Cornell University’s mission as New York State’s land‑grant institution rests on a longstanding commitment to the creation of knowledge and its translation for public benefit. Extension is a core academic function through which the university fulfills this mission, linking research and scholarship with communities, industries, agencies, and organizations across the state, the nation, and beyond. In this context, extension work is understood as academic work that intentionally extends the university’s knowledge, research, and expertise beyond the campus to external communities, partners, and stakeholders. Through extension, Cornell faculty design, lead, and evaluate applied programs; engage directly with stakeholders; translate research into practice; and respond to emerging societal needs. Extension work often involves sustained relationships, long‑term programmatic leadership, external funding, and the management of complex initiatives. These responsibilities require professional independence, judgment, and accountability comparable to those expected of faculty in other mission‑critical roles at the university.
Cornell has repeatedly recognized that when faculty are entrusted with sustained leadership in a core mission area, their titles and career structures should reflect the nature and level of that responsibility. Over time, the Faculty Senate has authorized renewable‑term professorial titles for non‑tenure‑track faculty whose primary contributions lie in clinical practice, professional application, research, and teaching. These actions reflect a shared institutional principle: professorial titles are appropriate when faculty responsibilities demand advanced expertise, independence, and demonstrated impact, even when those responsibilities differ from the traditional tenure‑track model. This principle is reflected internally in Cornell’s use of Assistant, Associate, and Full Research Professor titles for long‑term, externally funded research faculty.
The establishment of the Teaching Professor track provides a recent precedent for this approach. In adopting that track, the Faculty Senate recognized that long‑term faculty with primary responsibility for undergraduate, graduate, and professional education warranted a three‑rank professorial structure that acknowledged their expertise and leadership while remaining distinct from the tenure track, as articulated in Resolution 195. The same underlying rationale applies to extension, where faculty are relied upon for sustained, high‑impact leadership in a central academic mission of the university.
Across the land‑grant system, extension is widely understood as a core academic mission requiring faculty leadership and accountability. Many peer land‑grant universities, including the University of Minnesota, Iowa State University, the University of Wisconsin–Madison, North Carolina State University, and Washington State University, use non‑tenure‑track professorial models for extension faculty. While specific title conventions vary by institution, these models typically include professorial rank (assistant, associate, and full) and rigorous review. Aligning Cornell’s titles with prevailing land‑grant practice supports recruitment, retention, and clarity of role, while affirming extension as an important academic endeavor.
Consistent with this approach, the Extension Professor title will first be enabled through Faculty Senate approved legislation establishing university wide principles. Only after approval of this enabling legislation may colleges or schools submit college- or school-level implementation proposals for Faculty Senate approval. College‑ and school‑level implementation proposals must demonstrate that use of the Extension Professor title is consistent with maintaining a faculty composition in which tenure track appointments remain predominant, and that the combined use of Research-Teaching-Extension (RTE) faculty titles does not alter the overall balance of faculty lines within the unit. At a minimum, these college and school proposals are expected to articulate the academic rationale for use of the Extension Professor title; describe role expectations consistent with the Faculty Handbook description of the Extension Professor ranks; establish transparent and rigorous processes for appointment, reappointment, and promotion comparable in seriousness to other Research, Teaching, Practice, and Clinical professorial tracks; specify expectations regarding external funding and Principal Investigator eligibility; and clarify how requests to transition individuals from the extension associate track to the Extension Professor track will be reviewed. Colleges and schools retain discretion over specific procedures, documentation, and timelines, provided that such practices are consistent with these principles and approved by the Faculty Senate.
The Extension Professor title is available only to long‑term, non‑tenure‑track faculty members whose primary efforts are devoted to the extension mission of the university, including outreach, stakeholder engagement, applied program development, and the translation of research and scholarship to benefit communities and external partners. The Extension Professor title is established with three ranks: Assistant Extension Professor, Associate Extension Professor, and Extension Professor. Faculty appointed at each rank are expected to demonstrate a level of expertise, judgment, and independence appropriate to that rank. Expectations for leadership, scope of responsibility, and impact increase with rank. Extension Professors contribute to the university through activities such as applied innovation, program leadership, partnership development, evaluation of outcomes, dissemination of knowledge for external audiences, and extension‑related service, including advising, mentoring, and management of initiatives. The Extension Professor title may not be used to replicate the combined teaching and research responsibilities of the tenure track. Appointments do not require classroom teaching of for‑credit courses, supervision of doctoral research, or scholarly publication for tenure‑track purposes. Extension Professors may engage in such activities when relevant to their extension mission, but these activities may not be required for appointment, reappointment, or promotion.
• I understand colleges set the titles, but could it be possible to not have all these new titles (Extension Professor, Professor of Practice, Teaching Professor …) , but use a modified approach. Have a “Professor of …” with modifiers. That was someone could be a Professor of Extension and Teaching or a Professor of Research and Teaching. The modifiers could match closer to their actual role and allow for multiple roles which is not uncommon. Probably too late, but just an idea.
