1. Annual Appointments for Non-Tenured Faculty It is the general practice of the college that non-tenured faculty members receive annual contracts. This is the case for (a) individuals who are appointed to continuing faculty positions in the "tenure stream"; (b) individuals who are appointed as visiting faculty members replacing members of the faculty who are on leave; and (c) individuals appointed to temporary positions created to meet short-term needs. Reappointments of non-tenured faculty members will necessarily depend on the needs of the college at the time that decisions on reappointment are made, but in all cases the appropriate standards of notice contained in the REGULATIONS ON APPOINTMENTS, TENURE, AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM (see Section III.C) will be followed.

2. Annual Consultations Each faculty member who does not have tenure (including those on part-time appointments: Category I, laboratory instructors, and senior lecturers) receives, in a consultation with the department chair, an annual assessment of his or her teaching, scholarship, and service to the University community. A written record should be made of the consultation and signed by both the chair and the faculty member. The signature of the faculty member does not indicate that he or she accepts every judgment in that record. Rather, it merely indicates that the person has read it. Should that person choose to do so, he or she may respond, and/or comment on it in writing. This information is then shared with the division director and with the Dean of the Faculty. The purpose of these annual procedures is to give un-tenured faculty members a candid and constructive assessment of their performance at Colgate in the three areas teaching, scholarship, and service to the University considered relevant for all decisions on reappointment, promotion, and tenure.

Parallel procedures for athletic faculty were approved by the Dean's Advisory Council and the Committee on Faculty Affairs in May 1987 and are on file in the Office of the Dean of the Faculty.

3. Faculty Evaluation of Teaching is intended to help its members fully develop their abilities as teachers and to provide adequate information for tenure and promotion decisions.

Faculty evaluation of teaching can occur in many ways. For example, there may be evaluation of candidates' syllabi and other teaching materials; of their work in redesigning old courses and designing new ones; of the quality of their comments on or criticism of student examinations, papers or other productions; of their effectiveness in working with students outside the regular classroom. Qualities of intellect, articulateness, organization of thought and range of knowledge and interest relevant to teaching can be observed in departmental, divisional, or university-wide presentations, or by visits to classrooms or during participation in various forms of joint teaching.

Departments select the modes of evaluation most appropriate to their discipline and pedagogy. Once selected, those modes should be registered with the Dean's Advisory Council and the Committee on Promotion and Tenure. This procedure also extends to the Library and Department of Physical Education.

It is the responsibility of department heads to provide each un-tenured faculty member with a yearly assessment of his or her teaching. This assessment is part of the letter of annual consultation. These assessments, like the letters of annual consultation, are for the information and assistance of the faculty member. They are not to become part of the dossier submitted for a decision on third-year comprehensive review, tenure or promotion.

Third-year comprehensive review, and decisions on tenure and promotion, require a broadly based faculty evaluation of the candidate's teaching. Faculty of higher ranks than the candidate's participate in these evaluations. It is the responsibility of each department to collect and provide, in a timely way, the materials and information that faculty need to make their evaluations. These evaluations become part of the candidate's dossier used by the Dean's Advisory Council when it makes decisions.

The modes of faculty evaluation of teaching used within a given department are described in writing and are on file in the Office of the Dean of the Faculty where they are available to any faculty member. Department chairs are responsible for communicating the specific procedures to the new faculty members. Division Directors are responsible for seeing that these descriptions accurately describe each department's procedures.

4. Student Evaluations of Teaching Although evaluations of teaching are made in a number of different ways, the college also utilizes student evaluations.

On December 4, 1984, the Faculty voted to adopt a new Student Questionnaire (see below). In May 1987, both the Dean's Advisory Council and the Committee on Faculty Affairs approved a parallel form for student evaluation of coaches that is on file in the Dean of the Faculty's Office.

