4.1 Tenure Process

Reappointment of Faculty with Probationary Tenure Status

Most commonly, a person entering a tenure-track academic career is given a three-year appointment at the assistant professor level. Toward the end of each year of this appointment, the faculty member should review his or her progress with the department chairperson or with a mentor among the department’s senior faculty members. In the third year, the department conducts a more thorough performance review. If the outcome is positive, it is normal for a renewal for a second three-year term to be recommended for approval by the dean.

If the outcome of the review is negative, the faculty member must be given a terminal appointment that allows him or her to serve two full academic terms after written notice of nonrenewal. If the faculty member clearly is not meeting expectations, the notice not  to renew the appointment may be given earlier than the third year. In that case, the next year of the initial appointment serves as the required two terms of notice.

There are procedures for appealing a decision not to reappoint a nontenured faculty member who holds an initial probationary-tenure-status.

Tenure

University Criteria

In 1983, the Faculty Council of Representatives (the forerunner of the current Faculty Senate) adopted a resolution expressing its concern for affirmative action in tenure appointments. Subsequently, the resolution was incorporated into the University Criteria for Tenure Appointments as follows:

It is not possible to establish, at the university level, detailed criteria for tenure appointments for the many academic units in the university. The basic criteria are clear: excellence in carrying out the responsibilities of the position, and unusual promise for continued achievement. Since the requirements and criteria of a department may change, each decision is a separate action and independent of any other current or previous decisions within or outside the department.

The responsibilities of a faculty member include teaching, research and other scholarly achievement, public service, advising students, and contributing to the department, the college, and the university. Not all faculty members are assigned all these responsibilities. The emphasis given to each responsibility, as determined by existing circumstances, varies among the colleges and departments of the university and may change within a department.

The department, the chairperson, and the dean have the responsibility of weighing the different roles of each faculty member and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates for tenure, taking into account the mission and needs of the department and the college. These include the interests of the unit and the university to promote racial, ethnic and gender diversity among the faculty. But regardless of how the department weighs the relevant factors in any particular case, no candidate may be granted tenure who does not meet the requirements for overall excellence. Failure to meet any of the diversity factors may not be used as a negative element in the evaluation of any candidate.

Given the rigorous standards for tenure at Cornell, individuals whose performance has been acceptable, or even of high quality, may not receive promotion. Many candidates for tenure, in evaluating their own progress, often develop unrealistically positive attitudes relative to their chances for promotion. On the other hand, across the university, only about one-half of the candidates for tenure are promoted.

Since a tenure appointment is not a right, and since it could result in a collegial relationship within the department for a period of decades, the department faculty has considerable latitude in reasons for making a negative recommendation. However, such factors as race, color, creed, religion, national or ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability must not be a basis for such decisions.

Time Period Prior to Review for Tenure

The initial appointment to the Cornell faculty of a highly qualified person who is already credited with significant achievements may be at the rank of associate or even full professor, but without indefinite tenure. Such appointments are for a limited term of not more than five years, typically in a probationary tenure status. That is, the award of tenure is deferred until the faculty member and the university become well acquainted and a review leading to the long-term tenure decision is possible.

More commonly, however, tenure is awarded, along with promotion to the rank of associate professor, after a person has spent a period in probationary tenure status as an assistant professor. The length of that period depends on the amount of professional experience the individual has acquired between earning the terminal degree in his or her field and the initial appointment as assistant professor. If that period is no more than a year or so, the candidate is usually reviewed for promotion and tenure in his or her sixth year at Cornell, typically the third year of the second term of appointment as assistant professor. Then, if the outcome is negative, a one-year terminal appointment is provided in the seventh year.

According to university bylaws, a faculty member may not hold the position of assistant professor for more than the equivalent of six years of full-time service, unless, in the judgment of the provost, a temporary extension is warranted.

A department is not bound to undertake a tenure review for all those on the tenure track. The appointment of a faculty member for a definite term may be terminated for reasons involving staffing patterns, the decline in relevance of a research area to the mission of the department, or lack of funds. In such a case, the faculty member should receive written notice as early as possible that there will be no review and should be given a one-year terminal appointment. He or she should be informed of other suitable open faculty positions in the university. The faculty member may appeal the decision not to conduct a tenure review using these procedures.

Review Process for Tenure

Permission to initiate a review for tenure must be obtained from the dean, because it commits the college or school to long-term support of the position. When a review for promotion to tenure is conducted, it is required to be thorough and well-documented, since the decision that is made is of far-reaching importance both to the individual and to the university. The first step in the process is a review of the candidate by the faculty of the department. For this purpose, and with the assistance of the candidate, a complete vita and list of publications are assembled, together with copies of the most relevant of the publications. Typically the candidate is asked to submit statements of goals and achievements in research, teaching, advising and extension/service.

Documentation of success in teaching is collected, in the form of course-evaluation questionnaires and letters from both selected and randomly chosen graduate and undergraduate students. Evidence of service to the community, the department, the college, and the university is compiled. Letters are solicited from colleagues in the university and from outside experts to provide an evaluation of the quality of the candidate’s creative work and its impact on the scholarship of the field.

The aim of the review is to assess the achievements of the individual during his or her probationary period, as well as the promise shown for growth and further achievement. The detailed procedures by which the department conducts its assessment vary, but they must include the basic elements mentioned above as well as: (1) making the documentation gathered during the review available to the tenured faculty members of the department, (2) holding a meeting of the tenured faculty members for the announced purpose of discussing and voting on the promotion in question, and (3) taking the vote. There is no general prescription for interpreting the vote; some departments do not consider such a vote positive unless the margin of positive over negative votes is quite large. In any case, the department chairperson is not bound by the vote, though he or she must report it to the dean. The chairperson represents the department in making and explaining to the dean the department’s recommendation for or against the promotion.

If, after a tenure review is carried out, the department’s tentative tenure decision is negative, it is communicated to the candidate before being given to the dean, and the candidate has an opportunity to request a reconsideration by the department following these procedures.

After the department’s initial review and any reconsideration are completed, the decision is reviewed at the college level by the dean. If the department’s recommendation is positive, the dean must appoint an ad hoc committee of faculty members outside the department to study the evidence and advise him or her in reaching a decision. Even if the department’s recommendation is negative, the candidate may still request that the dean appoint the ad hoc committee.

Faculty Advisory Committee on Tenure Appointments

The Faculty Advisory Committee on Tenure Appointments (FACTA) advises the provost on all proposed promotions to and appointments with tenure as well as proposed denials of tenure by a dean after a positive recommendation from the department.

Positive Recommendation by the Dean

If the dean’s recommendation is positive, it is reviewed by FACTA. Four members of the committee are chosen at random to read each file. If all four members are positive with no concerns or reservations, a positive recommendation is forwarded to the provost.

If any one of the four has reservations, each member of the full committee reviews the file. The committee’s decision is sent to the provost within four to six weeks of receiving the file.

