10.1 Tenure and Non-Tenure Appointments

(Amended 9/93; 2/15/95; 2/01; 1/02; 4/05; 5/07; 9/08; Faculty Senate 10/18/11; 4/13)
  1. Statement on tenure and academic vitality at The University of Iowa (Regents 2/14/74).
    1. Introduction. From the end of World War II until the late 1960s, higher education in the United States experienced rapidly expanding student demand coupled with an even more rapid expansion of the world's knowledge base. Throughout this period, faculties and facilities increased constantly and substantially in an effort to keep pace with the enlarging student bodies. The twenty-year period involved was among the most exciting and vital in the history of higher education. As younger, recently trained faculty members came to campuses all over the country, their energy and enthusiasm contributed greatly to the academic vitality of higher education.

      Student demand for higher education has leveled off and is likely to remain level for some years to come. With the leveling off of student demand, the influx of new faculty members has diminished. The challenge facing The University of Iowa — along with all similar institutions — is to retain and increase its academic vitality and flexibility in a period of a relatively stable student body and faculty. The challenge is not new to American higher education, which previously has had to maintain its vitality in times of stable enrollments and faculty.
    2. Basic Premises. The basic assumptions on which The University of Iowa proposes to function over the next several years are: First, tenure will continue as a cornerstone of the University's relationship with faculty members. Tenure is not only consistent with academic vitality but essential to it. Second, consistent with the University's educational needs and as permitted by its resources, faculty members in probationary status will be given the opportunity to acquire tenure if their performance merits tenure. No system of tenure quotas is contemplated. Third, the University must provide mechanisms by which a varied group of new faculty members come to the University so that the institution may continuously revitalize itself. Fourth, the University will retain the flexibility to adjust its educational programs to meet the changing needs of students and society, and to take into account advances in the world's knowledge base. In the process of making such adjustments, every effort will be made to plan well in advance, and the faculty will play a major role in defining institutional needs in the process of departmental, collegiate, and University decision making.

      Tenure is not a very well-understood concept. If a university is to perform its function effectively, it is essential that faculty members in their teaching and research feel free to express new ideas and divergent viewpoints. In the process of teaching and research, accepted "truths" often must be challenged and questioned. A good university must create an atmosphere which, in a positive way, encourages faculty members to express new ideas and divergent viewpoints and to make inquiries unbounded by present norms. Such an atmosphere currently exists at The University of Iowa; and tenure has contributed substantially to the creation of this atmosphere and to its continuance. Put simply, free inquiry and expression are essential to the maintenance of excellence; tenure is essential to free inquiry and expression; The University of Iowa's consistent goal is excellence; and the tenure system must continue if the University is to recruit and maintain a distinguished faculty. While tenure would be an integral part of the University's relationship with the faculty without regard to the competitive situation, it also is important to note that the outstanding universities throughout the country have tenure systems and that The University of Iowa's competitive position as it attempts to recruit and to retain outstanding faculty members would be damaged beyond repair if tenure were abandoned or seriously weakened.

