Policy Manual

Tenure-track faculty enable the university to fulfill its academic mission by excelling in teaching and scholarship and providing committed long-term service. They also anchor the broader faculty for multiple reasons. Given that their appointments require them to develop a diversified skill set rather than specialize in one domain, the experience and perspectives tenure-track faculty derive from shouldering responsibilities in teaching, scholarship, and service equip them to play an indispensable role in shared governance. In addition, their substantial due-process protections enable them to defend all faculty against incursions on academic freedom, specialized-track and fixed-term faculty included. Finally, the university’s commitment to the long-term careers of tenure-track faculty enhances the stability of the faculty as a whole and thus also the stability and growth of the institution in ways that promote successful achievement of its strategic goals.

1. Probation, appointment, and tenure decision. Institutional decision points are the initial appointment, the reappointment review, and the tenure decision. At each of these decision points, there must be university-wide review to assure adherence to university-wide standards.
   1. Initial probationary appointment. When making an initial probationary appointment, the condition precedent must be a determination that the person being considered is likely to fulfill their employment responsibilities in a fashion that will result in an affirmative tenure decision. Most initial probationary appointments 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. With the approval of the DEO, the dean of the college, and the Provost, shorter initial appointments can be made for individuals with prior related experience. After the initial appointment begins, probationary faculty shall be reviewed annually until the tenure decision with the results reported by the appropriate collegiate dean to the Provost. 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). At the end of the initial probationary period, the candidate may be reappointed following a reappointment review. See paragraph c below. This reappointment review substitutes for the annual probationary review in the year it takes place.
   3. Tenure decision. Faculty must be considered for tenure at the beginning of their final probationary year. See paragraph d below.
   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 college. 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 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. Parental 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 in paragraph (b).
         
         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 establish and manage the process. 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 for dossier submission and in no case later than September 1. Upon receipt of the notice, the Associate Provost for Faculty shall issue a written acknowledgment to the dean, with a copy to the probationary faculty member, confirming the extension and resetting the relevant tenure decision dates (e.g., for reappointment, tenure review). 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 Provost. This request may be due to 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, 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 difficult circumstances posed by the impediment in their request.
         
         Requests for Discretionary Extensions shall be submitted by the faculty member to the DEO, who shall advance a recommendation to the dean for review, recommendation, and subsequent routing to the Provost for approval. The Associate Provost for Faculty will issue a written decision to the dean, with a copy to the probationary faculty member, and, if approved, the written decision will include the new tenure decision date(s). 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, 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 extension. No probationary period extension 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.
   6. Establishment of standards. The establishment of standards permits a thorough faculty evaluation and provides career development guidance for the faculty member. Each academic unit is expected to develop and distribute to all departmental faculty members a written 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 (see III-10.5c and III-29.3).
   7. Annual and reappointment reviews of probationary faculty. Probationary faculty members shall be reviewed annually in accordance with section c below. A comprehensive departmental-collegiate review shall be performed during the reappointment review. Reappointment reviews shall evaluate the faculty member's teaching effectiveness, scholarly productivity, and ongoing development and provide feedback with respect to the departmental expectations for promotion.
   8. The tenure decision (President 10/85; amended 2/01; 4/06; 5/07). A candidate for tenure shall be evaluated in accordance with III-10.5c below (See also III-29.3). The tenure decision is derived from an evaluation of teaching, scholarship, and service. Teaching and scholarship are the most important elements to be considered and will, in the context of a tenure decision, usually demonstrate clear evidence of interconnection.
      
      The university is committed to the proposition that neither teaching nor research standing alone justifies the granting of tenure. The first step in a tenure decision should be an evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Once the effectiveness of teaching is determined, then consideration shall be given to an evaluation of scholarly competence. If both teaching and scholarship are determined to meet the standards, an affirmative tenure decision is justifiable.
      
      Throughout the process of making a tenure decision, all concerned must recognize that an affirmative tenure decision is a prediction of future performance. Unless those making the decision have a record of excellence before them, the prediction about the future is too uncertain to justify an affirmative decision.
      
      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 initiated by the DEO. An affirmative peer group recommendation is typically essential to the granting of tenure. At the institutional level, the record and recommendations are examined carefully to assure that applicable standards have been met.
      
