Updated Content Type

Absences due to serious personal illness (e.g., hospitalization, surgery, mental illness, or protracted medical illness or convalescence) shall also be recognized as excused absences. To validate such absences, the student should present evidence of the illness to the Dean's Office of his or her college. Supportive evidence will be provided on the student's request by the Student Health Service directly to the respective Dean. Students who experience long-term absences of a week or more should consult with their Assistant Dean; in such cases, it may be possible to negotiate with faculty for the opportunity to take an incomplete grade, or a withdrawal may be more prudent. The student's Assistant Dean will give guidance in these matters.

For relatively minor, short-term impacts on the health and wellness illnesses of students (e.g., colds and flu, where attendance in class is undesirable, or where a mental health challenge impedes attendance to class) or their immediate family, the University system depends upon reasonable communication between students and faculty. If possible, students should 1) report anticipated absences such illnesses before the affected class or 2) provide supportive evidence from Student Health Services (SHS) or the Center for Counseling and Student Development (CCSD) or other health care provider if treatment is received, following the directions of the instructor provided at the start of the term (Rev. 5/96). SHS and CCSD staff members actively work with students on health concerns and provide excuses when appropriate.  Students should not be referred for excuses if they were not treated by SHS or CCSD for the illness. Faculty are encouraged to be understanding of these one day/minor illnesses.

SECTION IV:

1. The Senate shall consist of the President of the University; the Provost; the Vice President for Research, Scholarship, and Innovation; the Vice President for Student Life; one additional administrator holding a full-time faculty appointment designated by the President and/or the Provost;  the Deans of the Colleges; the elected Senate officers; the elected faculty senators of the Units; the elected President of the University of Delaware Chapter of the American Association of University Professors; two elected professional librarians; and four elected student senators (two graduate students and two undergraduate students) of the University. Each member of the Senate (hereinafter called a senator) shall have the right to vote. In no case shall the number of non-elected senators exceed twelve. For each upcoming academic year, the Senate office must be notified by August 15 as to the names/positions of those chosen by the President and/or the Provost for that academic year.
   (Rev. of titles, 11/15/93; rev. Fac. Sen. 2/10/97; 9/15/97) (Rev 11/18)

It is recognized that if faculty members are to teach and carry on research effectively, academic freedom is necessary.  Academic freedom is indispensable to effective teaching, excellent research/creative activities, exemplary service, and shared governance.  Academic freedom is the right of freedom of the faculty to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them, and to teach, publish, present, and speak out as the fruits of their research and scholarship dictate, without censorship or external interference, even though their conclusions may be unpopular or contrary to public opinion (see 3.1.1).  The methods, curricular choices, and grading procedures should be the prerogative of the faculty teaching a particular course, limited only by appropriate professional norms, the Faculty Handbook (see 3.1.8, 3.1.9, 3.1.10, 3.1.11, 4.2.14), and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (Article II).  Academic freedom also encompasses the freedom to discuss any matter of institutional policy or practice, without institutional sanction.  Respecting academic freedom means that faculty input should be sought on all academic matters germane to university life (see 4.5).   Both within and outside the classroom, the faculty members of the faculty should exhibit the accuracy, restraint, and respect tolerance for the opinions and ideas of others appropriate to educators and persons of learning.    In relations with the public, they should make it clear at all times whether they speak as private citizens, as experts on the subject in question, or as institutional spokesmen. In speaking as private citizens, faculty should make clear that they are doing so. In this connection, use of University titles should be permitted for identification purposes only, and it should be made clear that institutional endorsement is not implied.  [moved five paragraphs below]

The following statements were passed by the University Faculty Senate and were adopted as policy by the University administration and on May 31, 1979, by the Board of Trustees.  [moved to the end of the statement].

The teacher Faculty members are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of results, but research for pecuniary return should comply with relevant university policies (see 3.2.4, 4.1.13, 4.2.6, 4.2.7) )  be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the University. 

The teacher Faculty are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing his or her their subject but should be careful not to introduce content into his or her teaching matter that which has little or no relation relevance to the subject.