      ​As a job security system, tenure is not substantially different from the job security aspects of civil service systems for state and federal employees; nor are they very different from job protection provisions in union contracts generally. The probationary period preceding the granting of tenure is, of course, longer than similar periods under civil service systems and union contracts — five or six years as opposed to six months or one year. Once the probationary period has passed, all of the systems contemplate job security only to the extent that either resources permit or the need for the services continue to exist, or both; and before the employment relationship of such personnel can be terminated for inadequate performance, all of the systems require a showing of adequate cause (inadequate performance) at a hearing. In addition, the tender of ultimate job security is an important mechanism for inducing qualified persons to aspire to careers in the area involved. While the job-security aspects of tenure bear surface relationship to other job-security systems, the primary rationale for tenure is that it is essential to the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere which encourages the free exchange of ideas so necessary to educational vitality.
    3. The tenured faculty. The cornerstone on which excellence has been created at The University of Iowa, both in periods of growth and stability, is its tenured faculty. The tenured faculty at The University of Iowa has never been stagnant. It contributes greatly to the University's vitality. It will continue to do so. As a general proposition, the excellence and vitality of the tenured faculty is motivated from within individual faculty members, and to some extent, from peer pressures. Some institutional mechanisms also have contributed and will continue to contribute to the vitality. Thus, the University, in consultation with faculty members, plans:
      1. To continue its present faculty compensation policy which rewards excellence;
      2. To expand its constant evaluation of teaching effectiveness of tenured as well as non-tenured faculty members and its explorations of mechanisms for improving such effectiveness;
      3. To continue in University-sponsored research a system of campus-wide peer review of research proposals and results to assure consistently high scholarly productivity by faculty members;
      4. To continue departmental, collegiate, and University-wide reviews and priority planning efforts to assure that resources are made available to new programs and to programs enjoying significant increases in student interest, or, where necessary, programs be modified, consolidated with other programs, or eliminated;
      5. To continue to review and evaluate the administrative structures within which educational programs function to assure that the educational goals of the University are being met as effectively as possible;
      6. To encourage the exchange of faculty with other universities on a visiting basis so that new ideas and approaches will be brought to the campus both by the visiting teachers from other institutions and by the Iowa professors upon their return to campus;
      7. To fill some existing teaching positions on a permanently rotating basis with persons from other institutions or professions for periods ranging from one or two weeks to a semester or a year;
      8. To encourage the development of team teaching of courses by combining senior and junior faculty members from the same department as well as interdisciplinary team teaching by faculty members from different departments;
      9. To encourage the expansion of the present program of faculty seminars in which faculty members learn from each other;
      10. To seek to expand the program of developmental leaves to encourage faculty members who wish assistance in keeping abreast of newly developed and developing knowledge and instructional approaches;
      11. To develop a system of tenure for part-time faculty members so that a faculty member might hold a tenured position at The University of Iowa for one semester and a position at some other university for the other semester; or hold a tenured position for one semester at the University and some other job — perhaps in industry — for the balance of the year, and so that the University might take advantage of the talents of persons who, while completely qualified to join the faculty and remain on it for a long period of time, are unable, for one reason or another, to work full time as a faculty member.

        Other than internal pressures for excellence within individual faculty members and, perhaps, peer pressure, the merit salary system is the most important mechanism available to the University for assuring the continued academic vitality of tenured faculty members. While the University does not control the total number of dollars available for faculty salary increases, it can and must control the allocation of dollars it has so that excellence may be rewarded. For many years, the University has stressed to the Board of Regents and to the Legislature that its top budgetary priority was salaries and that whatever was made available for faculty salaries would be awarded on a merit basis.

        In establishing faculty salaries the University has attempted — not always successfully — to be competitive; and when funds have been available for salary increases, the effort consistently has been and will continue to be to reward meritorious performance. Continued teaching and research excellence, and to a lesser extent the quality of other major professional contributions to the University or to society in general, form the basis for salary increases as they do for promotion and tenure. While objective data should be considered in making salary judgments, and while the department's or college's particularized statement of expectations concerning teaching, research, and other professional contributions should serve as primary guidelines, it should be understood that the judgments being made relate in large part to the quality of the faculty member's professional performance and such judgment cannot be quantified. A faculty salary system which recognizes merit will function to encourage a continued striving for excellence and one that also recognizes the need to recruit and retain the best available persons who will help keep the institution vital.

