ARTS & SCIENCES

Office of the Dean

September 22, 2003

TO: Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences

RE: Faculty Meeting, Friday, October 3, 2003

Laboratory Sciences, Room 300 Refreshments served in the Ronald and Karen Rettner Gallery in the Laboratory Sciences Building from 3:30-4:00 p.m.

AGENDA

1. Approval of Minutes 2. Issues Requiring Vote Approval of August 2003 list of candidates for the

A.B. degree 3. Introductions

New Faculty Chair of the Curriculum Committee Chair of the Faculty Council President of the ArtSci Council

4. Announcements by the Deans 5. Report

Faculty Council 6. Senior Survey presentation by Dean Macias 7. The Center for the Humanities

Gerald Early 8. Other Business

Next Faculty Meetings: November 7, 2003 December 5, 2003, if needed January 23, 2004, if needed March 5, 2004 April 23, 2004

Enclosures: Minutes of Faculty Meeting of April 25, 2003 August 2003 A.B. Degree candidate list Standing Committee List 2003-2004 Directory of Chairs 2003-2004 Affirmative Action Committee 2003-2004

FROM: Edward S. Macias

ROTC Report — April 21, 2003 Dossier Instructions Regarding Tenure & Promotion Case Consideration

Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1094, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899 (314) 935-6820, Fax: (314) 935-8504, E-mail faculty@artsci.wustl.edu, Web: http://artsci.wustl.edu/

Minutes of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Meeting, April 25, 2003.

1. Dean Edward Macias called the meeting to order at 4:08 pm.

2. The faculty voted to approve the minutes of February 1, 2003.

3. The faculty voted to approve the May 2003 list of candidates for the A.B. degree.

4. Prof. Mitchell Sommers presented curricular changes proposed by the Curriculum Committee. In addition to numerous course changes, including 143 new courses for Fall 2003, two major changes were proposed. First, that NC no longer be an allowed outcome in courses taken for a grade (it could still be used as an alternative to CR in courses taken pass/fail). Second, that incoming Freshmen would place into the appropriate level of English Composition based on a placement exam administered at the university, and not on their AP scores. Prof. Sommers thanked the committee for its work. The faculty voted to approve the proposed curricular changes.

5. Dean Macias gave an overview of the year. Washington University's US News and World Report raking improved to 12th place. Our retention of students is higher than ever before. A new Laboratory Sciences Building has been built and a new Earth and Planetary Sciences Building is under construction, to be completed in one year. Under Prof. Joseph Loewenstein's impetus, we have a new Interdisciplinary Humanities Program.

The Arts & Sciences incoming Freshman class is strong. Compared to the incoming Fall 1995 class, applications have more than doubled, the admission rate has decreased by a factor of 3, yield has improved from 22% to 35%, the percentage of Q7 Freshman has increased from 9% to 26%, and the average SAT score has increased from 1290 to 1400.

In the College of Arts & Sciences in academic year 2002-2003, there were 14 successful faculty searches, 9 searches which closed, and 12 which are currently active. Economics and English underwent departmental reviews, and Psychology and Physics will undergo such reviews next fall. There were two Junior Faculty Fora, one on "Publishing Across the Disciplines" and one on "Balanching Scholarly, Teaching, and Service Commitments". There was also an Arts & Sciences Interdisciplinary Initiative on "Individual and Collective Memory".

Faculty Installations: Rebecca Treiman, Elzbieta Sklodowska, Randall Calvert, Stuart Solin

Prof. Lee Epstein received a Faculty Achievement Award.

Next year, sesquicentennial celebrations will begin in the fall. Roughly 15 proposals from Arts & Sciences received funding. The accreditation process will take place the year after next.

In 1995 a strategic plan for the College was formulated. Dean Macias indicated that it may soon be time to formulate a new plan, and to prepare for this he has met with department chairs and program directors to determine their top priorities for the College. In graduate education, these priorities included support for graduate students, strengthening graduate programs, tracking graduates, and improving spaces and facilities for graduate students. Priorities for faculty included strengthening all departments, building international faculty links, improving PR for faculty work, implementing post

tenure review, raising salaries, and hiring. In undergraduate education, priorities included evaluating interdisciplinary programs and making them sustainable, strengthening expectations for undergraduate majors, and admitting 100 more undergraduate students per year. In alumni development, priorities included strengthening the Development office for nonscience funding sources, giving more access to alumni records, and bringing successful alumni to campus.

