1. Criteria

      1. Promotion by change in academic rank of a faculty member results from recognition by the university of significant professional achievement and the expectation that this level of attainment will be sustained and/or exceeded in the future. The primary consideration in evaluating the record of achievement shall always be the degree to which this achievement improves the academic quality of the university.
      2. The university recognizes that every faculty member offers a unique combination of accomplishments, depending on academic field, specialized scholarly interests, varying professional opportunities, and contracted responsibilities for (i) teaching, (ii) research/scholarship/creative activity and/or professional development and/or (iii) service. Consequently, when a judgment is made of the total contribution of a faculty member, the evaluation criteria shall be weighted according to primary assignments during the period under consideration.
      3. Eligibility for promotion is governed by academic rank and appointment. Full time non-tenure-track faculty members may request consideration for promotion to the next academic rank after completing at least three years of full-time service at the faculty member’s current rank.
    2. Procedures for Promotion with Tenure

      The procedures for consideration for promotion with tenure for tenure-track faculty are specified in the Tenure module of the Faculty Handbook.

    3. Procedures for Promotion to Full Professor for Tenured Faculty and Promotion to All Ranks for Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

      • Unit – The term unit, as used in this section, refers to the local academic unit (whether called a department, school, group, or college) where the evaluation process begins.
      • Promotion Committee – As used in this section, Promotion Committee refers to the standing department committee or a single college committee in non-departmentalized colleges.
      • Advisory Committee – As used in this section, Advisory Committee refers to a standing college committee whose function is to review the actions of the unit promotion committees and make recommendations to the dean or deans.
      • Candidate’s submission – The candidate’s submission includes all material submitted by the candidate as required by the rules of the unit/college/university.
      • Dossier – As used in this section of the Faculty Handbook, the dossier includes the candidate’s submission and all evaluative letters or reports from external reviewers, the unit head, the dean, and the unit, college, or university committees who are identified below as playing a role in the promotion review process, as well as any responses of the candidate to any of the above.
      • Confidential Material – Documents developed in the promotion procedure involving the understanding and expectation that they are confidential shall not be made available to the candidate. Such documents include, but are not limited to, letters and/or reports from external reviewers, evaluation forms, and minutes of promotion committees.
      • Unsolicited Material – Any material that is neither solicited by the unit promotion committee nor included in the candidate’s initial dossier submission, nor placed in the dossier at subsequent review levels in accordance with these procedures shall be considered to be unsolicited material.
    2. The Promotion Committee shall be composed of no fewer than three members of the candidate’s department or comparable unit. The majority shall be of an academic rank above that of the candidate.
      1. Committee size and membership shall be determined according to the procedures established by each unit and college. The unit chair may be a nonvoting ex officio member.
      2. If the unit has fewer than three members of appropriate rank, the dean of the college shall, in consultation with the faculty members of the unit, choose the necessary additional members from the faculty holding the appropriate ranks in allied disciplines. During this process the candidate’s suggestions shall be sought by the dean; however, such suggestions shall not be binding on the dean. The membership of such a committee shall be subject to review by the provost.
    3. If during its review of a dossier and preparation of its report, any reviewing entity identifies an item or issue which it believes needs clarification or explanation before it can reach a fully informed decision, it should make such items or issues known and request clarifying or explanatory material from the candidate and/or from any previous reviewing body before its report is finalized.
    4. The promotion committee shall consider the promotion of each eligible faculty member when the faculty member so requests consistent with paragraphs 1) through 5) in this section.
      1. Due dates for faculty to request promotion consideration and for units to submit promotion dossiers to the college are established by units and colleges as needed in order to meet the February 15 deadline for submission of all promotion dossiers to the Office of the Provost.
      2. The candidate’s submission to the unit head and promotion committee is due October 1. The candidate may not add any further information to the dossier after the dossier has been submitted except as provided below for responses to the reports of the promotion committee, advisory committee (if one exists) or the dean, or in response to a request from any reviewing entity seeking clarification of material in the dossier. However, updates concerning the status of already submitted materials may be added with the approval of the unit promotion committee which may append appropriate updates.
      3. The promotion committee shall evaluate all appropriate evidence, including a written evaluation by the unit head, which will become part of the candidate’s dossier.
      4. The promotion committee shall prepare a written report, which shall be submitted first to the candidate and then, after the candidate has had ten calendar days to respond in writing, to the advisory committee, where one has been established, and/or the dean of the college.
      5. The candidate shall have the right to have their response, so long as the response was submitted within the ten calendar day response period provided in 4) above, appended to the documents sent to the advisory committee, where one has been established, and/or to the dean.
    5. The promotion committee’s recommendations and the unit head’s recommendation, whether favorable or unfavorable to the candidate, shall be considered in turn by the advisory committee where one has been established, the dean of the appropriate college or unit, and the provost.
      1. The decision in each instance shall be communicated, in writing, to the individual candidate, giving them ten days to respond in writing before it is sent on to the next level; the last decision to be communicated by the provost.
      2. In the case of a full-time non-tenure-track faculty member, denial of promotion does not preclude reappointment at the current faculty rank, nor does it preclude reconsideration for promotion at a later date.
      3. A faculty member may not be reconsidered for promotion until two years after the previous unsuccessful promotion consideration.
    6. A faculty member who, in good faith, feels that a procedural violation has occurred in connection with their consideration for promotion may initiate  a grievance in accordance with currently applicable Faculty Handbook procedures.

      1. Adopted by the Senate, June 13, 1977; amended, March 13, 1978 and accepted by the President, May 19, 1978; amended by the Senate on Nov. 20, 2019, approved by the Provost on Nov. 21, 2019 and approved by the Board of Trustees on December 6, 2019.