University of Virginia Library

REPORT FROM THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE ON THE STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION REPORT ON FACULTY TENURE AND ACTIVITY

On behalf of Mr. C. Waller Barrett, Chairman of the Educational Policy Committee, who was unavoidably absent, the President distributed a report of the Educational Policy Committee which was prepared as directed by the Board in its resolution of April 2, 1977. The resolution directed the Educational Policy Committee to review the recommendations of the State Council of Higher Education in its report "Faculty Tenure and Activity in Virginia" and to report back to the Board at the October 1977 meeting.

The report is as follows:

REPORT OF THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
ON THE STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION FOR
VIRGINIA REPORT ON FACULTY TENURE AND ACTIVITY

The Educational Policy Committee has carefully reviewed the Faculty Tenure and Activity report. A preliminary study of the report was undertaken at the Educational Policy Committee's October 13, 1976 meeting and on September 14, 1977 the Committee held a special meeting for the purpose of reviewing the report.

The report urged boards of visitors to ensure that careful planning and management of personnel systems are given high priority by institutional administrators and that the boards and administrators should at all times be alert to faculty staffing plans.

At the University of Virginia the administration reviews the faculty staffing plan annually in conjunction with the preparation of the budget for each succeeding year. For the past several years, the Provost has reported annually to the Board of Visitors on the tenured percentage for each individual school at the University. Committee and Board minutes show seven reports by the Provost on faculty staffing and on policies and procedures related thereto since May of 1974. A large portion of the docket of each Board meeting is taken up by faculty personnel matters. There is little doubt that these matters receive a high priority by the Board.

Further recommendations were then discussed:

To assist boards of visitors in this regard (i.e., the problem of increasing tenure percentage), Council's report identifies some possible modifications of tenure systems. Boards of visitors were urged to consider these.

First, as reported at the June, 1977 meeting, the tenure percentage at the University is at a comfortably low level of 60 percent. However, recognizing the implications of the steady state enrollment projected beyond 1980, President Shannon in 1973, following Provost Shannon's recommendation, appointed a special faculty committee, under the chairmanship of Professor William L. Duren, to study the issue and report to him. This report, which was received after Mr. Hereford had taken office, analyzed the problem, concluded that the current tenure percentage was satisfactory, and proposed a lowering of the mandatory retirement age to sixty-five to

insure an effective turnover of faculty in the future. With this in mind, the following comments were considered in response to the specific suggestions contained in the main text of the State Council of Higher Education report (they are cited by reference in its Conclusions and Suggestions).

(a) Increase the number of non-tenurable positions.

• This we have done by election of certain staff to faculty positions in the General Faculty with a clear statement and understanding that they are then not on a tenure track. The Board has considered this several times.

(b) Hire more part-time faculty.

• Since our tenured percentage is not too high, we have limited part-time faculty to situations in which we are particularly anxious to have the individual involved because of his unusual qualifications.

(c) Increase the turnover of faculty.

• As reported to the Board several times over the past few years, there has been steady decrease in the percentage of faculty members who are promoted to tenure rank upon reaching the end of their probationary period. Only about one-third are so promoted; the remainder seek positions elsewhere.

(d) Increase the length of the probationary period.

• This would be in violation of the AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure. Although the Board has never taken action to adopt that statement as policy, President Shannon, during the 1960's, stated formally that University practices would conform to these principles. Under the AAUP principles, unless twelve months or more before the end of his seventh year a full-time teaching faculty member is informed that he will not be promoted to tenure rank, the institution must retain him with tenure. We believe this principle is sound; further, nearly all the best colleges and universities in the nation have the same policy and to deviate from this policy would put us at a disadvantage in faculty recruiting at all levels. It makes it absolutely necessary to make a decision about the faculty member within his first six years (we normally make it within five).

(e) Discontinue programs.

• We have done this in some instances, for example in geology and geography. We also have discontinued the undergraduate major in Italian and doctoral programs in music education and applied mechanics.

---

1321




(f) Various alternatives to the tenure system.

• The Committee is persuaded that the tenure system is sound and workable. It leads faculty members, chairmen, and deans to evaluate young faculty members carefully and to make recommendations regarding their retention with both their department's and the University's best interests in mind.

(g) Make a larger proportion of new appointments at the untenured level.