Negative Recommendation by the Dean

If a dean reaches a preliminary decision to deny tenure to a non-tenured faculty member whose promotion to tenure has been recommended by his or her department, the dean within three weeks of that decision furnishes the candidate and the department with a preliminary written statement of the reasons for that decision and the nature of the evidence within the limits set by the need to preserve confidentiality. For a two-week period following receipt of the dean’s statement, the candidate and/or department has the opportunity to respond to the dean. If, following this response, the dean is not persuaded to change the decision to deny tenure, the dean forwards the file, together with an explanation for the decision, to the provost. If the provost does not have any concern or reservation about the dean’s proposed decision, she or he informs the college dean, and the decision becomes final and subject to appeal. If the provost does have a concern or reservation, she or he forwards the file to FACTA, for consideration at a meeting of the full committee, following the procedures used by the committee in cases following positive recommendations by the dean.

After receiving FACTA’s recommendation, the provost consults with the dean. Until the dean has received a response from the provost, the dean’s decision remains provisional. The University Level Appeal Procedure described here does not commence until the dean’s decision is final, and is not supplanted in any way by FACTA consideration. Positive tenure recommendations are ultimately presented by the president to the Board of Trustees for consideration. The final decision regarding tenure is made by the Trustees. The decisions of the provost and of the Trustees are not subject to appeal.

FACTA Dossier Guidelines

Tenure Pause Policy

The award of indefinite tenure is a profound commitment of the Department, the School/College, and the University. Some forms of faculty misconduct raise critical concerns that are directly pertinent to the standards governing the award of tenure. This section addresses situations in which allegations of serious misconduct arise either before or during the course of an active tenure review.

A. Serious Misconduct

1. For purposes of this policy, serious misconduct includes but is not limited to: alleged violations of Cornell policies 1.2 (Academic/Research Misconduct); 6.3 (Consensual Relationships); 6.4 (Bias, Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual and Related Misconduct); 4.14 (Conflicts of Interest and Commitment); 1.7 (Financial Conflict of Interest Related to Research); and 4.6 (Ethical Standards); or alleged violations of other policies, regulations, or laws the violation of which could reasonably lead to substantial discipline such as suspension or dismissal.
2. The faculty member always has the opportunity under those policies to respond to the allegations of misconduct.
3. If the sanction is termination, then the tenure review is brought to a close. For sanctions less than termination, then sections B, C, and D below apply.

B. Delaying or Pausing a Tenure Review

1. For purposes of this policy, a tenure review starts the moment the chair requests tenure dossier materials from the candidate, when the chair convenes the first meeting of the tenured faculty who will consider the case, or when the candidate enters the final year of the probationary period, whichever comes first.
2. The “Pause Panel” consists of the candidate’s chair and dean together with the provost and the dean of faculty.
3. A tenure review shall be delayed or paused if allegations of serious misconduct, as defined in section A arise that are deemed credible by the Pause Panel.
4. If credible allegations of serious misconduct become known before the tenure review begins, then the dean, in consultation with the Pause Panel, shall delay the start of the review until the adjudication of the misconduct allegations is completed.
5. If credible allegations of misconduct become known during the department or college stages of the tenure review, then the dean, in consultation with the Pause Panel, shall pause the review until the adjudication of the misconduct is completed.
6. If credible allegations of misconduct become known after the college stage of the review is completed, then the provost, in consultation with the Pause Panel, shall pause the review until the adjudication of the misconduct is completed.
7. In all such cases, the candidate shall be apprised of the misconduct allegations and the fact that the delay or the pausing of the tenure review is being considered. The candidate shall be given the opportunity to respond to the consideration before it is finalized.
8. The candidate shall not be given extra time to add scholarly content to the dossier in the event of a delay or a pause.

C. Misconduct-Related Summaries for Dossier Inclusion

1. The results of any inquiry, investigation, or adjudicative process associated with the misconduct shall be shared with the Pause Panel.
2. If the candidate is found not responsible for misconduct, then any reference to the alleged misconduct in the context of a reappointment or promotion review is forbidden without written approval from the candidate.
3. If the candidate is found responsible for some aspect of the misconduct, then a misconduct summary of the investigation results shall be jointly prepared by the Pause Panel in consultation with University Counsel. All subsequent reappointments and promotions that concern the candidate shall include the misconduct summary in the dossier.
4. Either way, the candidate has the right to include in the reappointment/promotion dossier a written statement that addresses any matter associated with the misconduct case.

D. Proceeding with the Tenure Review

1. After full adjudication of the misconduct case and/or the completion of any suspension-related sanction, the tenure review is resumed.
2. Upon resumption of the tenure review, the stipulations set forth in sections C.2, C.3, and C.4 apply.
3. If the tenure dossier is augmented with documents that relate to the misconduct case, then the review must be restarted at the department level and proceed accordingly to the college and university levels.

4.2 Promotion to Full Professor

Timeline for Promotion to Full Professor

Associate professors with tenure are normally considered for review for promotion to professor in the sixth year of such an appointment. At that time, the chairperson of the department convenes a meeting of the full professors to decide whether a formal review for promotion should be initiated. If the full professors decide not to initiate a review, the chairperson will discuss their decision with the candidate. The candidate may request a formal review at that time, and his or her request will be granted automatically. If the candidate agrees to a postponement, the chairperson will, at the beginning of the following year, consult the full professors and the candidate again, and initiate a formal review unless the candidate requests that the review be postponed. If the candidate has not been reviewed at least once after serving as an associate professor for seven years, the chairperson will consult the candidate at least triennially and will initiate a formal review unless the candidate does not want one. If a department chairperson is an associate professor and is subject to a review, it is the responsibility of the dean to conduct the discussions or to assign the responsibility to a senior member of the department.

If a candidate has received a formal review that has not culminated in a recommendation of promotion, the candidate may, after two or more years have elapsed, request a second review, and this request will be granted. (If the first review was unsuccessfully appealed, the two years are measured from the time of the appeal committee’s decision.) There is no upper limit to the time a faculty member may serve in the rank of associate professor.

Process for Promotion to Full Professor

The criteria for promotion from associate professor with tenure to professor are excellence and potential in teaching, research, or extension, and a judgment on whether the individual has fulfilled the promise on which tenure was originally granted. In all colleges, a department review is required, and a detailed rationale for the promotion must be submitted to the dean or director along with the vote of the full professors among the faculty.

The department procedures applicable to the promotion to professor are the same as those outlined above for the award of tenure, except that it is the vote of the full professors (tenured, if the candidate is tenured) in the department which is taken and recorded. The documentation need not be as extensive as it is for promotion to tenure, and the setting up of an ad hoc committee is at the dean’s discretion unless the recommendation of the department is negative and the candidate requests such a committee. If research is one of the candidate’s responsibilities, the dean may want to seek the advice of an ad hoc committee, since external opinions should be sought on such a candidate’s accomplishments and promise.

The dean is not bound by the recommendation of the department as expressed by the chairperson. If the dean disagrees with the judgment of the department, he or she will—if this has not already been done—set up an ad hoc committee. If the dean reverses the department decision, he or she will forward all the materials, including the ad hoc committee’s report, to the provost for review. Promotions from associate professor with tenure to professor are made on the authority of the provost.