The following regulations for the administration of student questionnaires, voted by the faculty, are in effect: (a) the questionnaire shall be given in each course each term;⁶ (b) the questionnaire shall be given out in class by a responsible person other than the regular instructor; (c) the questionnaire shall be given out during the last two weeks of class, but not during the class period before or after an examination; (d) the questionnaire shall be administered at the beginning of the class period, and at least 20 minutes should be set aside to allow ample time for students to write comments; (e) the individual who administers the form is to read aloud the introductory statement prior to distribution of the forms to students; (f) to insure timely processing, for the benefit of both faculty and students, typing of student responses is required only in classes with fewer than 15 students; (g) faculty will receive student comments only after grades for the course have been received by the Registrar.

In addition, the Faculty urges the Student Association to inform students regularly of the importance of SET forms.

Finally, the Faculty approved the following procedure to govern the use and distribution of the comments from the questionnaires:

a. The individual faculty member should be given one copy.

b. The department chair should receive two copies.

c. The faculty member shall also have the right to submit a written commentary on the questionnaires. This written commentary shall be attached to all copies of the departmental written evaluation for that faculty member.

d. For Liberal Arts Core Curriculum courses, the chair of the Core course should receive two copies of the questionnaires. The Core chairs should submit reports on non-tenured instructors to the Director of the Division of University Studies. The questionnaire reports should be appended to a written evaluation of the faculty member's teaching performance in these courses. The written evaluation should also be sent to the instructor, who may add comments.

e. Use of the reports on tenured faculty members recommended for promotion will follow the relevant procedures of (c) and (d).

f. The questionnaire reports may be used by appropriate faculty members in departmental discussions of individuals being considered for reappointment, promotion, and tenure.

g. Individual faculty members have the right to comment directly upon each course's evaluations and to have these comments accompany evaluations written about the individual's courses.

5. Institutional Needs in Hiring and Third-Year Comprehensive Review  In its report of June 28, 1978, which was endorsed by the Faculty at its meeting of September 11, 1978, the Committee on Faculty Affairs noted that

It has become increasingly clear that certain institutional factors must help to guide our pre-tenure personnel decisions. Such factors as the field of specialization of the candidate, the future need of the college for that specific field, and the age structure and percentage tenured in a given department need to be considered at a number of points.

Obviously, the first time for such consideration is at the point of hiring. These institutional concerns need to be reflected in our hiring practices and shall be considered by departments, division directors and the Dean of the Faculty before authorization is given to recruit for a specific position. The Third-Year Review is the most appropriate time for the institution as a whole to reexamine those decisions. The Third-Year Review has taken on greater importance over the past few years and it is necessary that the University continue to make discriminations at this point in anticipation of eventual decisions on tenure . . . . The candidate's past and potential contribution to departmental and institutional needs shall be a part of the Third-Year Review . . . .

Following passage of the Faculty resolution endorsing the report, which had requested the Dean of the Faculty "to insure that appropriate actions are taken to implement the Committee's recommendations on Hiring and Third-Year Review Practices," the Dean's Advisory Council developed a statement concerning implementation of those recommendations. The following excerpts are taken from the January 16, 1979 statement of the Dean's Advisory Council:

It is the Dean's Advisory Council's understanding that the recommendations were meant to focus our attention on such institutional factors, but not meant to create an inflexible series of guidelines based solely on such factors as the percentage tenured or the number of students enrolled in a particular department. Such factors are important and need to be seriously examined; however, specific decisions will require a discussion of complex issues not easily reduced to numbers . . . .

Hiring  We would expect that the most careful analysis of institutional need for a position would be done at the point of hiring. This analysis would benefit from periodic reviews of departmental programs and staffing . . . . Careful decisions at the point of hiring will decrease the possibility of institutional concerns being crucial factors in third-year review. Division directors now review requests for authorization to recruit personnel with chairs. At that point, they will also review the position in terms of departmental and institutional needs. The resulting recommendation made to the Dean will be submitted to the Dean's Advisory Council for further discussion if desired by the Dean or a division director.