Prof. Loewenstein asked whether the National Council has particular things they want in our report. Dean Macias answered that they seem to be primarily focused on students. Prof. Daniel Shea asked why we should want 100 more undergraduate students each year. Dean Macias answered that most of our new ideas are additions, and hence require more money, and 53% of our budget comes from students.

6. Dean Robert Wiltenburg described two important changes at University College over the past year. First, the reduced fees benefit enjoyed by Washington University faculty and staff was improved from 50% tuition to 100% remission benefit for undergraduate courses; graduate remains at 50%. As a result, enrollment in courses by faculty and staff was up this year by roughly 500 in the fall and 500 in the spring. The other major change was the introduction of a new type of degree, the "associates" degree to be introduced in Fall 2003. Dean Wiltenburg reminded the faculty that on Sunday, September 14 from 11 am to 4 pm there would be a sesquicentennial open house.

Dean Robert Thach, reporting on graduate student recruitment, noted that there were 2838 applications for next fall, a 20% jump from last year. Moreover, the increase was widespread throughout the college, so that many departments saw an increase in applications. One possible cause for the increase could be the new online application system. 64% of this year's applications were submitted online. Dean Thach also discussed a graduate student teaching requirement under consideration by the Graduate Council. Virtually all departments currently have some kind of teaching requirement, but the new proposal would codify and uniformize this requirement to a minimum of 14 hours of teaching at a basic level plus 4 hours of teaching at an advanced level. A draft of the new proposal will be distributed.

Dean James McLeod thanked the members of the Curriculum Committee for their hard work. He also thanked the faculty on the Curriculum Implementation Committee. Next, he observed that the process of verifying that graduating students have fulfilled their requirements was now underway, and urged faculty to get their final grades for seniors in on time. His office was also working to bring in next year's new freshman class, and this work was on track. Finally, Dean McLeod noted that the College is seeking advisors for the incoming class, and that volunteers would be welcomed.

7. Ms. Maiko Kusano, President of the ArtSci Council, listed the faculty who were honored at the Faculty Awards Recognition Ceremony on April 15. They were: Deanna Barch (Psychology), Joan Brockmann (English), Sarah Elgin (Biology), Gavin Foster (TA, English), Jack Knight (Political Science), Christine Knoblauch-O'Neal (Performing Arts), Lesley McCullough (TA, ArtSci Computing), Judy Mu (Asian Languages), Kerry Mulvaney (Performing Arts), and John Nye (Economics).

The new ArtSci Council executives will be: Morgan Klein (President), Gary Berman (Vice President), Kevin Mayo (Treasurer), and Secretary to be announced.

Ms. Kusano asked that nominations for student department and program representatives be made by May 26. Letters requesting nominations will be sent out next week.

Dean Macias thanked Ms. Kusano for her hard work and good results in her two and a half years as ArtSci President.

8. Prof. Elzbieta Sklodowska reported for the Faculty Council. The results of committee elections were: Advisory Committee on Tenure, Promotion, and Personnel: William Wallace, Edward Spitznagel, and Fiona Marshall; Curriculum Committee: Ronald Freiwald and Ahmet Karamustafa; Faculty Council: Elizabeth Childs and John Bleeke; Review Committee on Faculty Personnel Procedures: Stamos Metzidakis, Gary Jensen, and John Bowen; University Academic Freedom and Tenure Hearing Committee: Martha Storandt (regular) and Richard Walter (alternate); University Senate Council -- Arts and Sciences: Miriam Bailin.

This year the Faculty Council worked with Deans Sara Johnson and Dirk Killen on preparing a campus-wide Student Academic Integrity Policy, which was approved by the faculty at the February 28 meeting. The Faculty Council also worked on a proposal for a Policy on Full Time Lecturers. The original proposal was submitted by the Association of Women Faculty's Non-Tenure Track Faculty Committee, and its purpose was to recognize the important role lecturers play and to better define the nature of their teaching appointments. The policy was approved by AWF, and will go into effect on July 1, 2003. Finally, the Faculty Council studied the yearly report from the Disability Resource Center, which provides case by case information about students who require extra time on exams because of a diagnosed learning disorder. The total number of such students has remained steady over the past three years (19 in Spring 2000, 17 in Spring 2001, and 20 in Spring 2002). The Faculty Council will continue to solicit reports from the DRC.