Review Process for Promotion to Full Professor

Time Period Prior to Review for Promotion to Full Professor

Associate professors with tenure are normally considered for review for promotion to professor in the sixth year of such an appointment. At that time, the chairperson of the department convenes a meeting of the full professors to decide whether a formal review for promotion should be initiated. If the full professors decide not to initiate a review, the chairperson will discuss their decision with the candidate. The candidate may request a formal review at that time, and his or her request will be granted automatically. If the candidate agrees to a postponement, the chairperson will, at the beginning of the following year, consult the full professors and the candidate again, and initiate a formal review unless the candidate requests that the review be postponed. If the candidate has not been reviewed at least once after serving as an associate professor for seven years, the chairperson will consult the candidate at least triennially and will initiate a formal review unless the candidate does not want one. If a department chairperson is an associate professor and is subject to a review, it is the responsibility of the dean to conduct the discussions or to assign the responsibility to a senior member of the department.

If a candidate has received a formal review that has not culminated in a recommendation of promotion, the candidate may, after two or more years have elapsed, request a second review, and this request will be granted. (If the first review was unsuccessfully appealed, the two years are measured from the time of the appeal committee’s decision.) There is no upper limit to the time a faculty member may serve in the rank of associate professor.

Review Process

The criteria for promotion from associate professor with tenure to professor are excellence and potential in teaching, research, or extension, and a judgment on whether the individual has fulfilled the promise on which tenure was originally granted. In all colleges, a department review is required, and a detailed rationale for the promotion must be submitted to the dean or director along with the vote of the full professors among the faculty.

The department procedures applicable to the promotion to professor are the same as those outlined above for the award of tenure, except that it is the vote of the full professors (tenured, if the candidate is tenured) in the department which is taken and recorded. The documentation need not be as extensive as it is for promotion to tenure, and the setting up of an ad hoc committee is at the dean’s discretion unless the recommendation of the department is negative and the candidate requests such a committee.  If research is one of the candidate’s responsibilities, the dean may want to seek the advice of an ad hoc committee, since external opinions should be sought on such a candidate’s accomplishments and promise.

The dean is not bound by the recommendation of the department as expressed by the chairperson. If the dean disagrees with the judgment of the department, he or she will—if this has not already been done—set up an ad hoc committee. If the dean reverses the department decision, he or she will forward all the materials, including the ad hoc committee’s report, to the provost for review. Promotions from associate professor with tenure to professor are made on the authority of the provost.

Procedures for appealing a negative decision on promotion to full professor

4.3 Appeals

Not to Renew a Non-Tenure Appointment

I. Rights

A.  Right to Appeal

Any faculty member in an initial probationary tenure status appointment who is not reappointed and who would not in the normal course of events be reviewed for tenure at this stage of his or her career may appeal that decision at the departmental, college, and University levels. [Note:  Throughout this document, unless otherwise stated, the word “faculty member” shall mean a non‑tenured faculty member in an initial probationary tenure status appointment who has been denied a reappointment.] The candidate shall be informed of this right, the procedures for exercising it, and the University guidelines and regulations concerning reappointment when he or she is first notified in writing of the decision not to reappoint.

B. Extension of Appointments

For the purpose of determining the start of the terminal appointment of a faculty member who is not reappointed, the date of notification shall be considered to be the first date of written notification of the decision not to reappoint, and shall be unaffected by subsequent appeals. Notice of a terminal appointment must be given in writing to an individual, which allows that individual to serve two full academic terms following receipt of the first written notice of the negative decision. An academic term [i.e. semester] is the period of time beginning two working days before registration and ending on the last day of final exams. For those notified of nonrenewal before the start of the final year of appointment, the final year fulfills the requirement of two terms of notice. However, if appeal within the University is in progress at the end of the terminal appointment, the appointment shall be extended until the appeal is complete.

Should any party involved in an appeal find that he or she is unable to comply with one or more of the deadlines specified in this document, that party may, prior to the lapsing of the deadline, apply to the Dean of the Faculty for an extension. If the Dean finds the reasons given for an extension sufficient to justify it, the extension shall be granted and all involved parties notified. All extensions shall be for a specified period of time. In cases where an extension is granted at the request of the appellant, the appellant’s appointment shall not be extended under I.B. beyond the duration of the normal term of an appeal without the consent of the Provost.

C. Role of the Ombuds

Faculty members shall retain full access to the office of the Ombuds prior to and in the course of the appeals process.

D. Waiver or Loss of Appeal Rights

The faculty member may waive the right to written explanations from the department chair and the dean, or may decline to pursue the appeals procedure at any stage. However, the appeal procedures herein described must be followed sequentially.

Waiver of any stage of the appeals procedure shall cause the faculty member’s right to proceed further to be forfeited. Thus, failure to request reconsideration of a negative departmental decision (see Section II), or failure to respond to a negative proposed decision at the college level (see Section III), will constitute waiver of further appeal rights.

II. Appeal at the Departmental Level

Any faculty member has a right to receive a timely reconsideration of a departmental decision not to reappoint before that decision is forwarded to the dean.

1. Within one week after being notified of that decision, the faculty member may request a written statement of the reasons for the decision and the nature of the evidence. If such a statement is requested, it shall be provided to the faculty member by the chair within three weeks of the departmental decision.  The statement shall respect the limits set by the need to preserve confidentiality.
2. If the faculty member wishes to have the departmental decision reconsidered, he or she shall respond to the chair in writing within three weeks of receipt of the chair’s statement of reasons. The faculty member may address any issue that he or she deems appropriate, and may present new evidence.
3. The eligible voting faculty shall consider the chair’s statement and the faculty member’s response, and a second vote shall be taken. The final departmental decision and the reasons for it shall be provided in writing to the faculty member within three weeks of receipt of the faculty member’s response.

Note:  In schools and colleges that do not have a departmental structure, “department” shall refer to whatever faculty group makes the decision not to reappoint.

III. Appeal at the College Level

A. Review by a Dean’s Committee

If the department’s (or the college faculty’s in the case of the Johnson Graduate School of Management, the Hotel School, and the Law School) final decision is negative, the dean shall, at the request of the faculty member, appoint a committee of Cornell tenured faculty members or tenured faculty members from an appropriate academic institution outside of Cornell to review that decision, if the dean has not already done so on his or her own initiative. No one who has participated in the decision or has taken a position on the reappointment may serve on the committee. The candidate shall make his or her request for appointment of the committee within one week of notification of the department’s final negative decision, and the dean shall appoint the committee within three weeks of the candidate’s request.

B.  Decision by the Dean

Within three weeks of the receipt of the report of the dean’s committee, the dean shall furnish the faculty member with a preliminary written statement of his or her decision, the reasons for it, and the nature of the evidence within the limits set by the need to preserve confidentiality. For a two‑week period following receipt of the statement, the faculty member shall have the opportunity to respond to the dean, prior to the dean’s final decision. The decision of the dean shall be furnished the candidate in writing.

IV. Appeal at the University Level

For a two‑week period following receipt of the dean’s final negative decision, the faculty member may appeal that decision to the Provost. The decision of the Provost, and the reasons for it, shall be given in writing to the dean, the department, and the faculty member. The decision of the Provost shall not be subject to further appeal within the University.