Third-Year Review  The departmental evaluation of candidates for the third-year review will need to include a section on the relationship of departmental and institutional needs to the position and individual being considered. As pointed out in the Faculty Affairs Committee report to the faculty, the University has had this as a goal in third-year review for some time now, and the recommendation is simply to implement what has already existed as policy. Division directors will review the positions with chairs prior to the development of that evaluation and suggest questions which should be addressed.

6. Third-Year Comprehensive Review For individuals appointed to continuing faculty positions in the tenure stream, a comprehensive review of their performance is undertaken in the third year. For Category I faculty, this comprehensive review will take place in the sixth year of teaching at Colgate, unless an earlier point in time has been arranged with the Dean of the Faculty, and for nontenured Category I faculty, every sixth year thereafter. The Dean's Advisory Council has ruled that faculty members who come to Colgate as full-time faculty with credit for two or three years of previous teaching elsewhere will be reviewed on the basis of the candidates' potential contribution to departmental and institutional needs. For such faculty, the review will take place in the spring of their second year of teaching at Colgate. Those who come to Colgate with credit for one year of teaching elsewhere will have their third-year review at the usual time.

This comprehensive review, which is made by departments and submitted to the Dean's Advisory Council, is based on the quality of the individual's teaching, scholarly promise in addition to the Ph.D. dissertation, and service to the University. The third-year review is meant to insure that individuals who pass this stage are of sufficient quality that continued appointment up to the tenure decision is warranted. In addition, as is the case with all reappointments of non-tenured faculty members, college-wide needs will properly be taken into account when making decisions at the third-year review level. The recommendations of the Committee on Faculty Affairs, which were approved by the Faculty in September 1978 (and which are quoted in the preceding Section III.E.5), underline the importance of the third-year review as "the most appropriate time" for the institution as a whole to reassess personnel decisions in light of institutional needs. As the Committee concluded, "it is necessary that the University continue to make discriminations at this point in anticipation of eventual decisions on tenure."

It should be clear to all candidates that a positive decision at the third-year review stage does not have any necessary implications for an eventual decision on tenure, which is made in a candidate's sixth year.

The following procedures and standards for the third-year comprehensive review have been approved by the Dean's Advisory Council:

a. Departments should review individuals who are in the third year of their appointment at Colgate. This departmental review must be completed by the date in mid-February set by the Dean of the Faculty.

b. The departmental review should be made by all tenured members of the department and is based on the individual's teaching, scholarly promise in addition to the Ph.D. dissertation, and service to the University community. The review should also include an analysis of departmental and institutional needs in relation to the individual and position being considered. Chairs should consult with their division directors prior to the development of this evaluation.

c. Departmental recommendations should be made in writing to the division director by the date set by the Dean of the Faculty and should be accompanied by evidence or statements on all three areas of performance. The Dean's Advisory Council, which will review the departmental recommendations and the evidence presented, makes its recommendation to the Dean of the Faculty on each case.

d. A decision to terminate a faculty member in the tenure stream after the fourth year will be made on the basis of one of the following considerations:

(1) Inadequate teaching with insufficient evidence of potential for improvement.

(2) Non-completion of the Ph.D. or insufficient evidence of significant scholarly promise beyond the Ph.D. (Successful candidates must have completed the Ph.D. by January 1 of the third year as documented by a letter from the Ph.D.-granting institution.)

(3) Failure to satisfy or to show promise of satisfying reasonable expectations for service as expressed in Section D, "Guidelines," concerning service to the university community.

(4) Evidence that the candidate has not met the pedagogical or curricular or professional expectations established at the time of hire.

(5) Institutional needs and priorities which would mandate a termination or redefinition of the position.

A checklist of items to be included in the third-year review recommendations has been developed by the Dean's Advisory Council and is available from the division directors' or Dean of the Faculty's offices.