9. Prof. Dolores Pesce reported for the Advisory Committee on Tenure, Promotion, and Personnel. This year six cases of promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure were considered, and five were forwarded to the Board of Trustees recommending tenure. Four cases of promotion to Full Professor were considered, and four were recommended for promotion. Two cases of promotion to Research Associate Professor were considered, and two were recommended for promotion. Two cases of promotion to Research Professor were considered, and two were recommended for promotion. Fourteen outside cases were considered, and seven were forwarded to the Board of Trustees recommending an appointment with tenure. There were no cases in which the recommendation of the Dean was inconsistent with that of the Advisory Committee.

10. Prof. Patrick Gibbons was unable to be present to report on his work as Ombusdman, so Dean McLeod read his report. This year Prof. Gibbons received eleven requests for assistance that involved more than a single phone call or email. Two were from graduate students, eight were from undergraduates, and one was from the father of a former undergraduate. In six undergraduate cases and one graduate case, Prof. Gibbons went on to contact the faculty members or administrators involved. Two of those cases involved issues other than grades, and were resolved with at least some satisfaction on all sides. Of the other five, two were settled with the students receiving at least part of the relief they sought, and the other three cases were still open.

11. Dean Macias presented the annual ROTC report (see attached).

12. Dean Macias adjourned the meeting at 5:05 pm.

THE COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES CANDIDATES FOR THE BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE AUGUST 15,2003

The following students have submitted intent to graduate to the University Registrar. The College Office has verified that these students have fulfilled all degree requirements.

Berges, Jennifer Marie Blanch, Stephanie L Burton, Michelle Antoinette Christiansen, Daniel Cooke, Jesse De, Lucas Ashoke Eisner, Adrienne Blaine Fesler, Tricia Fontinelle, Amy Lynne Fowler, Galen Terese Gilwit, Craig Jared Hoffsuemmer, Jonathan Stuart Jin, Sarunna Kim, Jeonghee Jen Kim, Walter J. Kozak, Paul Aaron Lassar, Alex Nathan Lilienthal, Daniel Ross Lin, Debbie Pei-Chang Maeroff, Michael Kittay Mayer, Fredrica Lissakers Mazzone, Lisa Michelle Mendoza, Paul David Mims, Tina Brenette

Murphey, William Garland Nodari, Daur Parkinson, Erin Elizabeth Rajadurai, Merin Ravi, Anita Robinson II, Richard W Rochat, Ryan Henry Rodman, Carla Elisabeth Ryder, Ellen Lynette Sardon, Brian Christopher Shim, Jae-Eun Stahler, Jonathan Oliver Webster, Arline Katharine Whewell, Philip Paul Williamson, Timothy

History Philosophy African and Afro-American Studies Biology Mathematics Biology Psychology English Literature Spanish Psychology Social Thought and Analysis Philosophy Biology Biology Drama Psychology Psychology Political Science Psychology Economics English Literature Biology Chemistry African and Afro-American Studies Political Science Political Science Psychology Psychology Germanic Language & Lit. Philosophy Physics Political Science Psychology Ancient Studies Biology Political Science Chemistry:Biochemistry Concentration Economics English Literature

STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE FACULTY OF ARTS & SCIENCES 2003-04

ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE Joe Ackerman, Chemistry Lee Epstein, Political Science Wayne Fields, English Derek Hirst, History Henry L. Roediger III, Psychology Susan Rotroff, Classics Barbara Schaal, Biology Richard Smith, Anthropology Lynne Tatlock, German Jim Wertsch, Education

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TENURE, PROMOTION, AND PERSONNEL David A. Balota, Psychology Joseph Loewenstein, English Paul Michael Lutzeler, German Fiona B. Marshall, Anthropology Linda Nicholson, History Roger Phillips, Earth & Planetary Sciences Edward Spitznagel, Mathematics William Wallace, Art History & Archaeology Karen L. Wooley, Chemistry

CURRICULUM COMMITTEE Nancy Berg, Asian & Near Eastern Languages & Literatures Ronald Freiwald, Mathematics Ahmet Karamustafa, History Lee G. Sobotka, Chemistry Harriet Stone, Romance Languages & Literatures Michael Strube, Psychology