Adopted by the Faculty Council of Representatives, May 13, 1981, Records, pp. 5342‑54C; Executive Committee, Board of Trustees, May 30, 1981, Records, p. 10,808, Appendix D, Records, pp. 10,828‑30; Board of Trustees, May 30, 1981, Records, p. 10,856; Faculty Council of Representatives, October 10, 1984, Records, pp. 5923‑39C; Board of Trustees January 25, 1985, Records, p. 357, Appendix A, pp. 369‑71.  Amended by the Faculty Senate, March 13, 2002, Records, pp. 9393-9394S, Appendix 2; Board of Trustees, June 20, 2002.

Not to Conduct a Tenure Review at the End of the Ordinary Tenure Probation Period on the Basis of Factors Other than the Candidate’s Merit

NOTE:  These procedures do not apply to decisions not to conduct an early tenure review. Such decisions, as opposed to a denial of tenure following a review, are not appealable whether initiated by the department or at the request of the faculty member.

I.  Rights

A. Right to Appeal

Any faculty member in probationary tenure status who is at the appropriate point in his or her career to be reviewed for tenure, and who is neither reappointed nor reviewed for tenure may appeal that decision at either the departmental or the college level, and at the University level. The candidate shall be informed of this right, and the procedures for exercising it, when he or she is first notified in writing of the decision not to initiate a tenure review.

B. Extension of Appointments

For the purpose of determining the start of the terminal appointment of a faculty member who is not reviewed for tenure, the date of notification shall be considered to be the date of written notification of the first negative decision, and shall be unaffected by subsequent appeals. Notice of a terminal appointment must be given in writing to an individual, which allows that individual to serve two full academic terms following receipt of the first written notice of the negative decision. An academic term [i.e. semester] is the period of time beginning two working days before registration and ending on the last day of final exams. For those notified of nonrenewal before the start of the final year of appointment, the final year fulfills the requirement of two terms of notice. However, if an appeal of that decision within the University is in progress at the end of the terminal appointment, the appointment shall be extended until the appeal is complete.

Should any party involved in an appeal find that he or she is unable to comply with one or more of the deadlines specified in this document, that party may, prior to the lapsing of the deadline, apply to the Dean of the Faculty for an extension. If the Dean finds the reasons given for an extension sufficient to justify it, the extension shall be granted and all involved parties notified. All extensions shall be for a specified period of time. In cases where an extension is granted at the request of the appellant, the appellant’s appointment shall not be extended under I.B. beyond the duration of the normal term of an appeal without the consent of the Provost.

C. Role of the Ombuds

Faculty members shall retain full access to the office of the Ombuds prior to and in the course of the appeals process.

D. Waiver or Loss of Appeal Rights

The candidate may waive the right to written explanations from the department chair and the dean, or may decline to pursue the appeals procedure at any stage. However, the appeal procedures herein described must be followed sequentially. Waiver of any stage of the appeals procedure shall cause the candidate’s right to proceed further to be forfeited. Thus, failure to request reconsideration of a negative departmental decision (see Section II) will constitute waiver of further appeal rights.

II.  Appeal at the Departmental Level

Any faculty member for whom a departmental tenure review is not initiated and who is eligible to appeal that decision (see I.A.) has a right to have the decision reconsidered by the department before it is forwarded to the dean.

1. Within one week after being notified of the departmental decision not to initiate a tenure review, the candidate may request a written statement of the reasons for that decision. If such a statement is requested, it shall be provided to the candidate by the chair within two weeks of the departmental decision.  The statement shall respect the limits set by the need to preserve confidentiality.
2. If the candidate wishes to have the departmental decision reconsidered, he or she shall respond to the chair in writing within three weeks of receipt of the chair’s statement of reasons. The candidate may address any issue or present any evidence that he or she deems appropriate.
3. The eligible voting faculty shall consider the chair’s statement and the candidate’s response, and a second vote shall be taken. The final departmental decision and the reasons for it shall be provided in writing to the candidate within three weeks of receipt of the candidate’s response.

Note:  In those schools and colleges without a departmental structure, “department” shall refer to those faculty who make the decision not to initiate a tenure review, and “chair” shall refer to the appropriate faculty member.

III.  Appeal at the College Level

If a dean makes a preliminary decision not to initiate a tenure review, he or she shall inform the candidate and the department in writing of the reasons for that decision. For a two‑week period following receipt of the dean’s statement, the candidate and/or the department shall have the opportunity to respond to the dean, prior to the dean’s final decision.

IV.  Appeal at the University Level

A. Filing an Appeal

If a dean or a department makes a final decision not to initiate a tenure review, the candidate may appeal that decision at the University level. The appeal must be filed in writing with the dean of the college and the Dean of the Faculty within two weeks of notification of the dean’s decision and must state the specific reasons for the appeal. The reasons must be based on one or more of the grounds listed in the following Section (IV.B.).

B. Grounds for an Appeal

The grounds for an appeal shall be limited to one or more of the following:

1. The stated reasons for the decision were contrary to the established regulations of the college or the University.
2. The stated reasons for the decision are unsupported by the evidence presented.

C. Selection of an Appeals Committee

An appeal shall be heard by an Appeals Committee composed of three tenured University faculty members. Within two weeks after the receipt of the appeal, the Dean of the Faculty shall be responsible for forming and charging an Appeals Committee to hear the appeal. Members of the Appeals Committee shall be selected in the following manner:

1. The appellant and the dean of the college shall each nominate two members of the University Appeals Panel. [Note:  In cases where the appeal follows a departmental decision not to initiate a tenure review, the dean of the college shall consult with the department before making his or her nominations.] The appellant’s nominees shall choose one of the dean’s nominees, and the dean’s nominees shall choose one of the appellant’s nominees. The two so chosen shall then choose a third tenured University Faculty member, who shall chair the committee. The chair shall be from the college of the appellant, except in those colleges where all tenured faculty members participate in each tenure decision.
2. Any person nominated who has previously participated in the decision in question or feels unable to render an unbiased judgment or perceives a conflict of interest shall disqualify him or herself. However, in those colleges where all tenured faculty have participated in the decision, the automatic disqualification of that college’s Appeals Committee members shall be waived if that is agreeable to both parties.

D. Principles and Restrictions to be Observed by the Appeals Committee

In its deliberations and findings, the Appeals Committee shall respect the following principles and restrictions:

1. The Committee’s review shall be limited to determining whether any one of the two possible grounds for appeal (listed in Section IV.B.) has been established.
2. The dean of the college and the department have the responsibility of setting the priorities of the department and the college. Therefore, the Committee shall avoid substituting its judgment in those matters for that of the dean or the department.

E. Appeals Committee Procedures

The following procedures shall govern the activity of the Appeals Committee:

1. The Committee shall have access to the file of the appellant. The Committee shall scrupulously protect the confidentiality of all documents and testimony.
2. In addition to examining written material, the Committee may hear the views of the principal parties and others it deems appropriate.
3. The Committee shall not be required to keep a transcript of its proceedings. The Committee shall maintain a record of the names of the persons interviewed and the titles of the documents considered.