Classroom visitations for the purpose of teaching evaluations are compatible with academic freedom, but such visitation shall adhere to reasonable procedures contained in a written statement approved by a majority of department faculty.

The teacher faculty is an individual, a member of a learned profession, as well as a member of an educational institution. When speaking as an individual, he or she should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but his or her special position in the community imposes special obligations. As a person of learning and as an educator, the teacher a member of the faculty should remember that the public may judge his or her profession and institution by his or her utterances. Hence the teacher faculty should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that he or she is not an institutional spokesperson. In relations with the public, they should make it clear at all times whether they speak as private citizens, as experts on the subject in question, or as institutional spokesperson. In speaking as private citizens, faculty should make clear that they are doing so. In this connection, use of University titles should be permitted for identification purposes only, and it should be made clear that institutional endorsement is not implied.

Members of the University community are free to examine and to discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and privately. They are free to support causes by orderly means including any means of peaceful assembly or advocacy that do not infringe upon the rights or freedoms of others. Members of the University community are allowed to invite, to hear, and to see speakers, creative performers and artistic presentations of their own choosing. Guest appearances must not interfere with the University's regular instructional, research, and service programs. Except for ceremonial occasions, invited speakers and art presenters should be prepared for a reasonable public discussion of their expressed views.

Invited speakers and art presenters are accorded the full courtesy and protection appropriate to a university community. Individuals or groups who engage in actions designed to obstruct or in any way to prevent the speaker from speaking and the art presenter from presenting or displaying any form of artistic expression are subject to discipline and to financial responsibility in the event of damage to property or person.

The institutional control of campus facilities is not to be used as a device of censorship. Sponsorship of guest speakers and art presenters does not imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed, either by the sponsoring unit or the University.

(Passed by the University Faculty Senate, approved by the Board of Trustees, 5/31/79.  Revised 12/10/80).

This committee shall coordinate, facilitate, stimulate, and encourage international study. It shall make recommendations and advise the University on appropriate policies and procedures to further international educational activities.The Committee on International Studies shall have oversight of all international educational studies for students and faculty such as (but not limited to) short-term and semester study abroad programs, international scholarship opportunities, World Scholars, international service learning and research programs, and/or any academic program with an embedded global experience.  The committee will review, make recommendations, and advise on curricula, and on policies and procedures to promote international educational development and activities.  The committee will also provide oversight for programs for international students studying on the University of Delaware campus.

This committee shall consist of five faculty members, one of whom shall be designated the chairperson, the Foreign Student and Scholar Advisor, one appointment by the University Provost, one undergraduate student and one graduate student. The Committee shall consist of six faculty. Faculty shall be from at least four of the seven colleges. The Committee on Committees and Nominations shall appoint the faculty members for this committee for terms of three years. Appointments shall be scheduled such that the faculty member’s terms will expire in a staggered manner. The Committee on Committees and Nominations shall appoint annually the chairperson from the six faculty members. A seventh member of the committee shall be the Associate Deputy Provost for international programs or his or her designee, and this member shall serve to facilitate interactions between the committee and relevant administrative offices. The committee will also include one undergraduate and one graduate student.

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 and creative 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 and creative activity, and service), the percent of the faculty member’s workload 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 and creative  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 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.

4.1.1 Faculty Appointment Policy

This policy shall apply to all academic units for the appointment to an academic rank. The policy shall be applicable to all full- and part-time positions, permanent and temporary positions, joint, secondary, affiliated, and adjunct positions, regardless of funding source.