FACULTY COUNCIL John Bleeke, Chemistry Howard Brick, History James Buckley, Physics Elizabeth Childs, Art History & Archaeology David A. Lawton, English Sunita Parikh, Political Science

REVIEW COMMITTEE ON FACULTY PERSONNEL PROCEDURES Carl Bender, Physics John Garganigo, Romance Languages & Literatures Marilyn Krukowski, Biology David Konig, History

Susan I. Rotroff, Classics Erik Trinkaus, Anthropology alternates:

John Bowen, Anthropology Gary R. Jensen, Mathematics Stamos Metzidakis, Romance Languages & Literatures

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY DIRECTORY OF CHAIRS 2003-2004

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES 200 Brookings Hall

One Brookings Drive St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899

DEPARTMENT CAMPUS DEAN, CHAIR, DIRECTOR OR TELEPHONE DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE BOX COORDINATOR NUMBER

NUMBER NU MBER ADM IN I STRATION COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES 5-6800 1117 James E. McLeod, Dean 5-6800 FACULTY OF ARTS & SCIENCES 5-6820 1094 Edward S. Macias, Dean 5-6820 GRADUATE SCHOOL 5-6880 1187 Robert Thach, Dean 5-6843 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE 5-6700 1064 Robert Wiltenburg, Dean 5-4806

AFRICAN AND AFRO-AMERICAN 5-5690 1109 Gerald Early, Co-Director Tim Parsons, Co-Director 5-5690

AMERICAN CULTURE 5-5216 1126 Wayne Fields, Director 5-5216

ANTHROPOLOGY 5-5252 1114 Richard Smith, Chair 5-5252

APPLIED STATISTICS 5-6136 1203 Richard Smith, Chair 5-4843

ARCHAEOLOGY 5-5231 1114 David Browman, Director 5-5231

ART HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY 5-5270 1189 William Wallace, Chair 5-5270

ASIAN AND NEAR EASTERN 5-5156 1111 Beata Grant, Chair 5-5156

BIOLOGY 5-6860 1137 Ralph Quatrano, Chair 5-6850

THE CENTER FOR THE HUMANITIES 5-5576 1071 Gerald Early, Director 5-5576 CENTER FOR MATERIALS INNOVATION (CMI) 5-9305 1105 Stuart Solin, Director 5-9305

CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF HUMAN VALUES 5-9358 1019 Ira Kodner, Director 5-9358

CENTRAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF-SPEECH & HEARING 977-0240 8042 William Walter Clark, Chair 977-0240

CHEMISTRY 5-6530 1134 Joseph J.H. Ackerman, Chair 5-6593

CLASSICS 5-5123 1050 Robert Lamberton, Chair 5-5123

COMPARATIVE LITERATURE 5-5170 1107 Robert Henke, Director, 5-5170

EARTH & PLANETARY SCIENCES 5-5603 1169 Raymond Arvidson, Chair 5-5679

ECONOMICS 5-5670 1208 Steven Fazzari, Chair 5-5632

EDUCATION 5-6707 1183 William Tate, Chair 5-6730

ENGLISH 5-5190 1122 David Lawton, Chair 5-5190

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 5-7047 1137 Jonathan Losos, Director 5-7047

FILM AND MEDIA STUDIES 5-4056 1174 Jeff Smith, Director 5-4056 GERMANIC LANGUAGES & LITERATURE 5-5106 1104 Gerhild Williams, Chair 5-5160

HISTORY 5-5450 1062 Derek Hirst, Chair 5-5450

INTERDISCIPLINARY PROJECT

IN THE HUMANITIES 5-4200 1029 Joseph Loewenstein, Director 5-4200 INTERNATIONAL AND AREA STUDIES PROGRAM & OVERSEAS PROGRAMS 5-5958 1088

Priscilla Stone, Executive Director, International Programs 5-5958 James Wertsch, Director, International and Area Studies 5-9015 EAST ASIAN STUDIES

Beth Tsunoda, Director 5-4448 1123 JEWISH, ISLAMIC AND NEAR EASTERN STUDIES 5-8567 1121 Hillel Kieval, Director 5-5461