7. Tenure Guidelines The Board of Trustees, in January, 1979, accepted the faculty endorsement of the Committee on Faculty Affairs proposal on tenure guidelines. The following passage from the June 28, 1978 report of the Committee on Faculty Affairs outlines the revised Colgate Tenure Guidelines.

Tenure Guidelines We propose a flexible, long-term tenure guideline range of 55% to 65% of faculty in the tenured ranks. Tenure decisions for each class would be based on individual merit.

If a trend develops which suggests that we are making tenure decisions which would take us below 55%, this shall be taken as an indication that personnel policies are in need of review. Continued tenure decisions which would yield fewer than 55% of the faculty on tenure should raise questions about the future leadership of departments and the University, and about the quality of the applicant pool, our hiring practices, the possible need for senior-level appointments, and the effect on junior faculty morale. Similarly, a trend which would take us above 65% shall also indicate the need for a review of faculty personnel policies and an examination of the impact of such a trend on departments, the University, faculty quality, and faculty salaries. In considering either situation, we should differentiate between short-run aberrations due to the age structure of the faculty and changes in the retirement age and longer-run implications. Initial investigations shall be conducted by the D.A.C. and the Faculty Committee on Promotion and Tenure, with results passed on to the Faculty Affairs Committee.

8. Tenure and Promotion Review  Decisions on tenure and promotion are made in accordance with the REGULATIONS ON APPOINTMENTS, TENURE, AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM and the GUIDELINES FOR REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND TENURE, both printed above. In the case of tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, recommendations, positive or negative, are normally made for full-time faculty by departments in and not later than the fall of a candidate's sixth year (counting previous teaching experience as appropriate), after review by all tenured members of the department. Relevant evidence is compiled by the department chair; the individual faculty member under consideration has a right to supplement these materials with additional evidence if he or she desires (for more specific enumeration of the items to be included in tenure and promotion files, see Section III.E.10). The department's recommendation, together with all the evidence, is reviewed with the division director, who forwards the materials to the Dean of the Faculty. Regardless of the departmental recommendation, all faculty members otherwise entitled to a tenure review by the Dean's Advisory Council may have that review. The academic division directors and the Dean of the Faculty, meeting as a committee in the presence of the elected Faculty Committee on Promotion and Tenure and (if he or she chooses to be present) the President of the University, review the departmental recommendations and the evidence submitted for each candidate. Recommendations for tenure are made by this group to the Dean of the Faculty. The Dean of the Faculty, in turn, makes tenure recommendations to the President of the University, who may accept, modify, or reject them in submitting final proposals to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees makes final decisions on tenure.

Normally, a candidate will not be brought forward for promotion to full professor until he or she has been in rank for six to ten years. A candidate may be brought forward for promotion in various ways. Typically, the full professors in a department will inform the division director that a candidate is being brought forward. In some circumstances, the candidate may initiate the process, in consultation with the division director; the division director may also, in consultation with the Dean of Faculty, initiate the process.

The procedure for promotion to Professor is essentially the same as that for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor. Departmental recommendations are usually made in the fall after review by all members of the department who hold the rank of Professor. Recommendations, together with all the evidence, are reviewed with the division director, who forwards the materials to the Dean of the Faculty. The academic division directors and the Dean of the Faculty, meeting as a committee in the presence of the elected Faculty Committee on Promotion and Tenure and (if he or she chooses to be present) the President of the University, review the departmental recommendations and the evidence submitted for each candidate.

In making recommendations for promotion to the rank of Professor, the division directors and Dean of the Faculty may take into account length of service at Colgate in addition to the criteria contained in the GUIDELINES FOR REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND TENURE and in Regulation 2 of the REGULATIONS ON APPOINTMENTS, TENURE, AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM. The recommendations of the academic division directors and Dean of the Faculty are forwarded to the President of the University, who may accept, modify, or reject them in submitting final proposals to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees makes final decisions on promotions.
Promotions to the rank of Assistant Professor are normally entertained only after an individual has successfully completed the Ph.D. New members of the faculty are automatically promoted to Assistant Professor rank if written notification from the degree-granting institution is received prior to August 15th, indicating that all Ph.D. requirements have been satisfactorily completed. After that date the promotion will take place on the first of the month following the first Board of Trustees meeting after official written notification has been received.

