University of Virginia Library

Publication Of Former Dean
Explains Faculty Promotions

By Dave Schubel
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

In an effort to counter criticism
from both faculty and students,
Fredson T. Bowers, past Dean of
the Faculty of Arts and Sciences,
published a relatively informal and
interim report explaining the major
steps taken by the University's
administration in the promotion
process of members of the Faculty
of Arts and Sciences. Having
evolved over a period of years, the
Arts and Sciences faculty promotion
process had come under
increasing fire as being vague and,
to an extent, inscrutable.

Since that time, Mr. Bowers has
been succeeded by David A. Shannon
as Dean of the Faculty of Arts
and Sciences. Mr. Shannon, however,
plans no major revisions of the
process as defined by his predecessor.

Review Of Process

A group of interested faculty
members and students are
reportedly prepared to undertake a
detailed review of the entire
promotion process as outlined by
Mr. Bowers. A spokesman for the
group said he questions the
ultimate sagacity of such a "fluid"
promotional process.

According to the report, promotions
from Assistant Professorship
to Associate or from Associate to
Full Professorship are both handled
in an identical manner simultaneously
by a single committee. There
are four steps in the process.

Recommendations to the Dean
of Arts and Sciences for promotion
may originate with the concerned
faculty member's department
as a whole, with its chairman
acting as official spokesman,
through the chairman's personal
recommendation or from any member
of the faculty, in fact. The
variety of means of recommendation
is designed as a "safety-valve"
Mr. Shannon explained, to prevent
unfair "blocking" by a department
or its chairman.

Department Recommendations

The manner by which a department
as a whole decides to
recommend a person is the decision
of the department itself or its
chairman. There are no rules set
forth by the administration concerning
departmental recommendations.

Along with a recommendation, a
biographical sketch, a publication
list, and reasons why promotion is
merited, a departmental "estimate
(based on ascertained concrete
evidence) of the candidate's teaching
as well as scholarly abilities,
with an analysis of the quality of
his work" is submitted. Other
aspects of merit concerning the
candidate which are not clearly
evident are usually provided by the
Department.

Both Mr. Shannon and Mr.
Bowers contend that there is
sufficient means for a faculty
member who does not get along
with his department chairman to be
considered for promotion. Mr.
Bowers indicated that he knew of
no situation ever occurring at the
University in which a faculty
member related so poorly to his
chairman that the chairman would
not recommend him. However, Mr.
Shannon stated that such a situation,
if it did arise, would not
necessarily hurt the candidate, she
and an advisory committee would
certainly investigate the source of
conflict.

Efforts Made

Following the receipt of the
departmental recommendations, and
when it can be ascertained what
fields are going to be most in need
of consideration, the Dean of the
Faculty appoints the Faculty Advisory
Committee. There are no
rules delineating how or what fields
should be represented. The Committee
is composed of five to seven
Full Professors whose judgment and
experience is respected. Every effort,
says Mr. Bower's report, is

made to infuse new blood, and
change the membership to prevent
any elitism from developing. Names
of members are kept in secret, in
order to provide dispassionate judgment
free from pressure.

The committee serves in an
advisory capacity to the Dean of
the Faculty. However, by tradition,
if the Committee decides against
recommendation for promotion,
the administration abides by that
decision. In essence, the committee
possessed a full veto.

As with the recommendation
procedure, there is a great deal of
fluidity in the committee's selection
process. The dean's discretion
rules. Both the previous and present
Dean defend this procedure as the
right and best way.

Mr. Bowers felt he could tailor
the committee to the needs of each
year as well as choosing a "hardboiled"
committee not subject to
imprudent judgment. Defending the
selection process with equal vigor,
Mr. Shannon admitted that he will
have a more difficult time selecting
people this year inasmuch as he is
new at the University and not
completely familiar with the faculty.

Popular Election

Both men feel that the popular
election of the committee by
members of the faculty would lead
to extreme difficulty. There would
be a question of apportioning
representation to the various academic
fields stated Mr. Bowers.
People could be elected for the
"wrong reasons" - for popularity
rather than judgment, and dispassionate
judgment without pressure
would be more difficult to
obtain.

Full professors are selected for
several reasons. If the lower ranks
were represented, Mr. Bowers explained,
situations would arise in
which assistant professors would be
voting on full professors. Furthermore,
full professors having
achieved that rank are better judges
of what constitutes meritous work
than those in the lower ranks, said
Mr. Bowers. He added that with a
committee composed solely of full
professors, a "broader over-view" is
achieved.

After the committee has studied
the information on each candidate,
meetings are arranged in which the
recommend or of each candidate is
interviewed. Following completion
of the interviews, the committee
engages in a "searching discussion,"
after which a vote is taken on a
formal recommendation.

It is made uncommonly clear
throughout the report that quality
in teaching as well as quality in
scholarship is considered. Indeed
previous committees in the interviews
and in the discussions have
concerned themselves more with
teaching quality, according to Mr.
Bowers.

Student Opinion

As to whether the committee is
sufficiently informed of student
opinion on faculty members, both
Mr. Bowers and Mr. Shannon were
quite emphatic in answering to the
affirmative. Mr. Shannon pointed
out that one of his most consulted
reference works is the Student
Council Course Evaluation Guide.
This year, he will recommend that
the Committee read not only the
Guide, but also the forms which the
students fill out for the guide.

Most of the departments make
determined efforts to gather such
information by means of informal
discussions between students and
teachers, Mr. Bowers said. He
remarked that this is difficult to
discretely, but his report states that
past experience has proven that
departments are able to ascertain
specific information in regard to
teaching ability.

The Dean of the Faculty attends
all the committee meetings and
makes notes. After the committee
has completed its votes, the Dean
considers all the recommendations
for promotion. He then makes his
own recommendations to the Provost
which are acted upon without
reference to the committee's report.

The Provost then reviews the
official recommendations of the
Dean of the Faculty, as well as all
the materials bearing on the candidate
submitted by the Advisory
Committee, with regard for the
practicability of the recommendations
in respect to the budget and
its allotment for faculty salaries.

At this point, he makes his own
detailed proposals to the President
who makes his final consideration
without viewing either the committee's
or faculty dean's recommendations.

David A. Shannon

Suggests No Significant Changes