        ​While the catalog of mechanisms available for encouraging continued high level performance by tenured faculty members is not complete, the list set forth does suggest that many patterns are available to encourage such performance. It should be emphasized again that more important to academic vitality than University programs to encourage it are the inner mechanisms within individual faculty members which "compel" a constant striving for excellence. These inner mechanisms have contributed most to making the University the excellent institution it is and with whatever encouragement is possible from the institution, these mechanisms will function to assure a continuation of excellence.
    4. Probationary faculty members. In establishing and maintaining a university of excellence and vitality, the most vital institutional decision points are the initial appointment, the reappointment review, and the time of the tenure decision. At each of these decision points, there must be University-wide review to assure adherence to University-wide standards.
      1. Initial appointment. When making an initial probationary appointment, the condition precedent must be a determination that the person being considered is of a quality that their performance is likely to lead to an affirmative tenure decision. Only if the record presented leads to such a conclusion should an initial offer be tendered. And after the initial appointment, probationary faculty should be reviewed annually with the results reported by the appropriate collegiate dean to the Executive Vice President and Provost on the form provided by the latter's office. Initiation of the annual review is the responsibility of the dean and DEO. It is expected that the annual review will be performed in consultation with the individual faculty member.
      2. Reappointment review (President 10/85; amended 2/01; 5/07). Most initial probationary appointments at The University of Iowa are for 1) three years for colleges having a collegiate norm to make a tenure decision of not more than six years, or 2) four years for any college having a collegiate norm to make a tenure decision of more than six years, at the end of which time the candidate can be reappointed following a reappointment review. See paragraph (c) below. With the approval of the DEO, the dean of the college, and the Executive Vice President and Provost, shorter initial appointments can be made.
      3. Time in which to make tenure decision. The norm for making the tenure decision shall be the sixth year of probationary service, except for the Colleges of Law, Medicine, and Dentistry. The norm for the College of Law shall be the fifth year. The Colleges of Dentistry and Medicine may establish a norm of no more than eight years for all tenure-track faculty members with significant patient care responsibilities. Other faculty in these two colleges will be subject to the six year norm. A new collegiate norm of more than six years must be approved by a majority of the tenured faculty of the respective college, the dean of the respective college, and the Executive Vice President and Provost. The new norm becomes effective upon approval by the Executive Vice President and Provost. Other colleges may request that the Faculty Senate authorize consideration of changes in their own collegiate norms.
      4. Joint or secondary appointment. If a faculty member has a joint appointment in two colleges with different probationary-period norms, or has a secondary appointment in a college with a different probationary-period norm, the norm for that faculty member will ordinarily be that of the primary department. If the norm of the secondary college is to be used, this must be agreed to by the faculty member, both DEOs, both deans, and the Executive Vice President and Provost; and the length of the probationary period must be stated in writing in either the offer letter or the memorandum of understanding that defines the terms of the joint appointment.
      5. Extensions.
        1. Automatic Extension: For each minor child (e.g., biological, adopted, stepchild, or by guardianship) added to the family of a probationary faculty member from two years prior to the initial appointment through September 1 of the tenure decision year, and upon relevant notification, the faculty member's probationary period shall be automatically extended twelve months per child (up to two children). Extensions for the addition of more than two children may be considered under the Discretionary Extensions provisions (e)(ii).

          It is a faculty member's responsibility to notify their DEO, dean, or Provost of the relevant qualifying event that activates the automatic extension of the faculty member's tenure clock. The Provost's office shall remind probationary faculty annually of the extension policy and direct probationary faculty to a person in the Provost's office to whom they may provide the notification that activates the automatic extension. Probationary faculty may also provide the relevant notification through any other form of communication with their DEO, dean, or Provost. When providing the relevant notification, the faculty member shall provide the name(s) of the minor child(ren) and the date on which the child(ren) joined the family (e.g., birth date, adoption date). This notification can be submitted at any time but, if the faculty member expects an automatic extension to be granted in what would otherwise have been the tenure decision year, notification must be submitted no later than the department or college deadline by which faculty members are expected to submit their dossiers for review. Upon receipt of the notice, the Associate Provost for Faculty shall issue a written acknowledgment to the dean, with copy to the probationary faculty member, confirming the extension and resetting the relevant tenure decision dates (e.g., for reappointment, tenure review).

          To decline an automatic extension (i.e., have clock reset to the previous tenure review date), a faculty member must submit written notification to their DEO (when applicable) or dean. Notification can be submitted at any time, but, if a faculty member wants to be considered for promotion in the upcoming academic year, notification must be submitted no later than the department or college deadline by which faculty members must notify their DEOs of their desire to be considered for voluntary review (i.e., review at any time prior to the required tenure review year). If such a date is not specified in a college's written procedures, the deadline for notification will be no later than the first day of the academic year in which the promotion decision is to be made. The DEO shall advance notice of the declination to the dean and the Executive Vice President and Provost. When a faculty member declines an automatic extension, their  tenure clock is reset to its previous date and the tenure expectations remain the same as for probationary faculty members who did not decline or were not eligible for an extension. The Associate Provost for Faculty will issue a written confirmation of the declination, including the reset tenure clock date, to the dean, with copy to the probationary faculty member. Once declined, a faculty member is not able to reinstate an automatic extension for the same minor child. A faculty member with an extended tenure clock may request voluntary review (i.e., the option granted to all faculty members to request review before their official tenure year) without declining the automatic extension.
        2. Discretionary Extension: The probationary period may be extended upon the mutual agreement of the probationary faculty member, the DEO (when applicable), the dean, and the Executive Vice President and Provost because of a professional or personal impediment, such as the assumption of additional teaching or clinical responsibilities above the normal load at the request of the department or college, the failure of the University to provide resources in a timely manner if the resources are promised in writing, personal health reasons, the assumption of significant ongoing care responsibilities for a spouse, domestic partner, or minor or adult child, or parent with a serious health problem, or because of the death of the faculty member's spouse, domestic partner, or minor or adult child. The faculty member is responsible for describing and documenting the unusually difficult circumstances posed by the impediment in their request.