·         To appoint any person to an academic rank requires a positive recommendation from the faculty of the academic unit to which the person is to be assigned, and the rank shall be specified in the recommendation.
·         In the case of an appointment of an external candidate, the academic rank of such appointee must be approved by a favorable vote of those faculty in the academic unit who are eligible to vote under the department’s bylaws and/or promotion and tenure document in cases involving the promotion of an internal candidate for promotion; furthermore, appointments with tenure must be approved by the faculty in such academic unit who are eligible to vote under the department’s bylaws and/or promotion and tenure document in cases where tenure is granted to an internal candidate. Academic rank also must be approved by the Provost, and appointments with tenure must be approved by the Provost and President.
·         Departments may specify in their promotion and tenure documents what, if any, evidence is required to be submitted by a senior external candidate for an appointment to support the granting of tenure in cases where the candidate does not already hold tenure in his or her current academic position and/or a promotion in rank above that of his or her current academic position. Departments may require “mini-dossiers” that include less information and fewer external letters of review than are required of internal candidates for promotion and/or tenure.
·         There shall be a search committee for each new or vacant faculty position. The University of Delaware Recruitment Manual for faculty, professional and salaried staff members sets forth the policy governing the establishment of search committees and the search procedures for filling faculty positions.
·         The college dean and department chairperson act for the college and department faculty, respectively. It is understood that they consult with college or department faculty according to college and department policies and procedures in making their recommendations.

The full-time teaching assignment at the University of Delaware is twelve credit contact hours or 18 teaching contact hours per week per semester for the academic year. In practice, however, the University adheres to a policy of "administered" teaching loads. Under this arrangement, department chairpersons and deans are encouraged to vary the teaching loads of individual faculty members so long as the total teaching obligations are met with the teaching personnel available. This flexible arrangement makes it possible for the chairpersons to make assignments of individual faculty members on a semester-to-semester basis to stimulate research and scholarship or to provide for unusually heavy committee assignments.

A.    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).

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

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

D.    Course portfolio evaluation

E.     Student performance in later sequential courses

F.      Standardized test scores

G.    Self-evaluation

H.    Long-term follow-up of students

I.        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.

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

• Teaching narrative with self-evaluation and teaching philosophy.
• In-person classroom observation and evaluation in course(s) taught by the candidate, done by university faculty and/or staff, chosen for their pedagogical expertise.
• A collection of recent syllabi, examinations, assignments, and/or other teaching materials. The candidate might annotate these materials to indicate what learning goals they address, how and why they are used, and their effectiveness.
• Attendance in teaching workshops, possibly with reflections on how the workshop informed and improved teaching.
• Incorporation of best practices (perhaps as evidenced in empirical studies) into the classroom.
• Evidence of student learning (e.g standardized test results, samples of student work, pre/post assessment).
• Testimonials from a selection of former and current undergraduate and/or graduate students. The procedures for drawing the sample should be clearly described.
• Teaching awards (e.g., Faculty Senate Excellence in Teaching).
• Sample comments from student course feedback (collected using institutional measures). The means by which these samples were selected should be provided.
• Quantitative student course feedback (collected using institutional measures) properly tabulated and summarized. The procedures used in administering the feedback should also be described in context. Where available, comparable departmental measures should be provided. Student course feedback can reflect unconscious bias and may not reflect student learning. Such measures should only be considered in conjunction with other indicators of teaching quality.

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 recommended 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 should 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 should be reviewed at least every two years but normally no more often than once a year. Not later than the fall of the sixth year of service, assistant professors must should 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.

Departmental 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.

6/95, Modified and approved by Provost and AAUP 12/3/04, 5/07

11. Eligibility and Election of Officers and Committee Chairs of the Senate

Eligibility for nomination, appointment, or service as Senate Officers or committee Chairs shall be restricted to full-time voting Faculty who are not appointed to serve in an official capacity for the Offices of the President, the Provost, any Vice President, or the Dean of any College, including but not limited to administrative officers of the University (including deputy, associate, assistant and vice provosts), academic deans (including deputy, associate and assistant deans), and department chairs or academic program directors (as defined in the Policy Guide for Department Chairs and Academic Program Directors).  Faculty who serve in a temporary capacity for an administrative office as a member of a search committee, standing committee, or ad hoc committee shall not be deemed ineligible because of this service.

