Resolution 155: On RTE Percent Limitation Approval Procedures
Passed: November 18, 2020
Sponsor: Committee on Academic Programs and Policies (CAPP)
Posted: June 10, 2020
This pdf includes historical background, current titleholder data, and the proposal.
Summary
Currently, colleges that seek authorization to use the titles Clinical Professor, Professor of the Practice, and Research Professor must submit a proposal to the Faculty Senate that justifies their request and demonstrates a commitment to certain rules regarding their use. One such rule concerns “percent limitations” and a typical example might be “the number of clinical professors in any department must not exceed 25 percent of the number of tenured and tenure track faculty in that department.”
The proposed legislation would add text to the Faculty Handbook giving the colleges a framework for requesting adjustments to their percent limitation constraints. The framework gives the colleges flexibility to organize the mix of RTE and TT faculty that works best for them while at the same time ensuring that there is no degradation in the role that tenure plays in the academy.
Proposed Addition to the Faculty Handbook
If a College wants to liberalize its existing percent limitation constraints, then they are required to submit a proposal to CAPP that has these attributes:
- It identifies the subset of RTE titles whose combined numbers are to be subject to the percent limitation. The current occupancy numbers are given for those titles, other RTE titles, and the various ranks of tenure-track faculty.
- It specifies the criteria that must be satisfied if any of its departments in the college are allowed to exceed the limitation constraint.
- It explains why the current percent limitation constraints are no longer relevant or appropriate, providing historical data as appropriate. In the case of teaching appointments, information about teaching loads and its impact on the TT faculty is useful. Give an analysis of the expected change in the number of RTE instructors vs tenure track instructors that a student will see as a major.
- It puts the proposed request in perspective by describing corresponding policies and levels at peer schools.
- It confirms that none of the RTE positions in question replicate the functions of positions ordinarily held by tenured or tenure-track faculty.
- It confirms that additional RTE positions that are made possible by the relaxation of the percent limitation does not detract in any way from the potential for adding tenured or tenure-track positions in the college. A discussion of funding sources for these new positions could be an important part of that discussion.
- It specifies which titles of the RTE positions will have College voting rights and the conditions under which their voting rights do not apply (For example, RTE faculty should not vote on issues related to tenure and promotion).
As much as possible, the new proposed percent limitation constraint should be shown to be consistent with the college’s current strategic direction (preferably as documented in the unit’s strategic plan).
There must be evidence that sections A through F of the proposal were reviewed and discussed by the faculty before there was a vote, and the vote results should be included in the document that is sent to CAPP. Separate tabulations are required for University Faculty and those RTE faculty who have voting rights in the college (Yes/No/Abstain/DNV). The Senate will only consider the proposal if the number of TT (tenured and tenure track) Faculty who vote is at least two-thirds the total number of TT faculty in the unit and at least one-half of all the TT faculty in the unit voted positive. Likewise, it must be the case that the number of RTE faculty who voted is at least two-thirds the total number of eligible RTE faculty in the unit and at least one-half of all the eligible RTE faculty in the unit voted positive.
CAPP deliberations could include a dialog with the sponsoring college as required. CAPP’s report to the Senate should include the results of a committee vote (Yes/No/Abstain).
Once a year CAPP will review the tenure track faculty and RTE populations numbers provided by IRP and confirm to the Senate that the approved percent limitations are being followed.
In no case will a proposal be considered if the relaxed percent limitation makes it possible for the number of RTE faculty with voting rights to exceed the number of TT faculty in the college.
The Resolution
Whereas current legislation concerning percent limitations provides insufficient guidance to colleges;
Whereas no mechanism is provided that enables the Faculty Senate to track faculty counts and ensure that the blend of University and RTE faculties is optimal for the health of Cornell and its tenure system;
Whereas the colleges do not currently have sufficient flexibility to involve a combination of RTE titles in their percent limitation computation;
Whereas the colleges do not currently have explicit authority to have denser populations of RTE faculty in departments where the need is greater and may vary with time;
Be it resolved that this text be added to Chapter 3 of the Faculty Handbook.
3 thoughts on "Resolution 155: On RTE Percent Limitation Approval Procedures"
Comments are closed.
Comments by Risa Lieberwitz (Faculty Senator, ILR School)
1. The proposed “Resolution on RTE Percent Limitation Approval Procedures” does not include two important goals underlying the caps on the percentage of Clinical Professor, Professor of Practice, and Research Professor titles. These goals are related to each other:
a. The goal to increase lines for tenure-track and tenured professors. There is a nation-wide problem of the alarming loss of tenure-track lines — with the result that 75% of faculty positions are non-tenure track and 25% tenure-track (the reverse of the percentages in the 1970s). We should state an explicit goal of increasing tenure-track lines, which will enable faculty to have the job security that protects the academic freedom essential to fulfilling the public mission of colleges/universities.
b. The goal to avoid using titles that sound like they are tenure-track lines, but which are, in reality, non-tenure track lines. The justification given by colleges for using and increasing the use of the new titles has been to attract candidates. However, the ability to use this non-tenure track “professor” title to attract candidates is not because the position offers full rights of a tenure-track line. Rather, attracting candidates with this new title simply reveals the severe reduction of tenure-track lines nationally. If Cornell seeks to have a competitive edge in attracting candidates, then Cornell should seek to fill tenure-track lines.
2. With these goals (outlined above) in mind, the question is: Does the proposed Resolution advance towards a goal of increasing tenure-track lines?
a. The proposed Resolution does not advance towards a goal of increasing tenure-track lines. Rather, the proposal seems to open the door to colleges to expand the Clinical Professor (CP), Professor of Practice (PoP), and Research Professor (RP) lines. As I read the proposal, a college could propose to expand the percentage of the CP, PoP, and RP lines as long as the overall percentage of non-tenure track lines (RTE) faculty remains within a defined cap. This seems to be the argument advanced by the recent CVM proposal to increase PoP percentages. I also oppose the CVM proposal because it moves away from a goal of increasing tenure-track lines and expands the ability of the CVM to increase the use of titles that sound like professorial titles but that lack the rights of tenure-track faculty.
b. We should impose a more stringent cap on the percentage of all non-tenure-track (RTE) lines. I would support a proposal that seeks to expand tenure-track lines by reducing the percentages of all RTE positions. Such a proposal would not entail loss of a job for any individual currently in an RTE position. However, a more stringent cap on all RTE positions (including a more stringent cap on CP, PoP, and RP lines) would mean that future searches would be for more tenure-track lines. Further, individuals in current RTE positions could be given the opportunity to shift to a tenure-track line. Faculty in RTE positions are doing the teaching and research work of the university; there is no justification for maintaining a second-class citizenship for any faculty positions.
Would you feel differently if the RTE lines became tenurable, such as just approved by the Senate for the Law School Clinical Tenure, which applies to Professor in Practice and Clinical Professor titles but not the other titles? From previous discussions, the goal of the cap was to preserve tenure-track lines, which this proposal is partly aiming to do, although it is unclear what a majority means – is a majority 1 extra tenure track position or should there be a defined percentage such as in the Veterinary School proposal. There are several departments or units across campuses that already have more RTE faculty than tenure track faculty.
It is unclear what the committee and senate yearly review of tenure track and RTE positions in units is meant to accomplish. Is this just pro forma? Is there an action that would be taken by the committee (or someone else?) if a particular unit is exceeding their established or approved cap or if RTE than tenure track faculty in that unit?
The discussion on raising the cap and recent vote by the Senate to approve the Law’s School proposal for Clinical Tenure are linked yet were considered disparate items. It would be good to see a broader discussion of how these new overtures, including the resolution, affect tenure.