's qualifications and achievements. Unless otherwise noted in the faculty appointment letter, all work in rank, even if conducted at other institutions of higher education, shall be considered for promotion and tenure. It shall be the faculty's responsibility to include evidence of this work in his/her dossier and to clearly identify when and where this work was performed. (Rev. 5/10/07).

All dossiers should be organized under the following headings in this order:

1. Introductory Material
   1. Contents and Guidelines
      1. Recommendation for Promotion Form
      2. A table of contents
      3. A copy of the University, college, and department promotion and tenure criteria

1. 1. Application for Promotion
      1. Candidate's letter requesting promotion
      2. A curriculum vitae
      3. Candidate's statement (optional)

1. 1. Two and Four Year Reviews for Faculty Seeking Promotion to Associate Professor
      1. Reviews conducted by the corresponding department committee
      2. Reviews or evaluations conducted by the department chair

1. 1. Internal Recommendations
      1. The department committee's recommendation
      2. The chairperson's recommendation
      3. College committee's recommendation (if any)
      4. Dean or director's recommendation or endorsement
      5. University committee's recommendation
      6. Any appeal materials (appeals and rebuttals)

1. 1. External Recommendations

1. List of the external reviewers who were nominated by the candidate versus those nominated by the department, and the criteria used to request from specific reviewers

2. Procedure for choosing external reviewers (See Section 4.4.12)

a. Solicited external evaluations serve as a major indicator of an individual's impact on the profession and are always required for promotion. Although the number may vary by rank and department or division, every dossier must include external reviews solicited by the departmental committee and written by highly qualified individuals with established reputations in the candidate's field. These statements should analyze and evaluate critically the candidate's work and accomplishments during the review period and they should also comment on the candidate's potential for future development.

b. The solicitation of these evaluations must follow these guidelines:

1)  A candidate will submit a list of potential reviewers, some of whom will be approached for recommendations. The department committee will suggest additional reviewers. This total list of names will be greater than the total number of letters solicited. Although the candidate must be informed of all potential reviewers and have an opportunity to comment on them, it is the department committee, and not the candidate, that makes the final selection. The final list of names will not be given to the candidate so as to preserve confidentiality of the reviewers.

2)  Candidates must not contact potential reviewers about the promotion process at any time.

3)  Letters of evaluation will be confidential and external reviewers will not be mentioned by name or affiliation in any recommendations or evaluations. Reviewers may be referred to by number.

4)  Each review should be accompanied by the letter requesting the evaluation, a curriculum vita or biographical statement describing the reviewer's credentials, and a statement of relationship to the candidate. Insofar as reasonable and possible, only reviewers without personal ties to the candidate should be selected.

5)  If a candidate has collaborative works, it must be clear to the external evaluator what the candidate's contributions were to the finished work. Reviewers must be able to determine whether an individual can execute research in his or her own right.

6)  External teaching evaluations should attest to the candidate's pedagogical competence, knowledge of the subject matter, organization and preparation, ability to stimulate intellectual curiosity and willingness to work, innovative capacity, and such.

7)  External service evaluations will be required for those CT faculty whose primary contracted area of responsibility is service. The external evaluations can be performed locally, but should be external to the academic unit

3. Letters of evaluation from peer reviewers together with supporting material. These letters will be numbered sequentially for reference. (Rev. 5/2016)

Faculty Handbook Section 4.4 Promotion and Tenure

4.4.11 Career Development of Assistant Professors

There should be a major plan worked out with every new arrival to a unit so that there is an orderly progression to promotion, within a reasonable time. Participation should be offered in a number of activities, and help and assistance given as needed. A coordinated plan of development suited to the academic unit and the candidate concerned should be devised and updated annually. In units that have a considered plan for their members, this progression is worked out in detail with allowance for an orderly development in all of the three categories that are concerned in promotion. Teaching functions and the setting up of courses should take priority. Then a research program should be mounted and, finally, some shouldering of service responsibilities should be undertaken. A new assistant professor should not be heavily laden with service commitments in the first year. The entire commitment should be under the guidance of senior people, or a single designated mentor, who should take an active role in career development.