• The counting of extension positions in the faculty percentages is problematic due to the heavy land-grant focus of those colleges which have extension positions (mostly CALS and CHE). If possible, could the extension numbers be calculated to reflect the unique nature of the extension role in the university.
• Having no tenure track end point diminishes the value of any “Professor of …” title. Understanding that a full tenure end point is not possible, could there be a form of semi-tenure that would be feasible. Anyone at the highest rank in one of the “Professor of” (RTE) titles could be assured of continuing employment by doing a combination of activities that would show value to the college/university: teaching classes, advising students, bringing in grants (research and or extension), providing service to the various units. For instance, if someone brings in grants that cover 50% of their salary, teaches 1 class a semester, and advises 10 students, and serves on 2 committees, they would be assured of continuing employment. The value of the various non-grant activities would need to be set by a college.
This proposal leaves out Senior Lecturers, many of whom have been members of the resident faculty for decades, teaching resident classes, mentoring students, bringing in grants, and conducting and publishing research, but with no opportunity for promotion. They are ineligible for the Research Professor or Professor of Practice positions, either because they are not practitioners or because their job descriptions require them to both teach and conduct research. Many are also not eligible for Clinical Professor positions because it is only an option in some colleges.
I am all for creating more equity around long-term non-tenure track faculty. However, CALS has yet to implement their Teaching Professor titles and feel that before the Faculty senate embarks on this effort, they should work to ensure that Cornell does what it has said it will do to create these titles across all colleges.
I also am curious about this sentence, but for a different reason: “The Extension Professor track is intended for long term faculty whose extension portfolios require professorial responsibilities and rigorous review, not as a replacement for existing extension associate roles.”
We already have an avenue for “long term faculty whose extension portfolios require professorial responsibilities and rigorous review”. That is tenure-track professorships with extension appointments. I can see that the situations for which Extension Professor titles are suited are often different from those suited to tenure-track extension appointments. Nonetheless, the erosion of tenure-track faculty’s involvement in extension has had serious negative impacts on extension mission. We must add explicit language stating that this non-tenure-track option is intended “not as a replacement for existing tenure-track extension appointments nor to accelerate the ongoing loss of tenure-track appointments in many units, which has been detrimental to tenure-track faculty’s engagement with and understanding of the university’s land grant mission.”
This is interesting. I was in an Assistant Extension Professor position at the at a different university 27 years ago. This required getting tenure and was very competitive/stressful. One of the reasons I came to Cornell was that this extension was outside the tenure process. What I like about our current system is that everyone seems to want to work cooperatively to complete projects/research and make an impact. Maybe since this does not involve a tenure process, it might make it more cooperative. I would not like to lose the since we all work together.
Re: External Funding Requirement
It may be beyond the scope of this legislation to address concerns about the “university requirements to serve as Principal Investigators”. However, I think it is relevant that there seems to still be continuing confusion about what makes an RTE faculty person PI-eligible, and concern about (if I have understood correctly) the university requirement for at least 5% of their salary to come from a source other than a grant. If many non-tenure track extension faculty are entirely funded by grants, how can they meet this requirement? And if they cannot meet this requirement, how can they provide their own salary support? Perhaps this is a detail to be worked out in individual colleges, but I wonder if any language in the enabling legislation could help address this concern or provide guidance for colleges developing proposals for implementation of the new titles?
In the “Description of the Extension Professor Title”, thank you for explicitly stating that classroom teaching, supervision of doctoral research, and scholarly publication are not requirements. While valuable activities, they could detract from a professional’s ability to do excellent extension, if they are required for promotion/re-appointment.
In the “Guiding Principles” section, I am curious what is meant by this sentence: “The Extension Professor track is intended for long term faculty whose extension portfolios require professorial responsibilities and rigorous review, not as a replacement for existing extension associate roles.”
It has been my experience that the current “extension associate” title is regularly used for long-term faculty. It seems to me that one of the inequities related to non-tenure track extension faculty titles is the fact that some people have remained extension associates indefinitely after hiring (likely for a variety of reasons, probably in many/most cases not due to their own shortcomings). As we seek to address this inequity, we should not penalize people who have been caught in it. But I’m not sure what is meant by the language, so it might not be a problem. It might benefit from clarification, though.
Re: the Guiding Principles, my take is that we’re adding rungs to the ladder to allow for further upward movement, NOT merely moving people sideways into a new title.
Which is to say – Extension Associate and Senior Extension Associate would still remain, and presumably be used primarily for shorter-term hires (perhaps to complete specific projects, or do the equivalent of Postdoctoral style internships). While those who’ve made a career in this space for many years or decades will now have access commensurate with their experience and dedication.