UA Faculty Senate approves tenure, promotion policy

The policy language approved Wednesday ... states an overall unsatisfactory performance “means that the faculty member’s performance as a whole is unsatisfactory.”

FAYETTEVILLE — Faculty at the University of Arkansas on Wednesday approved a promotion and tenure policy providing some detail on what determines an “overall unsatisfactory performance rating,” soon to be a potential grounds for dismissal of tenured professors after changes made last year by trustees for the University of Arkansas System.

The campus policy must still be approved by UA administrators, Kathleen Lehman, chairwoman of the UA Faculty Senate, told the group during more than two hours of debate over a wide range of topics related to how faculty are evaluated.

The policy language approved Wednesday — selected from other proposed options — states an overall unsatisfactory performance “means that the faculty member’s performance as a whole is unsatisfactory.”

Such an “unsatisfactory” evaluation takes into consideration “workload assignment areas (teaching/professional practice, scholarly/creative activity, service) and overall contributions to the academic unit,” the Faculty Senate-approved policy states.

Tenure is defined by the UA System as the right of continuous appointment. Professors gain tenure based on job performances over several years but still undergo annual reviews.

Last year, some faculty from various UA System campuses expressed concerns academic tenure would be weakened by the changes ultimately approved in March by trustees.

Among the changes, trustees adopted a policy set to take effect July 1 stating an “overall unsatisfactory performance rating” from an annual job performance review will place tenured and tenure-track faculty member on a remediation plan. Two years in a row of “unsatisfactory performance” may lead to a 12-month notice of dismissal, the University of Arkansas System policy states.

The University of Arkansas System includes six universities and an online-only

school, in addition to seven two-year colleges and other units.

Before the board’s decision last year, the old policy, last updated in 2001, listed four examples of grounds for dismissal: “incompetence, neglect of duty, intellectual dishonesty, and moral turpitude.”

The new policy, in addition to “unsatisfactory” performance, also listed 11 other examples of grounds for dismissal. Trustees last year, after hearing concerns, said faculty could appeal a dismissal decision.

The effective date for the “unsatisfactory” evaluation portion of the policy gave campuses time to flesh out details for annual reviews.

The policy approved by UA faculty Wednesday states academic department leaders, before any determination of an “unsatisfactory” performance, “shall consider evidence of relevant, documented efforts and outcomes within the context of the faculty member’s assigned workload.”

The UA Faculty Senate considered other language relating to “unsatisfactory” performance, rejecting a statement that overall unsatisfactory performance “may be a reflection of unacceptable performance in multiple areas or notably poor performance in one area.”

The group also voted down a statement that overall unsatisfactory performance “means that the faculty member’s performance is unsatisfactory in at least 50% of the faculty member’s assigned workload.”

But while the board policy gave campuses time, some review provisions were stated as mandatory, including “student evaluation of teaching” should be considered and also “made available to the faculty member and those conducting the review.”

On Wednesday, UA faculty said student narrative comments hadn’t previously been shared as part of the evaluation process.

“I understand the Board of Trustees’ intent, and I think we all agree with the intent, which is to make sure that faculty are doing their job in the classroom,” John Delery, a UA professor of management, said at the meeting. He said he considered such comments — as opposed to simple ratings — as “developmental feedback” rather than as evaluative, expressing concern at how “anonymous statements” from students might be given weight.

Others at the meeting said UA’s legal team concluded student evaluation includes the narrative comments.

The UA Faculty Senate adopted policy language stating narrative comments “shall be made fully available to the faculty member’s unit chairperson/head” and the chair “shall complete training in the evaluation of these narrative comments prior to conducting the review.” Before the vote, some questioned whether the campus policy fits with the board policy given that the narrative comments would not be shared with unit peer review committees, which, as stated in campus policy, “provide input advisory to the Unit Head/Chair in performing each faculty member’s annual review.”