9. Timetable for Tenure and Promotion Review  In recognition that the scheduling of early tenure and promotion meetings is a critical activity of the University and should be given a high priority by all concerned, the Faculty Committee on Promotion and Tenure has recommended, and the Dean's Advisory Council has approved, the following timetable for tenure and promotion review:

a. In the spring, each candidate for tenure or promotion in the fall and his or her department chair should be given a copy of the "Checklist of Items to be Included in Tenure and Promotion Files" (available on request from the Office of the Dean of the Faculty). They should also be informed at this time of the tentative calendar for the fall tenure and promotion meetings.

b. Early in September, the same information should be redistributed with a cover letter from the Dean of the Faculty confirming the calendar for tenure and promotion decisions.

c. Each candidate for tenure and promotion should meet with his or her chair and division director to review the preparation of the candidate's dossier before it is submitted to the Dean's Advisory Council.

d. All tenure and promotion material should be in the division director's office by September 24 and to the Dean of the Faculty's Office by October 1.

e. Tenure and promotion meetings should start in the second week of October and continue at an average of twice a week until all decisions have been made.

10. Items to be Included in Tenure and Promotion Files The following is meant to identify significant kinds of evidence which should be collected regularly about a candidate's teaching, scholarship, and service to the University community. In most instances this evidence should be collected yearly and should be evaluated in the annual consultation with the faculty member. In other cases the evidence should be sought early in the spring preceding the actual decision on tenure or promotion, in order to give sufficient time to collect and evaluate the information received. This is particularly important for evidence which must be obtained from outside the University. It is the responsibility of the department chair on the one hand and the candidate for tenure or promotion on the other to make sure that all relevant evidence is requested and obtained before the fall in which the actual tenure or promotion decision is made. Questions and problems should be addressed in the first instance to the relevant division director.

a. Teaching Each candidate for tenure or promotion is requested to prepare a statement reviewing and describing his or her development as a teacher and commenting (if the candidate wishes) on the department's evaluation of his or her teaching competence. It is the responsibility of the department chair, after consultation with other tenured members of the department, to prepare a statement for the department reviewing and evaluating the activities, accomplishments, and contributions of the candidate in the area of teaching. This evaluation should draw upon the kinds of evidence described in the GUIDELINES FOR REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND TENURE (Section III.D.1) and the report of the Committee on Faculty Affairs on faculty evaluation of teaching (Section III.E.4, both of which have been endorsed by the Faculty.

In addition, it is the responsibility of the department chair to summarize and interpret the evidence generated by student evaluations of teaching. Candidates for tenure or promotion are encouraged to submit their own statements (if they wish) interpreting the student questionnaires.

b. Scholarship Each candidate for tenure or promotion is requested to prepare a general statement reviewing his or her scholarly activities: past development, current projects, and future plans. This statement should include a full description of all publications, presentations at professional meetings, presentations at Colgate colloquia and faculty seminars, research grants and other awards, and any institutional research performed for (or any services as a consultant at) Colgate or other institutions. In addition, candidates are requested to submit any evidence bearing on the assessment of their scholarly work by other scholars in the field; e.g., reviews, citations, frequency of requests for reprints, etc.

It is the responsibility of the department chair, after consultation with other tenured members of the department, to prepare a statement for the department evaluating the quality and significance of the candidate's scholarship. This evaluation should draw upon the kinds of evidence described in the GUIDELINES FOR REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND TENURE (Section III.D.2). In particular, chairs are reminded that professional appraisals of a candidate's scholarship by recognized scholars from outside the University are required, as noted in the Guidelines statement and in the "Checklist of Items to be Included in Promotion and Tenure Files."

c. Service to the University Community Each candidate for tenure or promotion is requested to prepare a statement reviewing and describing his or her service to the University community, whether departmental, divisional or University-wide. Included as part of this statement may be a description of the candidate's involvement in his or her professional field beyond the University and in community service more broadly considered.