Departmental documents should also include the procedure for choosing the departmental promotion and tenure committee and should specify what constitutes discipline- and departmental- specific standards within all areas of teaching, research/creative activities, and service in the context of assigned workload. required levels of achievement for each rank, such as excellence in research or teaching or in both. Faculty candidates for promotion and/ or tenure will be evaluated based on the criteria in their department’s approved promotion and tenure guidelines appropriately weighted for their workload for the period under review. (Rev. 3/4/08; Rv. 5/2016)

Section added December 2018

Added section

Section added

The use of analytics for evaluating faculty must be done judiciously and within the context of the individual’s work and field, and must be subordinate to long-accepted standards of peer review. Reviewers shall avoid over-reliance on third-party analytical data in making tenure and promotion decisions. The department/unit must clearly stipulate if, how, or whether analytics are to be used in the promotion process. Furthermore, any data and analytics to which candidates do not have access over the course of the review period cannot be used for evaluating faculty or included in reviews of the dossier. (Rev 3/2018)

SECTION IV:

The Senate shall consist of the President of the University,; the Provost,; the Vice President for Research, Scholarship, and Innovation; the Vice President for Student Life,; one additional administrator holding a full-time faculty appointment designated by the President and/or the Provost; the Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Planning, the Vice Provost for Research, the Deans of the Colleges,; the elected Senate officers, ; the elected faculty senators of the Units,; two elected professional librarians,; and four elected student senators (two graduate students and two undergraduate students) of the University. Each member of the Senate (hereinafter called a senator) shall have the right to vote. In no case shall the number of non-elected senators exceed twelve.twenty percent of the Senate. For each upcoming academic year, the Senate office must be notified by August 15 as to the names/positions of those chosen by the President and/or the Provost for that academic year.

By action of the University faculty, the responsibility for defining attendance expectations is left to the individual faculty member, subject to the guidelines given below. Thus it is of great importance that early in each course the instructor make clear to each student what attendance expectations are, and how absences due to "relatively minor" illnesses, as described below, are to be communicated. The use of the syllabus to list attendance expectations and means of communicating about illnesses is recommended. In order to be in compliance with Federal financial aid regulations, the University requests that the instructor of record for each course identify, to the registrar’s office, individual students who have never attended class or participated in any class activities by the last day to register or add courses each term.  

Appeals are possible at every level (see Section 4.4.3 for more information regarding the appeals process and schedule.) but must be made to the committee or administrator whose decision is being appealed. An intention to appeal must be given to the appropriate body within five working days of notification of the decision. An appeal includes: (1) a letter documenting the basis of the appeal, usually written by the candidate; and (2) a scheduled meeting with the appropriate person or committee. It is strongly recommended that the candidate attend the appeal meeting. Representatives of the candidate can also attend and participate in the appeal meeting. Appeals must be handled within two weeks, except under extenuating circumstances. The University Faculty Senate Committee on Promotions and Tenure will hear no appeals beyond March 1, and the Provost's Office will hear no appeals beyond April 15. Any appeals not heard by these dates must be carried over to the following academic year.

Revised text being moved to 4.4.3:

Appeals are possible at every level, but must be made to the committee or administrator whose decision is being appealed. Appeals are typically made on the grounds of procedural irregularities, the interpretation of evidence in the dossier, or the introduction of new evidence. An intention to appeal must be given to the appropriate body within five working days of notification of the decision. An appeal includes: 

(1) a letter documenting the basis of the appeal, usually written by the candidate; and (2) a scheduled meeting with the appropriate person or committee. It is strongly recommended that the candidate attend the appeal meeting. Representatives of the candidate can also attend and participate in the appeal meeting. Appeals must be handled within two weeks, except under extenuating circumstances. The University Faculty Senate Committee on Promotions and Tenure will hear no appeals beyond March 1, and the Provost’s Office will hear no appeals beyond April 15. Any appeals not heard by these dates must be carried over to the following academic year.