New Section

4.4.2. Mentoring for Faculty Promotion and Tenure

All instructors/assistant professors are entitled to receive formal mentoring to support an orderly and timely progression to promotion. Each Department’s and/or College’s bylaws should include a formal mentoring protocol using available resources that is regularly appraised and updated for effectiveness. Chairs should consult with each assistant professor (mentee) in their unit to mutually identify a senior faculty mentor other than the chair. The minimum standard is one assigned mentor. The effectiveness of the mentor-mentee pairing should be evaluated by the faculty members at the end of each academic term. The main focus of formal mentoring is to support the mentee’s familiarity with departmental and institutional culture, timelines, and interpretation of policies and departmental practices. Formal mentoring begins as early as possible, once a faculty member accepts the position; it becomes especially important surrounding career development opportunities such as workload planning, learning about the cultural aspects of promotion and appraisal, etc. There should be regular formal meetings of the mentor and mentee, ideally several times a semester but at minimum once per semester. The mentor should be recognized by the chair for this service during appraisal and review.

The need for mentoring for the purpose of career development and promotion does not end after the probationary period. Therefore, each Department’s and/or College’s bylaws should include formal mentoring protocols to provide advice for Associate Professors to support their advancement and growth.

Faculty Handbook 4.4 Promotion and Tenure

4.4.2 Mentoring for Faculty Promotion and Tenure: Adding a Section, Deleting a Section and renumbering

• 4.4.1 Faculty Promotion and Tenure
• 4.4.2 Minimum Standards for Promotion Mentoring for Faculty Promotion and Tenure
• 4.4.3 Candidate’s Rights and Responsibilities Minimum Standards for Promotion
• 4.4.4 Statement on Workload  Candidate’s Rights and Responsibilities
• 4.4.5 Departmental Responsibilities  Statement on Workload
• 4.4.6 Promotion Procedures at the College Level  Departmental Responsibilities
• 4.4.7 University Committee on Promotions and Tenure Promotion Procedures at the College Level
• 4.4.8 Provost’s Review of Promotions  University Committee on Promotions and Tenure
• 4.4.9 Promotion Process Schedule Provost’s Review of Promotions
• 4.4.10 Promotion Dossiers  Promotion Process Schedule
• 4.4.11 Career Development of Assistant Professors  Promotion Dossiers
• 4.4.12 Changes in Unit Priorities External Reviewers
• 4.4.13 Tenure Changes in Unit Priorities
• 4.4.14 Stop the Tenure Clock Tenure
• 4.4.15 Statement on Analytics   Stop the Tenure Clock
• 4.4.16 Statement on Analytics

Added section 4.3.8 Use of Databases in Evaluating Faculty Members

4.4 Promotion and Tenure

• 4.4.1 Faculty Promotion and Tenure
• 4.4.2 Minimum Standards for Promotion
• 4.4.3 Candidate’s Rights and Responsibilities
• 4.4.4 Departmental Responsibilities   Statement on Workload
• 4.4.5 Promotion Procedures at the College Level  Departmental Responsibilities
• 4.4.6 University Committee on Promotions and Tenure Promotion Procedures at the College Level
• 4.4.7 Provost’s Review of Promotions  University Committee on Promotions and Tenure
• 4.4.8 Promotion Process Schedule Provost’s Review of Promotions
• 4.4.9 Promotion Dossiers  Promotion Process Schedule
• 4.4.10 Career Development of Assistant Professors  Promotion Dossiers
• 4.4.11 Changes in Unit Priorities  Career Development of Assistant Professors
• 4.4.12 Tenure  Changes in Unit Priorities
• 4.4.13 Stop the Tenure Clock  Tenure
• 4.4.14 Stop the Tenure Clock

4.4.4 Departmental  Responsibilities Statement on Workload:

Workload shall be assigned with the expectation that the faculty member will have the opportunity to meet the criteria for satisfactory peer review, contract renewal, and promotion and/or tenure. An individual’s assigned workload during the review period shall be considered in the promotion and/or tenure and peer review process in a manner consistent with the approved promotion and/or tenure and peer review criteria written by each department. 

Candidates for promotion and/or tenure are required to report their assigned workload as part of their dossier so that all reviewers—including external reviewers—have a clear sense of their workload in the various areas of their effort and can judge their achievements fairly. 