LITERATURE AND HISTORY 5-5450 1062 Gerald N. Izenberg and 5-5445

5-5190 1122 Steven N. Zwicker, Co-Directors

5-5190

MATHEMATICS 5-6760 1146 Steven Krantz, Chair 5-6760 MCDONNELL CENTER FOR SPACE SCIENCES 5-5332 1169 Roger Phillips, Director 5-6356

MUSIC 5-5581 1032 Robert Snarrenberg, Chair 5-5566

PERFORMING ARTS 5-5858 1108 Henry I. Schvey, Chair 5-5858

PHILOSOPHY 5-6670 1073 Mark Rollins, Chair 5-5119 PHILOSOPHY, NEUROSCIENCE & PSYCHOLOGY 5-4297 1073 Jose BermUdez, Director 5-4297

PHYSICS 5-6276 1105 John Clark, Chair 5-6250

POLITICAL ECONOMY 5-5632 1208 Norman Schofield, Director 5-5632

POLITICAL SCIENCE 5-5810 1063 Jack Knight, Chair 5-5822

PSYCHOLOGY 5-6565 1125 Roddy Roediger, Chair 5-6567 RELIGIOUS STUDIES 5-4446 1111 Ahmet Karamustafa,

Director 5-4446

ROMANCE LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE 5-5175 1077 Elzbieta Sklodowska, Chair 5-5175

RUSSIAN 5-5177 1052 Milica Banjanin, Chair 5-5177

SOCIAL THOUGHT & ANALYSIS 5-4860 1112 John Bowen, Chair 5-4860

WOMEN AND GENDER STUDIES 5-5102 1078 Linda Nicholson, Director 5-5102

If calling off campus, please dial 93 plus the five digits listed above. July 1, 2003

ARTS & SCIENCES Office of the Dean

September 2003

TO: Members of the Faculty of Arts &

FROM: Edward S. Macias cc,

RE: Appointment of the Affirmative Action Monitoring Committee

In accordance with our affirmative action policies and procedures, the following monitoring subcommittees have been appointed for 2003-2004:

HUMANITIES Mary Jo Bang, English John Garganigo, Romance Languages and Literatures, Convenor Marvin Marcus, Asian & Near Eastern Languages & Literatures

SOCIAL SCIENCES M. Peg Finders, Education Gayle Fritz, Anthropology Sunita Parikh, Political Science, Convenor

NATURAL SCIENCES Brian Blank, Mathematics, Convenor Robert Dymek, Earth & Planetary Sciences Barbara Kunkel, Biology

Washington University in St.Louis

ences

Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1094, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899 '.3141 935-6820, Fax: (314) 933-8504, E-mail: faculty@artsci.wustledu, Web: http://artsci.wustl.edu/

WASHINGTON.UNIVERSITY IN. ST. LOUIS

Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and General Counsel

Attorney-Client Communications Privileged and Confidential

Memorandum - April 21, 2003

To: Ed Macias Executive Vice Chancellor and Dean Of Arts & Sciences

From: Nancy M. Pliske Associate General Counsel

Re: Annual ROTC Report

In March 1991, the Committee to Study the Relationship of ROTC to Washington University (the "Committee") submitted its report and recommendations to the Provost. The Committee's recommendations were subsequently endorsed by the Board of Trustees at its April 1991 meeting. The Committee's recommendations include the following.

1. That Chancellor Danforth write an open letter to the University regarding ROTC and the Department of Defense policy.

2. The Provost report annually to the University community on the state of the ROTC issue, and that the University ally itself with other colleges and universities in an effort to persuade the Department of Defense to change its policy of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

3. The University acknowledge the military's discriminatory policy in University publications.

4. The contractual arrangement between the University and the Department of the Army be reviewed.

5. Its report be made fully accessible to the University community.

One Brookings Drive Campus Box 1058

St. Louis, MO 63130-4899 (314) 935-5152 (314) 935-7580 Fax plisken@ogc.wustl.edu

The military continues to be aggressive in enforcing the Solomon Amendment, and schools that have not permitted military recruiters access to students equivalent to the access permitted all other employers have been reported to the DOD and threatened with loss of federal funding. In May 2002, the Air Force notified the Harvard Law School in violation of the Solomon Amendment, and gave the school a short deadline for compliance. In August 2002, Harvard Law School announced that it would allow military recruiters to have access to its career services department for the first time since 1979. Harvard's decision was in direct response to the military's threat to recommend to the Secretary of Defense that funding to all of Harvard, not just the law school, be denied.