      Normally faculty are evaluated for tenure by the standards in place at the time of the deliberation. If there were changes to faculty standards during the probationary period, the faculty member may choose to be evaluated under the standards previously in place. This determination must be made in writing prior to submission of the tenure dossier.
      
      In the event of a negative tenure decision after review at all appropriate levels, the faculty member will receive notice of a terminal year. The faculty member may choose to grieve the decision per the Faculty Dispute Procedures (III-29.3).  
2. Qualifications for appointments at specific ranks (amended 6/99; 10/00; 7/01; 1/1/24). Each academic unit is expected to develop detailed appointment criteria consistent with the following qualifications. If the pattern and practice in some units deviates markedly from these norms, such units must seek approval of the Provost for alternate criteria.
   1. Assistant Professor.
      1. Promise of ability as a teacher.
      2. Holder of the doctorate or its equivalent.
      3. Promise of scholarly productivity, supported by publications or the equivalent.
      4. Initial term of appointment is typically three years, although it may be for a shorter period of time if recommended by the departmental executive officer and the dean of the college.
      5. Appointments at the rank of assistant professor ordinarily shall not exceed the collegiate norm, unless there have been tenure extensions provided (see section above).   
   2. Associate Professor.
      1. Convincing evidence that the candidate is an effective teacher of, as appropriate, undergraduate, graduate and/or professional students and post-doctoral scholars.
      2. Demonstration of scholarly achievement supported by substantial publications or equivalent artistic creations or performances, of high quality, as appropriate to the discipline(s).
      3. Departmental, collegiate, and/or university service and, if appropriate, professional service will be expected at an appropriate level.
      4. The quality and quantity of teaching, scholarly accomplishment, and service should give reasonable likelihood of promotion to full professor.
      5. At this level, an initial appointment without tenure shall typically not exceed three years.
      6. Appointments with tenure require Provost approval.
   3. Professor.
      1. Consistent record of high-quality teaching at all appropriate instructional levels, including successful guidance of doctoral graduate students to the completion of their degree programs, where applicable.
      2. Continued scholarly achievement of high quality, accompanied by unmistakable evidence that the candidate is a nationally and, where applicable, internationally recognized scholar in the chosen field.
      3. The candidate should have a record of significant and effective service to the department, college, and/or the university and, if appropriate, to the profession.
      4. At this level, an initial appointment without tenure shall typically not exceed three years. 
      5. Appointments with tenure require Provost approval.
3. Criteria for annual review, reappointment, and promotion (President 10/85; amended 2/01). The criteria for annual review, reappointment and promotion include teaching, scholarship, and service. Since teaching and scholarship are the central functions of tenure-track faculty, other professional contributions are considered subsidiary to these fundamental tasks. The length of service, whether long or short, does not constitute, in itself, a qualification for promotion or the sole justification for the denial of same. It is also the policy of the university that promotions shall not be dependent upon offers of positions from other institutions. A candidate for review and promotion shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of III-10.5b and III-29.3. 
   1. Teaching. The prime requisites for an effective teacher are intellectual competence, integrity, and independence; a willingness to consider suggestions and to cooperate in teaching activities; a spirit of scholarly inquiry which leads to the regular updating of course content and improved methods of delivery; a vital interest in teaching and advising students and the ability to stimulate students’ intellectual interest. This review should include evidence drawn from such sources as the official student course evaluations, and the perceptions of colleagues who have observed classes or been closely associated with the person's teaching as supervisor or in some other capacity. Academic counseling or advising of students should be recognized as an important component of the teaching process.
   2. Scholarship. The successful candidate will demonstrate that they have pursued a definite, continuing program of studies, investigations, or creative undertakings. In most fields of study, publications in high quality peer-reviewed media and/or presentations and performances in high quality venues are expected as evidence of scholarly interests pursued independently of supervision or direction. Quality of production is considered more important than mere quantity. Significant evidence of scholarly merit may be found either in a single work of considerable importance or a series of works constituting a general program of worthwhile scholarship
   3. Service. Faculty members contribute major professional services to the university or to society in general. Such contributions should be evaluated in terms of the commitment and effectiveness with which the service is performed, its relation to the general welfare of the university, and its impact on the professional development of the individual.
4. Review and promotion procedures (President 10/85; amended 2/01; 7/01; 5/07).
   1. The question of promotion of faculty may be brought up at any time deemed appropriate, but, if not considered earlier, it should be brought up for formal consideration between the dean and the DEO no later than as follows: assistant professors during the final year of the probationary period as defined by the college and associate professors no later than the seventh year after promotion to that rank. Promotion may take place earlier if the qualifications and promise of the individual concerned warrant such action. Individual faculty members may request review for promotion, tenure, or both, at any time, and shall be afforded such review by the applicable department or non-departmentalized college.
   2. Typically, faculty are evaluated for reappointment, promotion or tenure by the standards in place at the time of the deliberation. If faculty standards changed during the time of the probationary period, or during the time currently in rank for associate professors, the faculty member may choose to be evaluated under the standards previously in place during their time in rank. This determination must be made prior to submission of the tenure dossier. However, for assistant professors, no standards may be applied if they were superseded more years ago than the time specified as normal time at rank (adjusted to account for any extension, family leave, or illness granted to the faculty member).  
5. Post-tenure effort allocation (Regents 5/22/97). Faculty profiles can be expected to look most alike at the time of the tenure decision. After tenure, faculty careers will begin to diverge as individuals develop different strengths and assume different responsibilities. A faculty portfolio allows for variations in the combination of teaching, scholarship, clinical work, and service through which faculty can make their maximum contribution to the university's mission. Faculty portfolios should have a positive impact on the quality of faculty teaching and scholarship in the unit.
   