A system of letter grades of A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D+, D, D-,  F, L, LW and Z  is employed except for those courses approved for Pass/Fail grading. With some restrictions, students may elect the Pass/Fail option for one elective course each semester. Students electing the option are graded with the usual letter grade, but the grade of P is entered into the academic record for any letter grade of D or higher. A cumulative index of 2.0 is required for graduation for undergraduates, and a 3.0 for graduate students. A grade of Z should be given when a student unofficially withdraws from a class (stops attending and fails to complete sufficient graded requirements). For the complete University Grading Policy see:  http://www1.udel.edu/registrar/faculty_staff/gradeinfo.html

In the seventh week of the semester, each faculty member will be provided with grade rosters indicating the freshmen and first time undergraduates  other newly matriculated undergraduate students enrolled in his or her classes. Faculty are responsible for reporting a meaningful mid- semester letter grade (A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D+, D, D-, F, L, LW or F Z) for each of these students in accordance with the Registrar's Office guidelines. (Rev. 5/6/85; Implemented Fall 1991)

 Near the end of the semester, class lists will be provided for each faculty member. On or around the last day of class for the term, grade rosters will be available on-line to faculty members. These lists  grade rosters should be checked for completeness and discrepancies reported to the Registrar's Office. Faculty are responsible for reporting a final grade for each student at the end of the semester, in accordance with Registrar's Office guidelines. When a grade of F or Z is recorded for a student, the last date of attendance or date of last graded assignment will be required. In the event that a student fails to complete a course for illness or other reason deemed adequate by the instructor, the grade of I (Incomplete) is may be given. The appropriate catalogs should be consulted concerning the various other grades used at the University.

Changes in grade, in most cases, are initiated by the instructor of the course. A change in a permanent grade must also have the approval of the dean of the college where the course is offered if the dean does not approve the change. Occasionally, a change of grade may be initiated by a department chair but only when the course instructor has left the University and cannot be located or is deceased.

If a student has a grade grievance, the student must follow the specified procedure in the Student Guide to University Policies, "Grade Grievance and Other Related Academic Complaints." In cases where a student has filed a grade complaint under these procedures, the decision of the ad hoc committee appointed by the Academic Appeals Committee of the Faculty Senate shall be final.

The Student Judicial System is mandated to impose an automatic grade of “F” if a student is found guilty of academic dishonesty (Rev.4/81) If a student is responsible for committing an act of academic dishonesty, the faculty may impose a grade penalty. See Section 3.1.5 of this document and the Student Guide to University Policies for more details.

Credit toward a baccalaureate degree is given for all courses in which a grade of D- or higher is earned by the student. In graduate programs, courses with grades lower than a C- cannot be counted toward a graduate degree. In both undergraduate and graduate degree programs, all grades are averaged to determine satisfactory completion of degree requirements. (Editorial revision 5/98)

Please see also “Delaware’s Grading System” in the UD Catalog.

The University of Delaware exists to cultivate learning, develop knowledge, and foster the free exchange of ideas. State-assisted yet privately governed, the University has a strong tradition of distinguished scholarship, which is manifested in its research and creative activities, teaching, and service, in line with its commitment to increasing and disseminating scientific, humanistic, artistic, and social knowledge for the benefit of the larger society. Founded in 1743 and chartered by the state in 1833, the University of Delaware today is a land-grant, sea-grant, space-grant, and urban-grant university.

Library Committee

This committee shall consist of the Vice Provost for Libraries and Museums; one faculty member from each of the several colleges (with the exception of the College of Arts and Sciences which shall have three, one of whom shall be from a discipline in the Humanities); two undergraduate students; and two graduate students; and two elected librarians or members of the library professional staff, who may be the same librarians who serve as elected members of the faculty senate. All members of the Committee are voting members. One of the faculty members shall be appointed chairperson. Meetings of the committee shall be open to all librarians (workload permitting) unless a closed session is deemed necessary by the chairperson or the Vice Provost for Libraries and Museums.

Section 1.3 Standing Committee System of the Faculty and its Senate

Academic Priorities and Presidential Advisory Committee

This committee shall provide advice concerning long-term priorities for the University to the sitting Faculty Senate President, and when appropriate, to the Office of the Provost, and to the Office of the President.