F. Findings by the Appeals Committee

The Committee shall report in writing within five weeks after being formed. The report shall be furnished to both parties. It shall give its findings, the reasons for those findings, and its recommendations. These findings should be directly responsive to the grounds for appeal listed in Section IV.B. Before issuing the report, the Committee shall circulate a draft to both parties and invite responses.

The report of the committee shall also be sent to the Provost for final action. Within four weeks, the decision of the Provost and the reasons for it shall be given in writing to both principal parties, and a copy shall be sent to the Committee. The decision of the Provost shall not be subject to further appeal within the University.

V.  Disposition of Records and Files

The Dean of the Faculty shall maintain copies of all reports of Appeals Committee and shall maintain records of all subsequent actions within the University that occur in these cases. At the completion of an appeal, all case files shall be returned to the dean of the college.

On completion of the appeal, the chairperson of the Appeals Committee shall provide to the Dean of the Faculty a letter describing any difficulties encountered in applying or interpreting these procedures. The Dean of the Faculty shall maintain a file of these letters, a digest of their central points, and other documents useful to subsequent appeals committees or to anybody authorized by the FCR to evaluate these procedures.

Adopted by the Faculty Council of Representatives, May 13, 1981, Records, pp. 5342‑54C; Executive Committee, Board of Trustees, May 30, 1981, Records, p. 10,808, Appendix D, Records, pp. 10,846‑50; Board of Trustees, May 30, 1981, Records, p. 10,856; Faculty Council of Representatives, October 10, 1984, Records, pp. 5923‑39C (with editorial and stylistic changes incorporated by the Dean of Faculty and University Counsel); Board of Trustees, January 25, 1985, Records, p. 357, Appendix A, Records,  pp. 385‑88.  Amended by the Faculty Senate, March 13, 2002, Records, pp. 9393-9394S, Appendix 2; Board of Trustees, June 20, 2002.

Not to Grant Tenure

I.  Rights

A. Right to Appeal

Any faculty member who is reviewed for and denied tenure may appeal that decision at the departmental, college, and University levels.  The candidate shall be informed of this right, and the procedures for exercising it, when he or she is first notified in writing of a negative tenure decision.

B. Extension of Appointments

For the purpose of determining the start of the terminal appointment of a faculty member who is denied tenure, the date of notification shall be considered to be the date of written notification of the first negative decision, and shall be unaffected by subsequent appeals.  Notice of a terminal appointment must be given in writing to an individual, which allows that individual to serve two full academic terms following receipt of the first written notice of the negative decision.  An academic term [i.e. semester] is the period of time beginning two working days before registration and ending on the last day of final exams.  For those notified of nonrenewal before the start of the final year of appointment, the final year fulfills the requirement of two terms of notice. However, if appeal within the University is in progress at the end of the terminal appointment, the appointment shall be extended until the appeal is complete.

Should any party involved in an appeal find that he or she is unable to comply with one or more of the deadlines specified in this document, that party may, prior to the lapsing of the deadline, apply to the Dean of the Faculty for an extension.  If the Dean finds the reasons given for an extension sufficient to justify it, the extension shall be granted and all involved parties notified.  All extensions shall be for a specified period of time.  In cases where an extension is granted at the request of the appellant, the appellant’s appointment shall not be extended under I.B. beyond the duration of the normal term of an appeal without the consent of the Provost.

C. Role of the Ombuds

Faculty members shall retain full access to the office of the Ombuds prior to and in the course of the appeals process.

D. Waiver or Loss of Appeal Rights

The candidate may waive the right to written explanations from the department chair and the dean, or may decline to pursue the appeals procedure at any stage.  However, the appeal procedures herein described must be followed sequentially.  Waiver of any stage of the appeals procedure shall cause the candidate’s right to proceed further to be forfeited.  Thus, failure to request reconsideration of a negative departmental decision (see Section II), or failure to respond to a negative proposed decision at the college level (see Section III), will constitute waiver of further appeal rights.

II.  Appeal at the Departmental Level

Any faculty member has a right to receive a timely reconsideration of a negative departmental tenure decision before that decision is forwarded to the dean.

1. Within three weeks after being notified that the departmental decision is negative, the candidate will receive a written statement of the reasons for the decision and the nature of the evidence unless the candidate expressly relinquishes his or her right to receive the statement within one week of said notice. The statement shall respect the limits set by the need to preserve confidentiality.
2. If the candidate wishes to have the departmental decision reconsidered, he or she shall respond to the chair in writing within three weeks of receipt of the chair’s statement of reasons. The candidate may address any issue that he or she deems appropriate, and may present new evidence.
3. The eligible voting faculty shall consider the chair’s statement and the candidate’s response, and a second vote shall be taken. The final departmental decision and the reasons for it shall be provided in writing to the candidate within three weeks of receipt of the candidate’s response.

Note:  In the Law School, in II.A. “departmental” shall refer to the appointments committee.  In the Hotel School, “departmental” shall refer to the ad hoc committee, and “chair” shall refer to the assistant dean for academic affairs.  In the Graduate School of Management, “departmental” shall refer to the ad hoc committee, and “chair” shall refer to its chairperson.

III.  Appeal at the College Level

A. Review by an Ad Hoc Committee

If the department’s (or the college faculty’s in the case of the Johnson Graduate School of Management, the Hotel School, and the Law School) final decision is negative, the dean shall, at the request of the candidate, appoint an ad hoc committee of Cornell tenured faculty members or tenured faculty members from an appropriate academic institution outside of Cornell to review that decision, if the dean has not already done so on his or her own initiative.  No one who has participated in the decision or has taken a position on the review may serve on the committee.  The candidate shall make his or her request for appointment of the committee within one week of notification of the department’s final negative decision, and the dean shall appoint the committee within three weeks of the candidate’s request.

B. Reconsideration by the Dean

If a dean’s negative decision follows a positive departmental recommendation (or the college faculty’s in the case of the Johnson Graduate School of Management, the Hotel School and the Law School), the dean shall, prior to making that decision, appoint an ad hoc committee of Cornell tenured faculty members or tenured faculty members from an appropriate academic institution outside of Cornell. Within three weeks of receipt of the report of the ad hoc committee, the dean shall furnish the candidate and the department with a preliminary written statement of the reasons for that decision and the nature of the evidence within the limits set by the need to preserve confidentiality.  For a two-week period following receipt of the statement, the candidate and/or department shall have the opportunity to respond to the dean, prior to the dean’s final decision.

If the dean’s negative decision follows a negative departmental faculty or college/school faculty recommendation, the dean shall within three weeks of receipt of the report of the ad hoc committee furnish the candidate with a written statement of the reasons for that decision, within the limits set by the need to preserve confidentiality, and a copy shall be furnished the department.

IV.  Appeal at the University Level

A. Filing an Appeal

If the dean’s final decision is negative, the candidate or the department or the candidate and the department in concert may appeal that decision. The appeal must be filed in writing with the dean of the college and the Dean of the Faculty within two weeks of notification of the dean’s decision and must state the specific reasons for the appeal. The reasons must be based on one or more of the grounds listed in the following Section (IV.B.). Failure to raise a particular reason may be treated as a waiver of such a claim in this or any subsequent procedure.