   The individualized faculty portfolio reflects the notion that tenured faculty members may negotiate with their DEOs patterns of work that differ from the expected distribution of efforts for a typical faculty portfolio (unit norms) of their college, department, or unit. These portfolios should support the overall mission of their units and the university consistent with appropriate strategic plans.
   
   In determining differential allocation of post-tenure effort, the following rules and principles apply:
   1. Each unit is obligated to contribute fully to the accomplishment of the overall mission and values of the university, consistent with the strategic plan of the university and the unit.
   2. The tenured faculty member is expected to contribute to the university's core value of learning by efforts expended primarily in teaching, scholarship and service. In some units, the common use of the terms "service" or "clinical work" includes efforts that may properly be viewed as teaching or research.
   3. Changes in unit norms must be approved by the faculty of the unit, the dean in which the unit is located, and by the Provost.
   4. Either the faculty member or the DEO/dean may initiate discussions for an individualized portfolio. Agreements concerning individualized portfolios shall be formalized in a document to be included in the faculty member's personnel file. Such agreements should reflect a clear understanding of the efforts to be made by the faculty member. The DEO, dean, and Provost shall review and approve individualized portfolios annually.
   5. A faculty member can only be assigned an individualized portfolio as an outcome of a failed development plan resulting from the post tenure review process (see III-10.5f below). 
   6. The DEO shall discuss all proposed individualized portfolios with the dean and Provost, who will approve them before they are implemented during the subsequent academic year.  The approval process must occur in sufficient time to permit appropriate planning of the unit's teaching, scholarship, and service mission.
   7. The use of individualized portfolios within a unit will not alter the standards required for a tenured faculty member to obtain promotion. Therefore, individualized faculty portfolios that would interfere with a tenured faculty member's opportunity to be promoted in a timely manner are inadvisable.
   8. Regardless of how a faculty member's responsibilities are distributed among teaching, scholarship, and service, the faculty member is expected to perform those responsibilities to a high standard of excellence. For purposes of annual merit pay adjustments and peer review evaluations, all faculty will be evaluated relative to how well they perform pursuant to their individualized portfolio, or, if none, consistent with unit norms, and without regard to whether those efforts involve teaching, scholarship, or service.
   9. Any decision of a DEO and/or any other group authorized to evaluate and reward faculty that fails to take into account individualized faculty portfolios may be appealed to the dean of the college in which the unit is located or, in non-departmentalized colleges, to the Provost.
6. Review of tenured faculty members (Faculty Senate 3/29/11; amended Faculty Council 8/11).
   1. Introduction.
      1. Post-tenure review is a process that has been developed to assess a tenured faculty member's performance. A tenured faculty member has the responsibility of strengthening their university citizenship through their work in teaching, scholarship, and service. The process includes an annual review or evaluation conducted by the faculty member's unit head and recurrent five-year review conducted by the faculty member's peers.
         1. An annual review should, in the main, be evaluative, but may also be formative and developmental.
         2. A peer review should, in the main, be formative and developmental, and should facilitate and encourage professional excellence.
      2. Academic freedom. All proceedings under this section shall respect the principles of academic freedom and tenure which commits the university to the principle that free inquiry and expression are essential to the maintenance of excellence.
   2. Annual review of tenured faculty. The DEO conducts an annual performance review of all tenured faculty members, using a process and standards developed in consultation with the faculty of the department, or in nondepartmental units with the faculty of the college, and approved by the dean and Provost. Review of tenured faculty shall include an evaluation of scholarship, teaching, and service and be based on approved departmental standards. As part of this review, each faculty member must make available to the DEO materials specified in the statement of the department's review process (e.g., vitae, teaching evaluations, etc.).
      