This committee is charged with the responsibility of participating in Academic Program Reviews (APRs), which is the function of the Provost Office in conjunction with the Faculty Senate.  The Committee shall advise the Provost on all matters pertaining to APR’s including the selection of units for review.  In May, the Committee will obtain a list, from the Deputy Provost for Academic Affairs, of all programs scheduled for review in the coming year.  This committee will maintain a written log of all APR’s. This committee will meet at least once a year with the Provost and Deputy Provost to review APR reports for the current year and progress on addressing concerns raised in APR reports from the previous year. 

The committee also shall provide historical perspective and recommendations to the Faculty Senate President on matters deemed to be of importance to the Senate, the faculty, or the academic well-being of the University.

This committee shall appoint a replacement for the Past President should a vacancy occur. The replacement will be a former President of the University Faculty Senate.

The committee shall consist of the sitting Senate President, President-Elect, and three to five former Senate Presidents appointed by the Committee on Committees and Nominations. Members shall serve two-year terms, with one former Senate President joining and one leaving each year, if feasible. The sitting Senate President Past President serving on the Faculty Senate Executive Committee will serve as chair of the committee.

The Committee shall meet as least once every month during the fall and spring semester, or more frequently if required. (Rev Feb 2017; Feb 2018)

Effective immediately, all The term Ssecondary Ffaculty appointments refers to an academic appointment made to a professional in the same or another department. If the person does not have a core faculty appointment (that is, they are a professional and don't have a faculty appointment to "return to"), then a faculty appointment for them would be "secondary."

The term Joint Faculty appointment will refers to an academic appointment made to someone with a primary academic appointment in another department unit. This joint appointment may be split funded between departments units or funding might reside entirely in the home (primary) department unit. In other words, if the person has a core faculty appointment, their additional faculty appointments are "joint," whether funded or unfunded. When a joint faculty appointment involves joint funding or workload, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) must be created among the units and deans involved. The MOU must specify that the chair/director of the home unit retains the sole responsibility and authority for the annual appraisal and planning process. The MOU should specify how input from the other unit will be obtained prior to decisions on appraisals, merit raises, and promotion and tenure decisions, and it should describe how workload will be assigned. In cases where there is no joint funding or workload assignments, a MOU is encouraged, but not required. Holding a joint appointment shall in no way abridge a faculty member’s rights in their home unit.

Affiliated faculty are members of the academic staff who are appointed as members of the academic staff for a limited period of time during the year(s) in which they are actively involved in the teaching and research program of the University. Persons holding appointment as Affiliated (Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, or Instructor) must make a contribution to the University in the form of teaching, research, or consultation.

Affiliated status is accorded only after the regular academic review and evaluation. Rank is established according to the same criteria as regular faculty, and the unit shall be responsible for determination of initial rank and promotions. Such determinations do not require the approval of the College or University promotion and tenure committees. Affiliated faculty are not eligible for tenure. No stipend is paid unless an additional appointment, such as an adjunct appointment, also exists; terms of appointment are annual only up to three years, and contracts are not automatically renewed.

Rank is reviewed annually. Recommendations for promotion do not have to go through the usual committee procedures, but evidence beside a vita sheet should be forwarded to indicate meritorious service (e.g., teaching evaluations if the chief duties are in teaching). Affiliated faculty receive University I.D. cards and have access to the Library; they may purchase parking permits and football tickets at faculty rates. They may not participate in the tuition fee waiver program. Although not members of the University voting faculty, some departments or colleges may give them voting rights in their own units; the practice varies.

Adjunct faculty (Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, or Instructor) are those persons who teach a course (or courses) at the University on a supplemental ("S") contract and who are not otherwise fulltime faculty of the University. Rev 9/2013

Visiting faculty include individuals, usually faculty, who come from another institution to the University for a specified period of time. The expectation is that these individuals will return to their home institutions at the end of their appointment period at the University of Delaware.

Benefits for visiting faculty include:

•                           Blue Cross/Blue Shield
•                           Dental Insurance
•                           Fee Waiver

               University I.D. card which will provide access to all facilities and associated privileges

General Provisions Regarding Committees:

Elections for the standing Committee on Committees and Nominations shall take place at the regular May meeting of the Senate so that this committee is fully constituted on September 1 of each year; and this committee shall prepare its nominations for other committees for action at the following regular May meeting of the Faculty Senate. Officers of the Senate (who with the chair of the Committee on Committees and Nominations form the Executive Committee) shall take office on September 1. Committee members and chairs shall take office on September 1 following their election or appointment. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee may appoint a temporary replacement to serve as a non-voting “Acting Officer” during the period of a vacancy.  A replacement for a Past President vacancy may be appointed by the Academic Priorities Review Committee.