Not surprisingly, particularly given current world events, there has been very little discussion of either ROTC or military recruiting at colleges and universities.

I will continue to keep you apprised of any new developments. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Ed Macias April 21, 2003

Page 2

ARTS & SCIENCES

Executive Vice Chancellor and Dean of Arts & Sciences

September 22, 2003

TO: Members of the Faculty of Arts & Sciences

RE: Preparation of cases for consideration by the Advisory Committee on Tenure,

Promotion, and Personnel

I have enclosed the instructions regarding the tenure and promotion case preparation.

These instructions are sent to department chairs to implement and I am also sending these to all faculty so that you have a clear understanding of these procedures.

Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1094, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899

FROM: Edward S. Macias

(314) 935-6820, Fax: (314) 935-8504, E -mal faculty@artsci.wustl.edu, Web: http: / / artsci.wustl.edu/

ARTS & SCIENCES Executive Vice Chancellor and Dean of Arts & Sciences

September 16, 2003

TO: Department Chairs FR

OM

: Edward S. Macias RE:

Tenure, Promotion, and Personnel

The recruitment and retention of an excellent faculty is a top priority for Arts and Sciences at Washington University. The promotion process is an important part of this effort and must be done carefully. What follows below are the guidelines for chairs preparing cases for the Advisory Committee for tenure and promotion of individuals already tenured, and for appointments to positions with tenure of new faculty. Adherence to these guidelines will make the work easier and expedite the review process. However, they are not meant to restrict the material that the department submits in order to strengthen the case.

I urge you to review these guidelines now.

SCHEDULE All cases involving the granting of tenure to our own faculty must be in the office of the Dean of the Faculty by November 10. The Advisory Committee will review cases between November 17 and mid-February, and I will decide whether to forward cases to the Central Administration after receiving the committee's advice. Normally, candidates and department chairs will be informed of the decision after the March 5, 2004 Board of Trustees meeting. Specific decisions will be announced sooner only if there is a compelling reason to do so.

Cases of promotion to full professor and cases involving research professors should be in the Dean's office by January 5. Cases of tenured appointments from outside the university should be submitted as soon as possible after the search committee decides on the person but before any employment offer is made.

If the department decides against recommending tenure, the chair should inform this office by November 10 in writing.

Preparation of Cases for Consideration by the Advisory Committee on

Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1094, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899 (314) 935-6820, Fax: (314) 935-8504, E-mail: faculty@artsci.wustl.edu, Web: http://artsci.wustl.edu/

CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER The candidate's dossier plays a very important part in the consideration of promotion and tenure. It should clearly document accomplishment in teaching, scholarship or research, and service. It is expected that successful candidates will have a documented record of excellence in all of these areas.

EXTERNAL LETTERS

It is essential that departments begin early to gather external letters and other data. The committee needs at least six letters from outside the university. Six is the minimum, cases typically have more than six. All external letters received by the department must be submitted to the Advisory Committee.

External referees should be asked to provide analytical evaluations of the candidate's contributions to his/her field of scholarship. They should assess the candidate's standing in the field including comparisons with individuals at a similar stage of career. Writers should be informed that their comments will be read not only by members of the department but also by the dean and members of the faculty-wide tenure committee who are not necessarily familiar with the candidate's scholarly area. I enclose two examples of letters of solicitation that were used by department chairs in the past.

In the case of an appointment from outside the university, external letters should, if possible, also address the quality of teaching by the candidate. For cases of people currently on our faculty our own department should evaluate the teaching.

Although some of the external referees may be taken from a list suggested by the candidate, there should also be at least three letters from people in the field selected by other members of the department. It is useful to have letters from people who have worked with the candidate, such as his/her dissertation advisor and co-authors of papers, but there must also be letters from knowledgeable people who have not had such direct contact with the candidate. Letters should come from several universities with well-regarded departments in the candidate's field, and letters should be from well-regarded senior people in the field. To adequately meet these guidelines, it may be necessary to receive more than six letters.