B. Grounds for an Appeal

The grounds for an appeal shall be limited to one or more of the following:

1. During the appellant’s probationary period, he or she was unfairly and seriously hindered in meeting the department’s standards by having been put under obligation to accept unusual and unreasonably heavy duties for the department, college, or University or having been denied departmental support, contrary to the normal departmental practices.
2. During the appellant’s probationary period, he or she was unfairly and seriously hindered in meeting the department’s standards by having been given misleading information or information so inadequate as to be fully the equivalent of misleading information by the department chair or dean concerning the departmental or college expectations of candidates.
3. In the conduct of the tenure review, there were violations of the established procedures and practices of the department, the college, or the University. These violations were so serious that the appeals committee believes they affected the outcome of the tenure review.
4. The evaluation of the appellant was influenced by unlawful discrimination.
5. The evaluation of the appellant was substantially influenced by consideration of factors unrelated to the performance of the appellant in carrying out the professional and collegial responsibilities of his or her position, or by improper and unprofessional consideration of factors which, if properly considered, would be material and relevant. The violations were so serious that the appeals committee believes that they affected the outcome of the tenure review.
6. The decision was so inconsistent with the evidence in the record that it must be judged arbitrary or capricious. [The term arbitrary and capricious fundamentally describes actions which have no sound basis in law, fact or reason or are grounded solely in bad faith or personal desires. A determination is arbitrary and capricious only if it is one no reasonable mind could reach.]

C. The University Appeals Panel

An appeal shall be heard by an Appeals Committee composed of five tenured University faculty members. At least four members of the Appeals Committee shall be members of the University Appeals Panel. The Dean of the Faculty shall be responsible for establishing the University Appeals Panel, and maintaining a list of members. Each college shall elect five tenured faculty members, or five percent of its tenured faculty, whichever is greater, to the Panel. In addition, the President of the University shall appoint ten tenured faculty members to the Panel. The term of office shall be five years, with a rotation system developed at the time of the initial election.

D. Selection of an Appeals Committee

Within two weeks after the appeal of a college dean’s negative decision, the Dean of the Faculty shall be responsible for forming and charging an Appeals Committee to hear the appeal. Members of the Appeals Committee shall be selected in the following manner:

1. The appellant and the dean of the college shall each nominate four members of the University Appeals Panel. [Note:  In cases where the appeal follows a negative departmental recommendation, the dean of the college shall consult with the department before making his or her nominations.] The appellant’s nominees shall choose two of the dean’s nominees, and the dean’s nominees shall choose two of the appellant’s nominees. The four so chosen shall then choose a fifth tenured University Faculty member, who shall chair the committee. The chair shall be from the college of the appellant, except in those colleges where all tenured faculty members participate in each tenure decision.
2. Any person nominated who has previously participated in the review of the appellant or feels unable to render an unbiased judgment or perceives a conflict of interest shall disqualify him or herself. However, in those colleges where all tenured faculty participate in each tenure decision, the automatic disqualification of that college’s Appeals Committee members shall be waived if that is agreeable to both parties.

E.  Principles and Restrictions to be Observed by the Appeals Committee

In its deliberations and findings, the Appeals Committee shall respect the following principles and restrictions:

1. The Committee’s review shall be limited to determining whether any one of the six possible grounds for appeal (listed in Section IV.B.) has been established. The Committee may, if circumstances warrant, investigate and return findings concerning possible violations of the grounds for appeal (listed in Section IV.B.) not raised by the appellant.
2. The Committee shall recognize the central role of peer judgment in tenure decisions. Hence, the Committee shall avoid substituting its assessment of the appellant’s professional qualifications for those of the department and the experts outside the department who have been asked to submit evaluations. The Committee’s role in judging professional merit shall be limited to determining whether the recommendations of the department and the dean were arbitrary and capricious as defined in IV.B.5. or based on the inappropriate considerations listed in IV.B.3.and IV.B.4.
3. The dean of the college has a major responsibility in setting the priorities and maintaining the standards of the college. Therefore, the Committee shall avoid substituting its judgment in those matters for that of the dean.
4. It is impossible to make precise and universally agreed-upon evaluations of candidates. Therefore, the possibility that a different group of reasonable people might have come to a different conclusion concerning the merits of the appellant is insufficient grounds to sustain the appeal.
5. Comparisons with other tenure review cases may be used by the Committee in certain cases (See Section IV.F.l.). However, the Committee shall recognize the right and duty of departments to improve their quality or take into account different departmental needs, so long as this is not done as a pretext. A weak previous tenure appointment shall not by itself be taken to define the departmental standard.

F.  Appeals Committee Procedures

The following procedures shall govern the activity of the Appeals Committee:

1. The Committee shall have access to the tenure file of the appellant. If the appellant charges that the decision was arbitrary or capricious as defined in Section IV.B.5. or based on the inappropriate considerations listed in Sections IV.B.3. and IV.B.4., and if the Committee finds it essential to read the files of recent comparable cases within the college of the appellant to examine that charge, it shall have access to those files as well. However, the Committee shall not as a matter of course request access to the files of recent cases within a department or college. The Committee shall scrupulously protect the confidentiality of all documents and testimony.
2. In addition to examining written material, the Committee may hear the views of the principal parties and others it deems appropriate.
3. The Committee shall not be required to keep a transcript of its proceedings. The Committee shall maintain a record of the names of the persons interviewed and the titles of the documents considered.
4. The Committee shall report in writing within eight weeks after being formed. The report shall be furnished to the appellant and the department and the college dean. It shall give the Committee’s findings, and the reasons for those findings. These findings should be directly responsive to the grounds for appeal listed in Section IV.B.  Before issuing the report, the Committee shall circulate a draft to the appellant and the department and/or college dean and invite responses.

G. Findings by the Appeals Committee

The Appeals Committee shall make one or more of the following findings. The ensuing action shall be as stated:

1. If the Committee finds that none of the six possible appeal grounds (see Section IV.B.) has been established, it shall reject the appeal. This decision shall not be subject to further appeal within the University.
2. If the Committee finds that the ground for appeal in Section IV.B.l. has been established, it may recommend that the appellant’s appointment be extended for a fixed period, after which a new tenure review shall be undertaken. It is expected that the dean will follow the Committee’s recommendation. If the dean chooses not to grant the recommended extensions, the Committee’s report and the written response of the dean shall be forwarded to the Provost. Within four weeks, the decision of the Provost and the reasons for it shall be given in writing to both principal parties, and a copy shall be sent to the Committee. The decision of the Provost shall not be subject to further appeal within the University.
3. If the Committee finds that any other ground for appeal in Section IV.B. has been established, it may return the case to the dean of the college for reconsideration. The dean shall promptly take appropriate action to correct the deficiencies that the Committee has found, and shall provide a written report of the reconsidered decision to the Committee, the department, and the appellant. If the reconsideration results in an affirmation of the original decision, this judgment shall be reviewed by the original Appeals Committee, which shall take the following action.