It is the responsibility of the department chair, after consultation with other tenured members of the department, to prepare a statement for the department evaluating the quality and significance of the candidate's service. Such an evaluation should draw upon the kinds of evidence described in the GUIDELINES FOR REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND TENURE (Section III.D.3) and in the "Checklist of Items to be Included in Promotion and Tenure Files." In preparing this evaluation, department chairs should take into account, in the words of the Guidelines statement, that "considerable flexibility is needed in evaluating a candidate's service to the University community because of the great variety of activities which are subsumed under this term . . . . Care should be taken at all levels to insure that the evaluations are fair and based on adequate evidence, and that the academic and personal freedoms of each faculty member have been preserved."

It is also the responsibility of the department chair, after consultation with the candidate, to solicit evaluations of the candidate's service from others (both inside and outside of the University community) who are in a position to evaluate the quality and significance of such service. The candidate may also (if he or she wishes) ask others to submit similar evaluations to be included in the tenure or promotion file.

Chairs of candidates for promotion should, with the candidates, revise and update previously submitted tenure material, where appropriate, in preparing a file for consideration for promotion.

11. Faculty Committee on Promotion and Tenure In a statement of policy distributed to the Faculty in November 1985, the elected Faculty Committee on Promotion and Tenure (the so-called "Watchdog Committee") set forth the following guidelines:

a. The Committee will meet with each third-year review, tenure, and promotion candidate once the dossier has been assembled but before the deliberations begin, in order to inquire about concerns the candidate might have about fair treatment⁷ in regard to the preparation of the file.

b. The Committee will attend all meetings of the Dean's Advisory Council when that Council is involved in making decisions on promotion, tenure, and third-year review. Our purpose is to protect the interests and welfare of the faculty as a whole, and to assure ourselves that fair treatment is accorded members of the faculty eligible for promotion, tenure, and third-year review.

c. The Committee will participate in these meetings as observers, to see to it that University policy regarding tenure, promotion, and third-year review is fairly interpreted and administered, and that all relevant evidence is presented and discussed. The Committee does not have responsibility for making decisions concerning promotion, tenure, and third-year review, and therefore the members do not discuss the candidates nor take part in the voting.

d. The Committee will receive complaints, prior to the Dean's recommendation for promotion, tenure, or third-year review, from any member of the faculty who may feel his or her file for promotion, tenure, or third-year review has not been accorded fair treatment, and when warranted, will investigate the situation. If the Committee finds that the aggrieved member has a case, it will so advise the Dean. In the event of disagreement between the Dean and the Committee, the Committee will report to the Faculty.

e. Under no circumstances will the Committee reveal to anyone beyond those authorized to participate in the review or appeal processes and information relative to third-year review, promotion or tenure.

f. Complaints from members of the faculty concerning preparation or content of a third-year review, tenure, or promotion dossier should be addressed to the Committee through its Chair. The members of the Committee individually will not feel free to discuss any aspects of such complaints with members of the Faculty.

The Committee on Promotion and Tenure also has an important role in the University's grievance procedures. See above, Sections III.C.9(b) and III.C.17.

12. Grievance Procedure Grievances arising out of the Dean's recommendation to the President on third-year review, tenure, or promotion should be taken by the candidate directly to the President. If the President, after consulting with the Promotion and Tenure Committee, determines that the appeal warrants it, (a) the President may take appropriate action at that time or (b) the President may appoint, after consultation with the elected members of the Committee on Faculty Affairs, an investigating officer or group to look further into the grievant's concerns. The investigating officer or group will report to the President, who will then decide on appropriate action.