      The annual review will consider, as appropriate, issues of long-term research, instructional development, or service that cannot be adequately represented on a strictly annual basis. Faculty members being reviewed by their department for the special purpose of promotion may be exempted from this annual faculty review requirement.
      
      When, as a result of an annual review, the DEO concludes that there are significant deficiencies related to teaching, scholarship, or service, the DEO shall provide written notifications of these conclusions to the faculty member being reviewed, and the faculty member will be given an opportunity to respond in writing. The final report and the faculty member's response will be sent to the dean and will become part of the faculty member's personnel record.
   3. Five-year peer review of tenured faculty.
      1. Overview. The faculty play an indispensable role in appointment, reappointment, promotion, tenure, and dismissal of faculty members. One of the ways that faculty exercise this responsibility is through the formal process of peer review. Post-tenure peer review is intended to acknowledge achievements and to provide an appropriate mechanism to encourage constructive responses to normal changes that are likely to occur over the course of an academic career. The developmental nature of post-tenure review mandates that a faculty member being reviewed should be accorded adequate time to respond to the review and to improve performance where necessary, prior to initiation of any proceedings which may be viewed as adversarial or punitive.
      2. Procedure. All tenured faculty members will undergo a peer review once every five years subsequent to their most recent tenure or promotion review. Faculty members are exempted from their scheduled five-year peer review if:
         1. they are being reviewed for promotion to a higher rank during the year of the scheduled review,
         2. they are within one year of announced retirement, are on phased retirement, or are on unpaid leave, or
         3. they serve as DEO, associate dean, or dean.
            
            The five-year peer review will include a comprehensive review by a committee composed of tenured faculty peers in the same college as the faculty member undergoing review and at the same or higher academic rank. The committee is appointed by the DEO or dean in consultation with the faculty member who is to be reviewed. Faculty members at the DEO level or above may not serve on peer review committees and must not attempt to influence the committees' substantive deliberations and outcomes. The outcome of this peer review is confidential and confined to the faculty member being reviewed, the review committee, the DEO, the dean, others directed by the faculty member, and the Provost.
      3. Plan. Each college must develop and implement a plan for the five-year peer review of tenured faculty members that includes:
         1. selection of the five-year peer review committee;
         2. committee procedures and timelines;
         3. materials to be reviewed;
         4. distribution and use of the committee's written report; and
         5. mechanisms for the faculty member to respond.
            
            Faculty members of the college will approve the plan by vote. The dean and Provost will approve each plan and ensure consistency with review processes across the departments and colleges.
      4. If, after receiving the results of the five-year peer review, the dean, in consultation with the DEO, concludes, on the basis of the peer review's findings, that the faculty member's performance has fallen for a significant period of time below the expected standard of performance for the faculty member's unit, then the dean may initiate discussions with the faculty member concerning the development of a plan to address problems uncovered in the review. The plan will be put in writing, contain a justification for its implementation, include a specific timetable for evaluation of acceptable progress, and provide a description of possible consequences for not meeting expectations. The DEO and/or dean shall monitor progress through the annual review and give feedback to the faculty member.
         