          ​Requests for Discretionary Extensions shall be submitted by the faculty member to the DEO (when applicable), who shall advance a recommendation to the dean for review, recommendation, and subsequent routing to the Executive Vice President and Provost for approval. The Associate Provost for Faculty will issue a written decision to the dean, with copy to the probationary faculty member, and, if approved, the written decision will include the new tenure decision dates. Generally, no extensions under this paragraph (e)(ii) shall extend the probationary period two years beyond what the period would have been, taking into account the relevant collegiate norm and any previously issued automatic or discretionary extensions.
        3. When the probationary period of a faculty member is extended by one or more years, then the faculty member's reappointment and tenure review dates are postponed by the same number of years (e.g., a probationary faculty member who receives a one-year extension in their second year would have their "third-year" review postponed one year to allow for a full three years of preparation; their tenure decision date would also be postponed by one year). Tenure expectations remain the same for probationary faculty members who have received an automatic or discretionary extension. The Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost shall annually notify probationary faculty members, DEOs, and deans of the existence of this policy.
      6. Impact of extensions on expectations of scholarship. No expansion of a faculty member's probationary period as a result of an extension under paragraph (e) above shall result in any increase in the quantity or quality of the probationary faculty member's expected scholarship from what would have been expected had that faculty member been considered for promotion or tenure in the final year of probationary service as defined by the collegiate norms.
      7. Prior related experience. In some cases, prior related experience coupled with excellence in teaching and research will warrant a shorter probationary period to be established at the time the faculty member is hired by the University.
      8. Establishment of norm. The establishment of a norm will permit a thorough evaluation and will give the faculty member sufficient time to establish a strong record of performance. A candidate for reappointment shall be evaluated in accordance with III-10.5b below. (See also III-29.5f(2).)

        Annual reviews of the performance of probationary faculty members should be made and a full-scale departmental-collegiate review shall be made during the reappointment review conducted in the third or fourth year of service, depending upon the collegiate norm. See paragraph (4)(b) above. Reappointment reviews should take into account the faculty member's proven teaching effectiveness and research productivity and potential. It also should include an evaluation of departmental, collegiate, and University educational goals and include a determination of the likely role of the faculty member in achieving such goals. Only if an institutional need is found likely to exist for a person with the faculty member's substantive background, and only if the faculty member's teaching effectiveness and research productivity and potential are deemed of such a quality that an affirmative tenure decision is likely to be made, should something other than a terminal appointment be tendered. To assure unified decision making at this point, full central administration review of the departmental-collegiate recommendation is necessary.
      9. The tenure decision (President 10/85; amended 2/01; 4/06; 5/07). In making a tenure decision, teaching, research, and other professional contributions must be considered. Further, the institution's overall educational needs must be taken into account along with the institution's fiscal ability to support the position occupied by the faculty member. Thus, the tenure decision has two elements: 1) an evaluation of the actual performance of the individual involved; and 2) an evaluation of institutional needs — educational and fiscal. A candidate for tenure shall be evaluated in accordance with III-10.5b below. (See also III-29.5f(2).)

        While the individual evaluation relates to teaching, research, and other professional contributions, the University's policy recognizes specifically that the first two elements — teaching and research — are the fundamental tasks of a faculty member. Although teaching is a faculty member's primary obligation, teaching and research are inextricably intertwined. Over a period of years, outstanding university teaching is unlikely to be maintained in the absence of strong research efforts by the faculty member. And university research — as distinguished from similar work off campus — normally is stimulated and encouraged by the faculty member's teaching role.