Responsibilities and Powers of Officers, Section 12:

1. Responsibilities and Powers of Officers
   (in addition to those structured in Article IV of the Constitution)

The President of the Senate shall preside at meetings of the Senate. He or she shall also serve as chairperson and preside at meetings of the Executive Committee (the officers of the Senate).  The term of the President and the members of the Executive Committee shall commence on July 1 of the year in which he/she will preside and end June 30. Outgoing and incoming Executive Committees are encouraged to meet during July and August to assure transfer of knowledge.

Paragraph 2:

A faculty member has the right to apply for promotion in any academic year (subject to the "Promotion Process Schedule"). However, tenure-track faculty in their terminal year may not apply for promotion. Time-in-rank is not a criterion for promotion. Candidates must compile a record sufficient to warrant promotion prior to starting this process. Each candidate will submit a promotion dossier to the department in accordance with the "Promotion Process Schedule." This dossier is the basis of promotion decisions and it is the responsibility of the candidate to prepare an organized and cogent dossier, representing the case for promotion as well as possible. The organization of the dossier is described in "Promotion Dossiers."

Paragraph 6:

Other than letters from solicited peer reviewers and those individuals in the promotion ladder shown above, only materials approved by the candidate may be added to the dossier after its submission by the candidate. These materials might be recent publications or journal acceptances and may be added to the dossier at any time during the promotion process. Candidates must document by means of a dated cover note as having given specific permission for any additions to the dossier after the September 1 submission deadline.

Attachment 1

4.4.9 Promotion Dossiers

It is the individual's responsibility to present the best case for promotion since he or she is most clearly involved in the outcome. It is extremely important that the dossier be well organized and carefully prepared because superfluous or confusing information may obscure more than it enhances one's qualifications and achievements. Unless otherwise noted in the faculty appointment letter, all work in rank, even if conducted at other institutions of higher education, shall be considered for promotion and tenure. It shall be the faculty's responsibility to include evidence of this work in his/her dossier and to clearly identify when and where this work was performed. (Rev. 5/10/07).

All dossiers should be organized under the following headings in this order:

I.      Introductory Material

• Contents and Guidelines

1. Recommendation for Promotion Form

2.   A table of contents

3.   A copy of the University, college, and department promotion and tenure criteria

B.      Application for Promotion

1.  Candidate's letter requesting promotion

2.  A curriculum vitae

3.  Candidate's statement (optional)

C.      Two and Four Year Reviews for Faculty Seeking Promotion to Associate Professor

1. Reviews conducted by the corresponding department committee

2. Reviews or evaluations conducted by the department chair

D.      Internal Recommendations

1. The department committee's recommendation

2. The chairperson's recommendation

3. College committee's recommendation (if any)

4. Dean or director's recommendation or endorsement

5. University committee's recommendation

6. Any appeal materials (appeals and rebuttals)

E.       External Recommendations

1. List of the external reviewers who were nominated by the candidate versus those nominated by the department, and the criteria used to request from specific reviewers

2. Procedure for choosing external reviewers

a. Solicited peer external evaluations serve as a major indicator of an individual's impact on the profession,  (These evaluations will appear in the dossier under I.E.1.) and These peer evaluations are always required for promotion. Although the number may vary by rank and department or division, every dossier must include outside peer external reviews solicited by the departmental committee and written by highly qualified individuals with established reputations in the candidate's field. These statements should analyze and evaluate critically the candidate's work and accomplishments during the review period and they should also comment on the candidate's potential for future development.

b. The solicitation of these evaluations must follow these guidelines:

1)  A candidate will submit a list of potential reviewers, some of whom will be approached for recommendations. The department committee will suggest additional reviewers. This total list of names will be greater than the total number of letters solicited. Although the candidate must be informed of all potential reviewers and have an opportunity to comment on them, it is the department committee, and not the candidate, that makes the final selection. The final list of names will not be given to the candidate so as to preserve confidentiality of the reviewers.

2)  Candidates must not contact potential reviewers about the promotion process at any time.