a. If the Appeals Committee finds that the tenure review process no longer has serious deficiencies, it shall reject the appeal. This action shall not be subject to further appeal within the University.

b. If the Committee finds that the tenure review process continues to have serious deficiencies and that an independent academic evaluation is appropriate, a panel of professionally qualified and not previously involved expert scholars from inside or outside Cornell shall be appointed to review the case and make a recommendation as to the granting of tenure. The panel’s review shall not constitute an additional appeal from the department’s or dean’s decision, but shall constitute a new independent judgment concerning the candidate’s academic qualifications for tenure. The panel shall be appointed jointly by the chair of the Appeals Committee, the Dean of the Faculty, and the President of the University. The panel shall be entitled to all of the evidence on which the original substantive decision was based and shall be entitled to collect such further evidence deemed necessary to reach a new substantive judgment. The recommendation of the panel of expert scholars and the response of the Appeals Committee, the dean, the department, and the appellant shall  be forwarded to the Provost. Within four weeks, the decision of the Provost and the reasons for it shall be given in writing to both principal parties, and a copy shall be sent to the Committee. The decision of the Provost shall not be subject to further appeal within the University.

Note:  Nothing in this document shall be construed to prevent an appeals committee from attempting to arrange an informal settlement of the complaints if it believes that fairness can, thereby, be served and that such an arrangement best serves the interests of the appellant, the department, the dean and the University. No action may be taken under this provision unless it is agreed to by the dean, the department, and the appellant.

V.  Disposition of Records and Files

The Dean of the Faculty shall maintain copies of all reports of Appeals Committees and shall maintain records of all subsequent actions within the University that occur in these cases. At the completion of an appeal, all case files shall be returned to the dean of the college.

On completion of the appeal, the chairperson of the Appeals Committee shall provide to the Dean of the Faculty a letter describing any difficulties encountered in applying or interpreting these procedures. The Dean of the Faculty shall maintain a file of these letters, a digest of their central points, and other documents useful to subsequent appeals committees or to anybody authorized by the FCR to evaluate these procedures.

Adopted by the Faculty Council of Representatives, May 13, 1981, Records, pp. 5342-54C; Executive Committee, Board of Trustees, May 30, 1981, Records, p. 10,808, Appendix D, Records, pp. 10,831-38; Board of Trustees, May 30, 1981, Records, p. 10,856; Faculty Council of Representatives, October 10, 1984, Records, pp. 5923-39C (with editorial and stylistic changes incorporated by the Dean of Faculty and University Counsel); Board of Trustees, January 25, 1985, Records, p. 357, Appendix A, Records, pp. 372-78.  Amended by the Faculty Senate, March 13, 2002, Records, pp. 9393-9394S, Appendix 2; Board of Trustees, June 20, 2002.

Not to Promote to Full Professor

Note: After some definite number of years of service as a tenured professor, a faculty member has a right to a review for promotion to full professor. If the faculty member does not wish to be reviewed, the review will not take place. If the initial review does not result in promotion, the faculty member has a right to at least one subsequent (and perhaps more) reviews within some definite period of time. A dean will not reject a departmental recommendation to promote a faculty member to full professor without first having appointed and received the report of an ad hoc committee.

I.  Rights

A. Right to Appeal

Any tenured faculty member who is reviewed for and denied promotion to full professor may appeal that decision at the departmental, college, and University levels subject to the limitations in I.B. The candidate shall be informed of this right, and the procedures for exercising it, when he or she is first notified of a negative promotion decision.

B. Limitations to the Right of Appeal

A faculty member who is denied promotion may appeal that decision even though he or she was denied promotion on a previous occasion and appealed that decision. However, a University level appeal may not address issues that were settled in a prior appeal, but must be based on evidence that was not previously presented at a University level appeal proceeding.

C. Role of the Ombuds

Faculty members shall retain full access to the office of the Ombuds prior to and in the course of the appeals process.

D. Waiver or Loss of Appeal Rights

The candidate may waive the right to written explanations from the department chair and the dean, or may decline to pursue the appeals procedure at any stage.  However, the appeals procedures herein described must be followed sequentially. Waiver of any stage of the appeals procedure shall cause the candidate’s right to proceed further to be forfeited. Thus, failure to request reconsideration of a negative departmental decision (see Section II), or failure to respond to a negative proposed decision at the college level (see Section III), will constitute waiver of further appeal rights of this particular decision.

Note:  Should any party involved in an appeal find that he or she is unable to comply with one or more of the deadlines specified in this document, that party may, prior to the lapsing of the deadline, apply to the Dean of the Faculty for an extension. If the Dean finds the reasons given for an extension sufficient to justify it, the extension shall be granted and all involved parties notified. All extensions shall be for a specified period of time.

II.  Appeal at the Departmental Level

Any tenured faculty member has a right to receive a timely reconsideration of a departmental decision not to promote to full professor before that decision is forwarded to the dean.

1. Within three weeks after being notified that the departmental decision is negative, the candidate will receive a written statement of the reasons for the decision and the nature of the evidence unless the candidate expressly relinquishes his or her right to receive the statement within one week of said notice. The statement shall respect the limits set by the need to preserve confidentiality.
2. If the candidate wishes to have the departmental decision reconsidered, he or she shall respond to the chair in writing within three weeks of receipt of the chair’s statement of reasons. The candidate may address any issue that he or she deems appropriate, and may present new evidence.
3. The eligible voting faculty shall consider the chair’s statement and the candidate’s response, and a second vote shall be taken. The final departmental decision and the reasons for it shall be provided in writing to the candidate within three weeks of receipt of the candidate’s response.

Note:  In schools or colleges without departmental structure “departmental” shall refer to the group of full professors who vote on the recommendation that is forwarded to the dean, and “chair” shall refer to an appropriate faculty member.

III.  Appeal at the College Level

A. Review by an Ad Hoc Committee

If the department’s final decision is negative, the dean shall, at the request of the candidate, appoint an ad hoc committee to review that decision, if the dean has not already done so on his or her own initiative. The candidate shall make his or her request for appointment of the committee within one week of notification of the department’s final negative decision, and the dean shall appoint the committee within three weeks of the candidate’s request.

Note:  In those schools or colleges that do not use ad hoc committees in the case of positive departmental recommendations, III.A. shall not apply.

B. Reconsideration by the Dean

If a dean’s negative decision follows a positive departmental recommendation, the dean shall, within three weeks of receipt of the report of the ad hoc committee, furnish the candidate and the department with a preliminary written statement of the reasons for that decision and the nature of the evidence within the limits set by the need to preserve confidentiality. For a two‑week period following receipt of the statement, the candidate and/or department shall have the opportunity to respond to the dean, prior to the dean’s final decision.

If the dean’s negative decision follows a negative departmental recommendation, the dean shall within three weeks of receipt of the report of the ad hoc committee furnish the candidate and the department with a written statement of the reasons for that decision, within the limits set by the need to preserve confidentiality.

Note:  In those schools or colleges that do not use ad hoc committees in the case of positive departmental recommendations, and therefore do not use them in III.A., the three week time period after which the dean must reply shall start when the dean receives the report of the appropriate faculty group.

