PPM 9-17, Appeal of Tenure Review and Promotion Decisions

Responsible Office: Academic Affairs

1.0    PURPOSE

This policy outlines the termination of non-tenured faculty and appeal rights regarding denial of tenure or promotion or failure to pass a post-tenure review.

2.0 REFERENCES

2.1 PPM 8-10, Termination of Faculty Appointment
2.2 PPM Section 9, Academic Freedom, Rights, Responsibilities, and Due Process 

3.0 POLICY

3.1 Non-tenured faculty members have all of the professional rights and responsibilities described in PPMs 9-2 through 9-8, except that they do not possess tenure in any form. Prior to being awarded tenure by the University, a non-tenured faculty member may be terminated without cause at the sole discretion of the University, or as described in PPM 8-10.

3.2 If, a) as a result of the formal review in the final year of the probationary period, a non-tenured faculty member is denied tenure by the Provost or Dean (if the Provost has not made a review);  b) a faculty member is denied a promotion, or c) a faculty member fails a post-tenure review, the faculty member may appeal this decision to the Faculty Board of Review on any of the grounds listed below, only within ten working days after a final recommendation has been made by the Provost or Dean: 

3.2.1 The decision was arbitrary or capricious.
3.2.2 The decision was pretextual, in that it was based upon something other than the non-tenured faculty member's professional qualifications and professional conduct.
3.2.3 The decision resulted from discriminatory or prejudicial treatment during the tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review process in violation of specific constitutional or statutory rights.
3.2.4 The decision was not made in accordance with established due process procedures.
3.2.5 The decision resulted primarily from the exercise of the rights directly associated with the principles of academic freedom as specified in PPM 9-2.

3.3 The faculty member takes on the role of complainant and must file a formal charge with the chair of the Faculty Board of Review. Within ten working days following receipt of a formal charge, the Faculty Board of Review may, in its discretion, decide not to hold a formal hearing on the charge if it is determined to be beyond the scope of the issues set forth above or if it is determined to be an abuse of the intent of academic due process. The decision to dismiss the charge, together with reasons therefore, shall be submitted in writing to both the complainant and the respondent. If a decision is made to dismiss the formal charge, any appeal must be submitted by the complainant to the President within ten working days of receipt of the decision.

3.4 If the formal charge is deemed to warrant the convening of a formal hearing, the Faculty Board of Review will conduct a hearing to determine whether academic due process has been afforded the complainant. The hearing shall be strictly limited to resolving the following issues:

3.4.1 Whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or pre-textual. In this regard, it shall not be necessary that the recommendations of the various tenure/ranking committees and administrators all be unanimous. The standard of review is whether the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that the ultimate decision was or was not based upon legitimate, reasonable grounds.
3.4.2 Whether the decision was free from discrimination or prejudice in violation of specific constitutional or statutory rights or that the decision was based primarily on issues surrounding the exercise of academic freedom.
3.4.3 Whether the procedural guidelines for the evaluation of non-tenured faculty or for promotion or post-tenure review were followed. If reasonable care is evidenced, then failure to follow the guidelines exactly shall not be construed to be sufficient grounds for a charge of procedural error.

3.5 The Faculty Board of Review shall not attempt to determine the merit of decisions and recommendation made by tenure/ranking committees or administrators.

3.6 The faculty member shall have the burden of introducing sufficient evidence to support a decision that one or more of the rights set forth above were violated during the tenure/ranking review process. The standard of proof in these cases shall be preponderance of the evidence. If the faculty member in their role of complainant satisfies this burden on any of the issues set forth above, the burden shall then shift to the University in its role of respondent to produce sufficient evidence to rebut the allegations. The ultimate burden of persuasion shall remain with the complainant.

3.7 The Provost or an appointee shall be considered the respondent for purposes of this policy and therefore shall respond to the formal charge. The respondent shall present competent evidence which addresses the charge that one or more of the complainant's rights set forth above were not violated, but only after the complainant has satisfied the initial burden of proof.

3.8 The hearing shall generally be conducted according to the provisions for formal hearings contained in PPM 9-12. The Faculty Board of Review, however, shall consider only the issues set forth above and may set forth rules that depart from PPM 9-12 so long as process is provided consistent with PPM 9-9 and this policy.

3.9 The findings and report of the formal hearing shall be guided by the provisions in PPM 9-12, sections 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. In the cases of faculty discussed in this section, the Faculty Board of Review shall recommend the following to the President:

3.9.1 The case be dismissed on the grounds that the procedures followed by review committee(s) and administrator(s) were fair, reasonable, and afforded academic due process to the complainant; or

3.9.2 That the faculty member be reevaluated by the appropriate tenure/ranking review committee(s) and administrator(s) because academic due process was not afforded the complainant. In the event that the recommendation is for reevaluation, the Faculty Board of Review will also recommend to the President any corrections in the process (including specifying the addition or deletion of specific individuals in the hearing process) and the precise point in the process at which the rehearing must start. The reevaluation process shall be guided by the policies set forth in PPM Section 8, but shall be completed in a timely manner.

3.10 If the recommendation is for dismissal of the charge, the President shall be guided but not bound by this recommendation. If, however, the recommendation of the Faculty Board of Review is for reevaluation of the faculty member, the President shall be bound by this recommendation. The President shall make a decision within twenty working days following the date of the recommendation of the Board. There shall be no appeal or review of the Faculty Board of Review’s recommendation beyond the President.

 

Revision History  

Creation Date: 7-18-85

Amended: 3-16-10; 5-22-24