The material submitted to the Advisory Committee should include a statement about each referee: the method of selection, the relationship, if any, of the referee to the candidate, if any, and the nature of the referee's expertise and position in the field. Including each referee's CV is also very helpful.

2 September 16, 2003

Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Cases

Other external evaluations of scholarship -- reviews of the candidate's books, information about the stature of the reviewer and of the journal that published the review

If readers' reports are available for unpublished work, those reports should be provided. If the author of the report is known, provide information about his/her stature.

TEACHING EVALUATION

The department must provide evaluations of the teaching skills of internal candidates, for instance a complete set of the College of Arts & Sciences Course Evaluations Guides, and especially student evaluations designed and administered by the department, as well as evaluations by senior faculty in the department who attend some of the classes and review course syllabi, assignments, graded papers, etc. All cases involving the granting of tenure should include a list of all courses taught by the candidate with the number of students in each class. For cases involving promotion, a list of courses covering the last five years will do.

Specific descriptive and analytic letters from graduate students or upper class undergraduates with substantial experience may be included.

In the case of appointments from outside the university, letters evaluating teaching from members of the candidate's present department and student course evaluations from the present university should be sought.

CHAIR'S LETTER TO THE DEAN

The chair's letter should state the recommendation of the department, including all votes in the department leading to that recommendation. If a vote is not unanimous, the chair or another department member should describe the reasons for the dissenting votes. This letter should be written in a language that can be understood by people from unrelated disciplines.

The letter must summarize the candidate's principal scholarly achievements, including clearly what the candidate has accomplished and the significance of those accomplishments to the field. The chair should write with a non-specialist audience in mind, placing the candidate's achievements in the broader context of research in the field. The chair should not quote extensively from the external letters. The chair's letter should explain any negative comments from the external referees and department members.

The chair's letter must evaluate the candidate's teaching, and should also address how the candidate's teaching and research fit into the department's

3 September 16, 2003

Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Cases

SUBMISSION OF MATERIAL Fourteen (14) copies are required of the full dossier: chair's letter to the dean, the candidate's CV, a sample letter from the chair requesting evaluations from external referees, the descriptions of the referees and how they were selected, the referees' letters, reviews of books, and letters or other evidence supporting the teaching evaluation.

Two (2) copies of books, selected papers, unpublished manuscripts, student evaluations, syllabi for all courses taught and any supporting material should also be provided,

The dossier should have a table of contents that guides readers through the material; dividers and tabs may be helpful. All pages should be numbered consecutively.

Each of the fourteen copies should have as a cover page the enclosed check-list filled out to indicate that all required material has been submitted. A completed check-list is required.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROCEDURE The Faculty of Arts and Sciences office will contact each chair when the committee has scheduled its discussion of the case the department has submitted.

The committee will use the following procedure: the committee meets for about half an hour in executive session for preliminary discussion of the written materials received and to identify questions for the department chair. Then the department chair, and any member of the committee who is in the candidate's department, is invited into the meeting. The department chair is permitted to bring one other member of the department who is more closely knowledgeable about the candidate's subfield. No opening statement by the chair is expected; the chair will simply be asked questions by the dean that the committee feels would clarify the case. The chair should be prepared to respond to these questions about the candidate's scholarship in a manner understandable to a nonspecialist. The chair should also be prepared to discuss the convention used for the order of authors in publications. Following the questions, the chair may briefly add any further comments he/she thinks appropriate, and then the committee returns to executive session. The chair and all others in the room are to remember that all discussion in the committee meeting is to be held in complete confidence.

5 September 16, 2003

Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Cases

needs and plans and how the candidate's interests affect the balance of the department. Where appropriate, the chair should also address the candidate's contributions to the faculty more broadly, both within and beyond the department. Supplementary letters from faculty outside the department where the candidate's service to the department, university or community, should also be described.

CV AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

The chair should work with the candidate to present an appropriate and informative curriculum vitae. If necessary, the chair should provide background that helps the committee understand the CV. Supplementary material should include the following information:

The chair should indicate which of the published articles are in refereed journals, and indicate the stature of each journal. Similarly, indicate the stature in this field of the press that published each of the candidate's books. Regardless of the length of the publication list, indicate which are the three or four most significant publications on the list in numerical order. When important publications are co-authored, the candidate's relationship with the co-authors should be indicated, external letters from co-authors may provide that information, or the chair may describe the relationships involved.