• We are doing this, reserving the election of new faculty at tenure rank for a relatively small number of truly distinguished people. The Appointments Committee in the Center for Advanced Studies and a special committee of the College's best faculty members, appointed by Dean Floyd, make detailed reviews of all people considered for election with tenure (in Arts and Sciences).

(h) Lower the mandatory retirement age.

• This was accomplished by Board of Visitors' action in 1976. For all faculty members elected to become effective on or after July 1, 1977, mandatory retirement age is sixty-five, rather than seventy.

It is suggested that all institutions ensure that policies and procedures governing faculty personnel decisions are developed by faculties, administrators, and boards of visitors, and have these policies and procedures published. Final authority for these policies and procedures rests with the boards of visitors.

The Educational Policy Committee has reviewed a document prepared by the Vice President and Provost called "Appointment, Reappointment, and Appointment Without Term", and has reviewed more detailed statements of procedures followed in each of the schools. This included sample records, letters of recommendations and other kinds of information normally considered for each faculty member when promotion to tenure is contemplated.

The Committee gave special consideration to the seven suggestions listed on pages 160 and 161 of the State Council of Higher Education report. Lists of procedures have been sent to each member of the Board, and they are presently incorporated into institutional policies. These are available to faculty members.

The Committee discussed procedures for dismissal actions during a term of appointment. These are a part of the AAUP 1940 statement which the administration has followed.

As far as the University at Charlottesville is concerned, there has been no occasion for such a dismissal during the past 20 years, but there was such occasion at the Eastern Shore Branch before it was separated from the University and became part of the Community College System.

Internal provision for "due process" includes possible appeal to the Faculty Senate's Committee on Faculty Relations. These provisions were sanctioned by the Board of Visitors in 1972 and again after amendment in 1973.

At the University, faculty members are regularly notified of the review process. The Board of Visitors notifies faculty members of reappointment decisions by letter. Final authority for tenure decisions rests with the Board of Visitors with detailed administration of the tenure system delegated to the University.

With respect to the privileges and responsibilities of tenure, the Committee and the President expressed reluctance to issue any formal statement about these to faculty members. Since the University is so very selective in determining which faculty members will be tenured, it follows that only very responsible persons are likely to receive tenured appointments. The President observed that the need to advise faculty members of improper actions has arisen in remarkably few cases. He said that about once or twice a year it has been necessary for the President to advise against the use of official University stationery in expressing personal opinion about controversial issues, but generally tenured faculty members here are very responsible.

The Committee observed that all faculty members, whether tenured or not, are evaluated annually in the preparation of departmental annual reports, and that these evaluations are used in making salary determinations each year.

Policies and procedures dealing with academic due process are carefully and regularly reviewed with the advice of the legal adviser who represents the Attorney General of the Commonwealth.

In the preface of the State Council of Higher Education report, the opinion was expressed that boards of visitors should meet more frequently. The University of Virginia Board of Visitors has examined this question carefully. It has been determined that four meetings, each extending over two days, are more effective than eight one-day meetings. In addition to the four regular Board meetings, there are two Finance Committee

meetings each odd year and one each even year for consideration of our annual operating budgets and biennial budget requests. Also, the Buildings and Grounds Committee holds an extra meeting about once a year, when the need for approval of plans for a capital outlay project cannot be delayed until the next regular meeting. On an ad hoc basis special committees have met just about every year on such matters as communication between the Board and the student body and revision of the Manual. In addition, nearly all members of the Board attend special events at the University. These include alumni events, convocations, graduating exercises, the student-faculty-administrator retreat and others. The time devoted to University affairs by members of the Board is already extensive and it is believed to be adequate.

The Committee concluded its review of the report by noting that at the present time the procedures are effective and adequate, but is recognizes that in the future, changes will be needed, and that there will be a continuing review of its policies and procedures relating to tenure and faculty staffing.

The Committee recommends the continuation of policies making tenure and associated matters a primary consideration for the Board of Visitors. Annually at the June meeting the practice of having a report to the Educational Policy Committee on tenure percentages by schools should be continued. Also, at this meeting any changes in policies related to elections, reelections, elections without term and similar matters should be brought to the Board. Copies of the current statements of these policies will be available to any member of the Board who might request them.