Diversity and Inclusion

This committee shall review all University policies and practices pertaining to diversity and inclusion in the recruiting and retaining of students and faculty. The committee shall submit an annual report in May evaluating the status of policies and practices, including current data on the recruitment and retention of underrepresented faculty and students. It shall recommend for consideration by the Senate statements of goals, policies, and practices pertaining to (1) the recruitment, retention, promotion, and general well-being of underrepresented faculty; (2) teaching by faculty that contributes to an inclusive, dynamic campus community in which underrepresented populations are welcomed, represented, and engaged; and (3) encouraging faculty research that furthers knowledge of diversity in its many forms.  As part of charge (2), the committee will perform the ongoing review of new and revised courses seeking to fulfill the multicultural course requirement. This review will be conducted by a subcommittee of three members selected at the discretion of the chair.

The committee shall consist of five six faculty members who shall serve three-year terms, one of whom shall be appointed chair by the Committee on Committees and Nominations, one graduate student who shall serve a one-year term, and two undergraduates who shall serve one-year terms. The Committee will also consult regularly with the Vice Provost for Diversity in order to ensure open lines of communication between faculty and administration about diversity initiatives on campus. Initial appointments of committee members shall be staggered to ensure continuity on the committee.

In the second and fourth year, a full peer review will be conducted.  In the sixth year, on the basis of recommendations from the full peer review and chair/director/dean, and with the approval of the provost, individuals will receive either a seventh terminal year appointment or a three-year contract subject to annual review. In the second year of the three-year contract, the chair/director/dean will recommend whether the individual will be afforded a contract of four years in length to begin after the three-year contract. Subject to satisfactory annual evaluations, during the last year of a four-year contract, a fourth full peer review will be conducted. Subject to the recommendation of the peer review and chair/director/dean, and with the approval of the provost, the individual will receive a five-year contract on a "rolling" basis, subject to an annual review. Faculty on five year rolling contracts are subject to the peer evaluation every five years of faculty as defined in the Faculty Handbook. Contract renewal is subject to the notice provisions of the Faculty Handbook, "Terminations and Non-Renewals." (10/13/05), revised 12/09/05. Note that CT faculty members being considered for promotion to Associate Professor or Professor must be externally evaluated (see section 4.4.2).

Addition of new Section 4.4.13

The pre-tenure probationary period shall be extended for one year upon a tenure-track faculty member submitting a “Stop the Tenure Clock” electronic web form. This policy applies to tenure-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 Tenure Clock” electronic web form by the faculty member to the chair/director. Submission of the “Stop the Tenure 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 tenure-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 tenure candidate who extends the probationary period under this provision shall be reviewed for promotion and tenure under the same academic standards as a candidate who has not extended the probationary period. The tenure 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 tenure prior to the terminal year, regardless of time in rank. Stopping the tenure clock for one year postpones any subsequent second-year review, fourth-year review, or eligibility for a junior faculty research leave for one year.

In accord with Section IV, Article 7, of the Constitution, the Committee on Committees and Nominations, whose composition and charge are prescribed under the Standing Committee document, shall provide for the Senate a slate of nominees at the May April meeting for review by the Faculty Senators before the election at the May meeting. The slate shall should have at least two eligible candidates for each office or position, and the name of any eligible candidate who wants to stand for election shall appear on the slate. Nominations to the slate from the floor are permitted. In the event that there are three or more nominees to an office, and if in the balloting no individual receives a majority, the subsequent ballot will be between the two nominees receiving the highest plurality. The Chair of the Committee on Committees and Nominations and the Faculty Senate Secretary shall oversee the voting including counting the votes and certifying their authenticity.  The winners will be announced at the May meeting without specific vote totals; however, such totals shall be provided to nominees upon request to the Chair on the Committee on Committees and Nominations or the Faculty Senate Secretary.”

Undergraduate Studies - This committee shall consist of the University Provost or his or her designee; the Associate Provost for Admissions and Financial Aid or his or her designee; the University Registrar or his or her designee; three faculty members from the College of Arts and Science (if feasible, one from natural sciences and mathematics, one from arts and humanities, and one from social and behavioral sciences) and one faculty member from each other undergraduate college, one of whom shall be chairperson; one representative from the Associate in Arts Program, one representative of the Committee on Graduate Studies; and three undergraduate students. 