         If the plan prepared by the DEO and the dean is not agreed to by the faculty member, then the faculty member will provide a written justification for not agreeing to the plan. The plan and the faculty member's response will be submitted to the Provost, who will make the final determination as to whether the plan should be implemented. A faculty member who believes that they have been treated unfairly at any point during the five-year peer review process may seek redress of their grievance within the scope and framework of III-29.4.
         
         In deciding whether or not to implement such a plan, it is important that the dean and DEO respect the importance of tenure and the academic freedom it is designed to protect. With respect to scholarship, there is a critical distinction between a faculty member who has ambitious scholarly programs that they are actively pursuing and faculty members who have no such plans and who have had no work in progress for a substantial period of time. It is expected that if plans envisioned focus on scholarly productivity, they would typically be appropriate only for the latter group.
         
         If the plan is implemented, then the dean (or dean's designee) and the DEO will oversee the faculty member's progress under the plan. If after the agreed-to time period the dean and the DEO find no acceptable progress, then the DEO, the dean, and the Provost will meet to decide which of the consequences described in the plan will go into effect. The consequences will be implemented by the dean, in consultation with the DEO, and monitored by the Provost.
         
         Use of the review procedures described above does not preclude deans from utilizing existing alternative procedures for addressing problems of unacceptable performance of duty (III-29.5). On those rare occasions where a faculty member has proved unwilling or unable to benefit from developmental assistance to improve their performance, the administration may feel compelled to proceed against the faculty member in a disciplinary or unfitness proceeding, where the burden of proof is on the administration to show that the proposed sanction is justified. However, deans are strongly encouraged to proceed with formative and developmental plans before resorting to such measures.
   4. Out-of-cycle peer review. A faculty member who has undergone at least one five-year post-tenure peer review may receive two sequential DEO annual reviews that identify ongoing and significant performance concerns that have not been remediated. If a DEO facing this situation seeks to implement a development plan, they must start by convening an out-of-cycle peer review committee. Its members will be selected following the processes outlined above to create regular five-year peer review committees. If the faculty member objects to the composition of the committee, they can submit an appeal to the dean stating the reasons for the objections in writing prior to the beginning of the review.  If the issue is not resolved, the faculty member can submit their appeal to the Provost, who will make the final determination on committee composition and provide the faculty member with a written explanation for their decision. 
      
      After the committee is formed, the DEO will provide the faculty member and committee members with copies of all annual reviews (including any faculty responses) that were conducted after the most recent peer review. The faculty member must in turn submit all materials normally included in a regular five-year peer review and may also submit any additional materials relevant to their recent teaching, scholarship, and/or service that the faculty member believes will aid the committee in its deliberations. The peer review process shall otherwise be consistent with the regularly scheduled five-year peer review process, as determined by the college.
      
      The peer review committee will provide both evaluative and developmental analysis and recommendations designed to facilitate and encourage professional excellence. Upon receipt of the peer review committee’s assessment and report, the DEO and dean will determine if a formal development plan to improve the faculty member’s performance in areas of teaching, scholarship, and/or service, as applicable, is appropriate. If so, the DEO will use the recommendations of the peer review assessment and work with the faculty member to formulate a development plan to address issues identified in the prior reviews. The DEO will be further tasked with monitoring the faculty member’s progress in meeting the plan’s goals.
      
      An initial faculty development plan will not entail effort allocation changes unless they are specifically requested by the faculty member and supported by the DEO and dean. Changes in effort allocation may be a potential defined outcome if the faculty member fails to make significant progress in meeting the plan’s milestones. Any parts of the developmental plan, including plan timelines and outcomes, that are not agreed to by the faculty member may be appealed in writing to the dean, and if still not agreed to, the Provost, who will make the final determination as to whether the plan should be implemented or modified. The dean and Provost determinations will include a clear written explanation of the rationale for the decision and advise the faculty member of their due process rights to grieve an adverse decision under III-29.4.
7. Termination of tenured faculty.
   1. General rule. 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 and due process under III-29 Faculty Dispute Procedures. 
   2. The appointment of a tenured faculty member may, under appropriate circumstances, be terminated for:
      1. Violations of university policies. Examples of such policies include the Community Policies in Part II of this Policy Manual. 
      2. Demonstrated unacceptable performance of duty pursuant to III-29.5.
      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.