3)  Letters of evaluation will be confidential and peer external reviewers will not be mentioned by name or affiliation in any recommendations or evaluations. Reviewers may be referred to by number.

4)  Each peer external review should be accompanied by the letter requesting the evaluation, a curriculum vita or biographical statement describing the reviewer's credentials, and a statement of relationship to the candidate. Insofar as reasonable and possible, only reviewers without personal ties to the candidate should be selected.

5)  If a candidate has collaborative works, it must be clear to the peer external evaluator what the candidate's contributions were to the finished work. Reviewers must be able to determine whether an individual can execute research in his or her own right.

6.  External teaching evaluations that should attest to the candidate's pedagogical competence, knowledge of the subject matter, organization and preparation, ability to stimulate intellectual curiosity and willingness to work, innovative capacity, and such. These evaluations will be solicited by the departmental Promotion and Tenure committee.

7.  External service evaluations will be required for those CT faculty whose primary contracted area of responsibility is service. The external evaluations can be performed locally, but should be external to the academic unit

3.   Letters of evaluation from peer external reviewers together with supporting material. These letters will be numbered sequentially for reference.

II.    Evidential Materials

A. Teaching

Teaching is an extremely important factor in promotion decisions and one must incorporate into the dossier several kinds of evidence. Possibilities include:

Peer evaluations that attest to the candidate's pedagogical competence, knowledge of the subject matter, organization and preparation, ability to stimulate intellectual curiosity and willingness to work, innovative capacity, and such. These evaluations will be solicited by the departmental Promotion and Tenure committee.

1.  Student evaluations, properly tabulated and summarized. The procedures used in administering the evaluations should also be described. Where available comparable departmental evaluations and past measures of the candidate's performance should be provided. (Note: Student evaluations should only be used in conjunction with other indicators to measure teaching competence, not just popularity. The type and size of courses should be taken into account).

2.  Samples of student comments from student evaluations. The means by which these samples were selected should be provided.

3.  Testimonials from a selection of former and current undergraduate and graduate students. The procedures for drawing the sample should be clearly described.

4.  Course portfolio evaluation

5.  Student performance in later sequential courses

6.  Standardized test scores

7.  Self-evaluation

8.  Long-term follow-up of students

9.  In-person classroom observation and evaluation in courses taught by the candidate, done by university faculty and/or staff (such as from the Center for Teaching & Assessment of   Learning), chosen for their pedagogical expertise.

10. Teaching awards (e.g., Faculty Senate Excellence in Teaching)

    B. Scholarship

1. Solicited peer evaluations serve as a major indicator of an individual's impact on the profession. (These evaluations will appear in the dossier under I.E.1.)

These peer evaluations are always required for promotion. Although the number may vary by rank and department or division, every dossier must include outside peer reviews solicited by the departmental committee and written by individuals with established reputations in the candidate's field. These statements should analyze and evaluate critically the candidate's work and accomplishments and they should also comment on the candidate's potential for future development.

The solicitation of these evaluations must follow these guidelines:

a. A candidate will submit a list of potential reviewers, some of whom will be approached for recommendations. The department committee will suggest additional reviewers. This total list of names will be greater than the total number of letters solicited. Although the candidate must be informed of all potential reviewers and have an opportunity to comment on them, it is the department committee, and not the candidate, that makes the final selection. The final list of names will not be given to the candidate so as to preserve confidentiality of the reviewers.

b. Candidates must not contact potential reviewers about the promotion process at any time.

c. Letters of evaluation will be confidential and peer reviewers will not be mentioned by name or affiliation in any recommendations or evaluations. Reviewers may be referred to by number.

d. Each peer review should be accompanied by the letter requesting the evaluation, a curriculum vita or biographical statement describing the reviewer's credentials, and a statement of relationship to the candidate. Insofar as reasonable and possible, only reviewers without personal ties to the candidate should be selected.

e. If a candidate has collaborative works, it must be clear to the peer evaluator what the candidate's contributions were to the finished work. Reviewers must be able to determine whether an individual can execute research in his or her own right.