ACADEMIC PRIORITIES REVIEW COMMITTEE:

This committee shall provide direct faculty advice concerning long-term priorities for the University to the Office of the University Provost. The committee will also advise the Office of the University Provost in preparing materials for Middle States Accreditation reviews and updates, which occur on a five-year interval. The committee will be provided with information secured by the Coordinating Committee on Education and other Faculty Senate committees concerning such matters as budgets and programs under review, and it will meet regularly with the University Provost.

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

The committee shall consist of five eight members, who shall be the present and three most recent six former chairpersons of the Faculty Senate Coordinating Committee on Education and one former winner of the Francis Alison Award. In the event that a former chair of the Coordinating Committee cannot serve, another former Senate officer President may be appointed as a substitute. Members shall serve four-year terms, with one Senate member joining and one leaving each year. The committee will elect its own chair. 
(Committee established 9/94)

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 July 1. Committee members and chairs shall take office on September 1 following their election or appointment.

COCAN:

The committee shall consist of one member who is elected for a two-year term from and by each Unit as defined in the Constitution of the Faculty, and three Faculty members-at-large, elected for two-year terms by the Faculty Senate. Following this election, the Faculty Senate shall select one of the faculty designees to act as chairperson for a one two-year term and who will also serve as a member of the Executive Committee. If feasible, at least one committee member shall be a senator. 
(Committee Revised fall 1988)

At the first regular May meeting the Senate shall elect a President-Elect, and in alternate years, a Vice President or a Secretary from the full-time voting faculty of the University. The President Elect shall assume the office of President of the Senate in the second year of office. The Vice President shall serve for two years and may not be reelected for one additional, consecutive two-year term.  The Secretary shall serve for two years and may not be reelected for one additional, consecutive two-year term.  The Secretary of the Senate shall also serve as Secretary of the University Faculty. (Rev. Fac Sen. 4/25/91; 9/15/97; 2/2003) 

Faculty Handbook Section 3.4 Academic Program Review

Academic Program Review (APR) is a function of the Office of the Provost in conjunction with the University Faculty Senate and is coordinated by the Deputy Provost for Academic Affairs. It is designed to evaluate the quality, productivity, and the role of each academic unit and program in the fulfillment of the University's mission and strategic goals. (The term "unit" herein refers to an academic department, a college, or a program.) APR serves to encourage self-study and planning within units, to ensure comparability among review reports, and to strengthen the linkages connecting the planning agendas and practices of individual units with those of their colleges and of the University as a whole. Reviews inform budgetary planning decisions at every level of administration.

The Provost and Deans select units for review. Academic units will normally be reviewed at ten year intervals, but this schedule may be accelerated in individual cases at the discretion of the Provost. Wherever possible, APR reviews will be combined with accreditation or other mandated reviews. The Senate Academic Priorities Review Committee will have the opportunity to suggest programs or programmatic areas for review. The Deputy Dean Provost for Academic Affairs coordinates all reviews, working with the unit under review and with the review panel to ensure that the process will be fair, efficient, and effective.

Each review is conducted by a review panel, composed of five members, all from disciplines related to that of the unit under review.  The Dean responsible for the unit under review in conjunction with the unit submits names of potential reviewers to the Deputy Provost for Academic Affairs for approval.  Four reviewers are selected from the approved list of potential reviewers.  The fifth reviewer is a University of Delaware faculty member of another unit and is chosen by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees and Nominations. The Review Panel members will be selected as follows:

• one University of Delaware member or external member chosen by the Dean of the college whose unit is under review or, in the case of the review of a college, by the Provost
• one University of Delaware member chosen by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees and Nominations
• one University of Delaware member from the faculty of another unit or external member chosen by the unit under review
• two external members representing the discipline of the unit under review chosen by the Deputy Provost in consultation with the head of the unit and the Dean of the unit's college.

Further information on the Academic Program Review process may be obtained online or from the Office of the Deputy Provost.