        The first step in a tenure decision should be an evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Only after an affirmative judgment as to teaching effectiveness is made should serious consideration be given to an evaluation of research competence. Unless a determination is made that the faculty member involved is an effective teacher — whether at the departmental or interdisciplinary level —tenure is not and should not be granted. Only after an affirmative decision as to teaching effectiveness is made should consideration be given to research. And only after both of the basic criteria are satisfied is an affirmative tenure decision possible. The University is committed to the proposition that neither teaching nor research standing alone justifies the granting of tenure. In the absence of research, it is believed — and strongly believed — that teaching effectiveness will not be maintained for a lifetime career. Thus, while teaching effectiveness is the condition precedent to a consideration of the quality of research, in the absence of quality research, teaching effectiveness alone will not permit the granting of tenure.

        In summary, The University of Iowa is both a teaching and research institution, as all good universities are. Unless both tasks are accomplished, the University's vitality will be sapped and neither function will be performed well. As noted, the two functions cannot be separated. Unless a faculty member is able and willing to permit their ideas to be evaluated by peers, the faculty member is not performing fully the function assigned, and effective teaching is unlikely to continue.

        Throughout the process of making a tenure decision, all concerned must recognize that an affirmative tenure decision is a prediction of future conduct, which prediction is based primarily on past performance. Unless those making the decision have a record of excellence before them — a record of excellence in both teaching and research — the prediction about the future is too uncertain to justify an affirmative decision. Any other premise is inconsistent with the "permanence" associated with tenure. The tenure decision is the most important quality control available to the University. And unless the record presented is one of excellence in both teaching and research, an affirmative prediction about the future is too uncertain to be tolerated. In making a tenure recommendation to the Board of Regents, the University must be taken as saying that its prediction is based on a record of excellence.

        The process of making a tenure recommendation to the Board of Regents shall follow University and collegiate Procedures for Tenure and Promotion Decision Making at The University of Iowa. The process starts with a review of the faculty member's performance by the tenured members of the department involved, the review to be instituted by the DEO. While not all-controlling, an affirmative peer group recommendation is an almost necessary condition to the granting of tenure. Because of the significance of peer group recommendations, each academic unit is expected to develop and distribute to all departmental faculty members and to all persons under serious consideration for appointment to the faculty a written and particularized statement of expectations to guide departmental deliberations concerning the granting of tenure — the statement to serve as a guide to the department in its deliberations, and to the faculty member whose tenure status is being considered. The particularized statement must, of course, be consistent with University-wide policy relating to teaching, research, and other professional activities. In addition, all concerned should recognize that a decision relating to quality must be made and that such a decision can be quantified only in part. The nature of the decision is such that it necessarily is subjective to some extent.

        Within the University administration, consultation occurs and the record and recommendations are examined carefully to assure that University standards have been met. As at all levels, educational goals, program changes, and fiscal needs must be taken into account and may lead to a decision to deny tenure despite a record of teaching and research accomplishment sufficient to support an affirmative decision on the basis of performance. At the departmental level, departmental educational goals and fiscal needs must be considered; at the collegiate level, collegiate educational goals and fiscal needs must be taken into account; and at the central level, overall University needs play a dominant role. To assure fairness to faculty members who are denied tenure or whose contracts are not renewed because of a shift in educational goals and/or financial resources, every reasonable effort should be made to give advance notice of possible shifts, and to protect the professional reputations of such faculty members. As part of that protection, the affected faculty member shall be given a written statement documenting the reason(s) for the decision. While changing educational goals and/or fiscal resources are a necessary consideration in the making of tenure decisions, such changes must not be asserted unless real, and they must not be used as a ground for denying tenure when, in fact, tenure is being denied for other, perhaps improper, reasons.

        The final step, of course, is a University recommendation to the Board of Regents. The process is complex and difficult. Many of the ideas expressed above — uniform University-wide review of promotions and tenure, the insistence on "hard" data with respect to teaching effectiveness, careful review of research output — stem from a resolution adopted unanimously by the Faculty Senate in October of 1972 and codified substantially in University regulations. Fairness to all — the probationary faculty members, the students, the institution, and the State of Iowa — require the kind of review described above. The University's academic excellence and vitality require such a review.
    5. Tenure-track faculty hired on or before the adoption by a college of a collegiate norm of more than six years (or more than five years in the College of Law) may elect to have a tenure decision made in accordance with any new collegiate norm adopted by the college pursuant to this section as amended in 2007. In the absence of an election, the collegiate norm for such tenure-track faculty shall be six years (or five years in the College of Law). An election shall be made on or before the end of the third month following the adoption of a collegiate norm of more than six years. The election shall be in writing sent to the DEO, with a copy to the dean and the Executive Vice President and Provost. Any extensions previously granted apply regardless of whether the probationary faculty makes an election under this paragraph.
    6. Affirmative action and tenure. As affirmative action and tenure function at The University of Iowa, they are completely compatible concepts. Both seek to assure the acquisition and retention of those who are most qualified. In the appointment process, affirmative action operates to assure that the most qualified available person is identified and is offered the opportunity to join the faculty; and after initial appointment, it assures that in making tenure and salary decisions, irrelevant considerations such as race and sex play no role.