If the candidate has received external grant support, indicate the nature of the selection for this support and whether the candidate was the principal investigator or a co-investigator. Please provide dollar amount and the dates of the grant periods.

Indicate pertinent information on curriculum development, undergraduate advising, and participation of undergraduates in research projects.

Name the graduate students for whom the candidate has served as dissertation supervisor; or, if this is a tenure case and your department does not normally permit nontenured faculty to serve as dissertation supervisor, so inform the committee.

STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE'S RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The committee urges that these statements be confined to no more than two pages. The candidate should be reminded that this is intended for a non-specialist audience. If the statement is not written by the candidate, please specify author.

4 September 16, 2003

Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Cases

SAMPLE LETTER A

Dear Professor:

_____________________ , who is an assistant professor in our department, is presently being considered for promotion to associate professor with tenure. As part of our review we are seeking assessments of his/her scholarly work and reputation from established scholars in the field. I hope you will be able to help us.

Could you take time to provide an assessment of ____________________ 's work and professional contributions? What has he/she accomplished? What effect has this work had, or is it likely to have, on the field? How would you compare him/her with other scholars at a similar stage in their career? Please mention such scholars by name and institution. How will he/she rank, do you think, in another decade or so?

The more specifically and analytically you can speak to his/her work and particular professional contributions, the more helpful it will be to us. Your letter will be read not only by the department but also by the Dean. and the Dean's advisory committee made up of non-

I am enclosing a copy of ________________'s cv, copies of his/her publications, and a copy of one of his/her manuscripts currently under journal review.

Your letter will be held in strict confidence and made available only to the tenured members of our department and the Dean of the Faculty along with the Dean's advisory committee. If you are able to undertake this evaluation for us we would be most grateful. It would also be most helpful if you would include a copy of your CV.

Sincerely,

6 September 16, 2003

Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Cases

SAMPLE LETTER B Dear Professor:

This department is considering the promotion of ____________________ to associate professor of _______________ with tenure. Letters from established scholars outside the university are a required part of the accompanying materials, and I hope that I may ask you for one.

Referees are requested to provide us with an estimate of the candidate's scholarly accomplishments and standing in his/her field. In particular, we would appreciate your evaluation of how Professor ______________stands with regard to other scholars of his/her generation. Detailed analytical comments with regard to these matters and with regard to specific pieces of scholarship are crucial to our deliberation and are most appreciated. For your information, I would be happy to send you CPIs of any of his/her major writings to which you may not

have access. I am also enclosing a copy of Professor __________ 's curriculum vitae

Your letter will be made available to the tenured members of our department as well as to various review bodies of the faculty and administration, all of whom are pledged to maintain the strictest confidence. It is most helpful to the evaluation process if referees recognize that these bodies include scholars with little or no familiarity with the field; accordingly, analytical evaluations directed to the non-specialist have an important role in the process.

I know that this request arrives at a busy time for the consideration of such matters. However, we are most anxious to move rapidly with this evaluation. We would greatly appreciate receiving your evaluation by _________

As the evaluation process involves people far removed from your field. I also need a copy of your CV..

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me collect at your convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

7 September 16, 2003

Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Cases

CHECKLIST FOR SUBMISSION OF TENURE AND PROMOTION MATERIAL

Candidate's Name ______________________________________

Department __________________________________________

Please indicate the page number below. If something is missing please explain why.

Material Table of contents of dossier List of supporting information/books/reviews submitted in a few copies

Chair's letter to dean Department recommendation and vote Evaluation of candidate's teaching Summary of candidate's principal scholarly achievements Summary of candidate's service to department, university & profession Description of candidate's fit with department and others

CV and related information Candidate's CV, including list of publications Indication of articles in refereed journals Description of quality of journals and book publishers List of three or four most significant publications in numerical order Explanation of relationship of candidate to co-authors Grant support and principal investigator status Graduate students supervised Candidate's statement of research directions

Teaching evaluation Summaries of student evaluations Other departmental evaluations List of courses taught and enrollments

External letters and reviews All letters from referees Referees' CV's Sample letter from chair to referees Description of how referees were selected Description of referee's position in field and relationship to candidate Copies of all available published reviews of books Readers' reports of books accepted but not yet reviewed

Comments:

8 September 16, 2003

Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Cases