1. Evidence of scholarly attainment including:

a. Published Materials. Books, refereed and other articles, conference proceedings, works of art, recordings, and other permanent additions to the candidate's field are to be listed in the dossier. For all of these works, the candidate should make clear the extent to which the work has been peer reviewed. For collaborative works, the candidate's contributions(e.g., percent effort, specific activities performed, etc) should be clearly indicated. Different fields have entirely different traditions that determine the order of names associated with these works (e.g., alphabetically or by seniority) and the significance of the order of the names should be clearly stated in the dossier. The rationale for the choice of journals chosen for publishing one’s work should be clearly indicated, as well as the level to which the works have contributed to the field.

b. Awards and prizes.

c. Lectures/presentations/performances at other institutions or conferences, specifying if these were local, national, or international, and whether they were peer-reviewed or not.

d. Unsolicited Peer  External Evaluations. There are other kinds of information that can be interpreted as peer external evaluations, although not of the same kind as derived through solicitation. This material, which should also be included in the dossier since it too describes the candidate's accomplishments, includes among others: articles citing the individual's work and the reasons for its importance; reprinting of articles or parts of books in collections of distinguished contributions to a subject, and so forth.

e. Professional Activity Prior to University Employment. Scholarly productivity for promotion to the rank of associate professor generally cannot be based on work completed in earning the doctorate or other appropriate terminal degree or postdoctorate work prior to arrival at the University of Delaware. The research involved for that degree or postdoctorate work was one of the reasons for initial employment; promotion, on the other hand, must consider evidence of scholarship accomplished subsequent to that performed for the degree or postdoctorate work.

This requirement does not mean that publications based on the dissertation should be totally ignored. Rather, the candidate must offer clear evidence of substantial scholarly achievement made after the awarding of the doctorate or other appropriate terminal degree or postdoctorate work.

Like research, any prior teaching or service plays its role in the hiring contract, the level of monies involved, and the responsibilities attached to it. Prior activity plays little or no role in the promotion except to form a meaningful context against which later development and accomplishments can be judged. There must be evidence of continuing productivity.

f. Prestigious Grants. The acquisition of research or other grants, such as Guggenheim or NSF awards, is obviously a testimony to a person's competence and reputation and should be described in the dossier. The candidate’s contribution, and the funds coming to the candidate, should be clearly indicated, especially in projects with multiple principal investigators.

g. Reviews of Published Materials, Performance, or Exhibits.

h. Unpublished Material. Unpublished material may in some circumstances be an important indicator of a candidate's competence and achievements. Its evaluation, however, must be especially thoughtful. In particular, if it is to be a formal part of the dossier, it should be sent to outside reviewers for a critical assessment of its merits. The comments are meant to apply to unpublished manuscripts as well as so-called "in house" publications, such as research reports that are not subject to an external review process.

i. Other Evidence of Scholarship Appropriate to the Profession. This type of evidence, if important for a department, should be indicated in the department's promotion and tenure document.

   C. Service

Service includes innumerable types of activities rendered for the benefit of the department, college, university, community, profession, or nation. Willingness to undertake such work and competence in performing it are taken into account in the promotion process. Evaluating service is difficult. Promotion and tenure committees need to know when there has been an outstanding level of service that has taken appreciable effort or service that has been done in some way that can be noted as excellent. Other than that, the main concern is that a person has fulfilled his or her service commitment under the criteria of the academic unit concerned and that the unit is satisfied. Administrative responsibilities can be considered as part of the service component, but they may not be used as a substitute for accomplishment in a scholarly discipline. 

Education, Coordinating Committee

This committee shall oversee be a continuing center for overviewing the broad educational affairs of the University; for providing in a larger context and will provide liaison and coordination among the various educational committees of the Senate and the Office of the Provost. for the It will examine ation and preparation of educational proposals; and for providing liaison and coordination among the following enumerated educational committees. presented by other Senate committees and will provide leadership for University level educational initiatives, which may include initiating proposals to be considered by the Senate1.  It shall survey academic impacts, weaknesses and strengths. It will help formulate and assess educational policies and practices and make recommendations. Mindful of Trustee and Administrative responsibility for the University’s fiscal affairs, and at the same time recognizing budgetary matters as a main instrument of academic development, this committee is authorized to confer with the Provost concerning the establishment of academic priorities and their implementation, and such other related budgetary matters as may arise.  It will consult with the Senate Budget Committee to assess the financial impact of academic proposals and initiatives as appropriate.