      Prior to the initiation of the affirmative action program, the traditional process of identifying the most qualified person for an available position was somewhat limited in scope and, thus, the pool from which the most qualified person was drawn was relatively narrow. Under the present affirmative action program, all positions are advertised widely and direct inquiries are made of many more persons than in the past. With the expanded search, the pool from which to draw has been broadened substantially. The goal of the selection process has remained unchanged — to select the most qualified from among those available. With a broader pool from which to draw, the University can be more confident that the person truly most qualified has been identified. As affirmative action and tenure function at The University of Iowa, not only are the two compatible; they complement each other in assuring a quality faculty.

      Only if the University's tenure system becomes frozen — either by the imposition of quotas on the percentage of persons who may acquire tenure or by restricting access to the tenure rank because substantially all faculty members have tenure — is tenure incompatible with affirmative action. If either quotas are established or tenuring-in occurs, access and upward mobility become impossible or extremely difficult; and in such a situation, affirmative action is stymied and vitality lost.

      ​Coupling a dedication to affirmative action with awareness of the problem, initial appointment practices that limit somewhat the number of persons appointed to probationary (tenure ladder) positions, and firm quality control in the process of tenure decision making, the University sees no danger of unduly restricting access to tenured positions to the extent that would subvert its affirmative action program. Any quota system restricting access to tenure by establishing maximum percentages of tenured faculty members can only function to the detriment of the University's vitality and to its affirmative action program. Those who qualify and are needed must be rewarded or initiative will be destroyed. Access to tenured ranks must remain open to those who qualify or women and minority group members without tenure will be deterred from joining The University of Iowa faculty. With an open system — and we are persuaded that it can remain open — vitality will remain and affirmative action accomplished.
  2. Faculty status. Faculty status is accorded to those members of the University who are charged with the duty of advancing and disseminating knowledge. As a consequence, appointment to, and progression through the academic ranks requires demonstrated competence and potential for continued growth as a scholar and teacher.
  3. Termination of tenured faculty.
    1. General rule. Because of the centrality of tenure to the University's mission, the appointment of a tenured member of the faculty may be terminated only for good cause and in accordance with the principles of academic freedom stated in the Statement on Tenure and Academic Vitality at The University of Iowa (paragraph a above), which commits the University to the principle that "free inquiry and expression are essential to the maintenance of excellence; tenure is essential to free inquiry and expression." The procedures governing any termination must conform in all respects to the principles of due process. Thus, unless alternative procedures are specified in this manual, any termination proceedings shall be conducted under III-29 Faculty Dispute Procedures.
    2. The appointment of a tenured faculty member may be terminated for:
      1. Violations of University policies, including but without limitation:
        1. Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct (II-4);
        2. Violence (II-10);
        3. Anti-Retaliation (II-11.4f);
        4. Drug Free Environment (II-12.3b(1));
        5. Ethics in Research (II-27.6b(22)(a));
        6. Professional Ethics and Academic Responsibility (III-29.7i(2)(e)); or
        7. Regents Rules (II-29.14b(6)).
      2. Demonstrated unacceptable performance of duty pursuant to III-29.8.
      3. Financial exigency that is demonstrable and bona fide, defined as a financial crisis which exists or is imminent and which, if not corrected, threatens the survival of the University as a whole, but only if the crisis cannot be corrected by less drastic means than termination of tenured faculty.
      4. Programmatic change or discontinuance for academic reasons (when approved by the President of the University and the Board of Regents) which cannot reasonably be accomplished without terminating the tenure of faculty in the particular program. No faculty member may be terminated because of programmatic change or discontinuance unless, following the good faith efforts of the University and the faculty member, the faculty member cannot be transferred to another college or department where the professional services of the faculty member can be used effectively.