IV.  Appeal at the University Level

A. Filing an Appeal

If the dean’s final decision is negative, the candidate or the department (with the written consent of the candidate) or the candidate and the department in concert, may appeal that decision. The appeal must be filed in writing with the dean of the college and the Dean of the Faculty within two weeks of notification of the dean’s decision and must state the specific reasons for the appeal. The reasons must be based on one or more of the grounds listed in the following Section (IV.B.), and must be based on evidence that was not presented in any prior appeal at the University level. Failure to raise a particular reason when filing the appeal may be treated as a waiver of such a claim in this or any subsequent procedure during this appeal process.

B. Grounds for an Appeal

The grounds for an appeal shall be limited to one or more of the following:

1. In the conduct of the promotion review, there were violations of the established procedures and practices of the department, the college, or the University. These violations were so serious that the Appeals Committee believes they affected the outcome of the promotion review.
2. The evaluation of the appellant was influenced by unlawful discrimination.
3. The evaluation of the appellant was substantially influenced by consideration of factors unrelated to the performance of the appellant in carrying out the professional and collegial responsibilities of his or her position, or by improper and unprofessional consideration of factors which, if properly considered, would be material and relevant. The violations were so serious that the Appeals Committee believes that they affected the outcome of the promotion review.
4. The decision was so inconsistent with the evidence in the record that it must be judged arbitrary or capricious. [Note:  The term arbitrary and capricious fundamentally describes actions which have no sound basis in law, fact or reason or are grounded solely in bad faith or personal desire. A determination is arbitrary and capricious only if it is one no reasonable mind could reach.]

C. Selection of an Appeals Committee

An appeal shall be heard by an Appeals Committee composed of five full professors in the University. Within two weeks after the appeal of a college dean’s negative decision, the Dean of the Faculty shall be responsible for forming and charging an Appeals Committee to hear the appeal. Members of the Appeals Committee shall be selected in the following manner:

1. The appellant and the dean of the college shall each nominate four members of the University Appeals Panel. [Note:  In cases where the appeal follows a decision by the department not to promote to full professor, the dean of the college shall consult with the department before making his or her nominations.] The appellant’s nominees shall choose two of the dean’s nominees, and the dean’s nominees shall choose two of the appellant’s nominees.  The four so chosen shall then choose a fifth full professor in the University, who shall chair the committee. The chair shall be from the college of the appellant, except in those colleges where all full professors participate in each promotion decision.
2. Any person nominated who has previously participated in the review of the appellant or feels unable to render an unbiased judgment or perceives a conflict of interest shall disqualify him or herself. However, in those colleges where all full professors participate in each promotion decision, the automatic disqualification of that college’s Appeals Committee members shall be waived if that is agreeable to both parties.

D. Principles and Restrictions to be Observed by the Appeals Committee

In its deliberations and findings, the Appeals Committee shall respect the following principles and restrictions:

1. The Committee’s review shall be limited to determining whether any one of the four possible grounds for appeal (listed in Section IV.B.) has been established. The Committee may, if circumstances warrant, investigate and return findings concerning possible violations of the grounds for appeal (listed in Section IV.B.) not raised by the appellant.
2. The Committee shall recognize the central role of peer judgment in promotion decisions. Hence, the Committee shall avoid substituting its assessment of the appellant’s professional qualifications for those of the department and the experts outside the department who have been asked to submit evaluations.  The Committee’s role in judging professional merit shall be limited to determining whether the recommendations of the department and the dean were arbitrary and capricious as defined in IV.B.4., or based on the inappropriate considerations listed in IV.B.2. and IV.B.3.
3. The dean of the college has a major responsibility in maintaining the standards of the college. Therefore, the Committee shall avoid substituting its judgment in those matters for that of the dean.
4. It is impossible to make precise and universally agreed‑upon evaluations of candidates. Therefore, the possibility that a different group of reasonable people might have come to a different conclusion concerning the merits of the appellant is insufficient grounds to sustain the appeal.
5. Comparisons with other promotion review cases may be used by the Committee in certain cases (see Section IV.E.l.). However, the Committee shall recognize the right and duty of departments to raise the standards for promotion to full professor or take into account different departmental needs or particular individual circumstances, so long as this is not done as a pretext. A weak previous promotion to full professor shall not by itself be taken to define the departmental standard for promotions.
6. If a faculty member has appealed a previous decision not to promote to full professor, the Appeals Committee shall not reconsider the decision of the previous Appeals Committee, or the evidence upon which it was based.

E. Appeals Committee Procedures

The following procedures shall govern the activity of the Appeals Committee:

1. The Committee shall have access to the promotion file of the appellant. If the appellant charges that the decision was arbitrary or capricious as defined in Section IV.B.4 or based on the inappropriate considerations listed in Sections IV.B.2 and IV.B.3. and if the Committee finds it essential to read the files of recent comparable cases within the college of the appellant to examine that charge, it shall have access to those files as well. However, in its request for access to a particular file, the Committee shall state in writing how each particular comparison case satisfies the following criteria:  a. It is sufficiently recent. b. It is sufficiently comparable in circumstances. c. It is impossible to examine the allegation made by the appellant without access to the requested file. The Committee shall scrupulously protect the confidentiality of all documents and testimony.
2. In addition to examining written material, the Committee may hear the views of the principal parties and others it deems appropriate.
3. The Committee shall not be required to keep a transcript of its proceedings. The Committee shall maintain a record of the names of the persons interviewed and the titles of the documents considered.
4. The Committee shall report in writing within eight weeks after being formed. The  report shall be furnished to the appellant and the department and the college dean. It shall give the Committee’s findings, and the reasons for those findings. These findings should be directly responsive to the grounds for appeal listed in Section IV.B.  Before issuing the report, the Committee shall circulate a draft to the appellant and the department and/or college dean and invite responses.

F. Findings by the Appeals Committee

The Appeals Committee shall make one or more of the following findings. The ensuing action shall be as stated:

1. If the Committee finds that none of the four possible appeal grounds (see Section IV.B.) has been established, it shall reject the appeal. This decision shall not be subject to further appeal within the University.
2. If the Committee finds that the ground for appeal has been established, it may return the case to the dean of the college for reconsideration. The dean shall promptly take appropriate action to correct the deficiencies that the Committee has found, and shall provide a written report of the reconsidered decision to the Committee, the department, and the appellant. If the reconsideration results in an affirmation of the original decision, this judgment shall be reviewed by the original Appeals Committee, which shall take the following action:

a. If the Appeals Committee finds that the promotion review process no longer has serious deficiencies, it shall reject the appeal. This action shall not be subject to further appeal within the University.

b. If the Committee finds that the promotion review process continues to have serious deficiencies, it shall forward its findings to the Provost for final action. Within four weeks, the decision of the Provost and the reasons for it shall be given in writing to both principal parties, and a copy shall be sent to the Committee. The decision of the Provost shall not be subject to further appeal within the University.

V. Disposition of Records and Files

The Dean of the Faculty shall maintain copies of all reports of Appeals Committees and shall maintain records of all subsequent actions within the University that occur in these cases. At the completion of an appeal, all case files shall be returned to the dean of the college.

On completion of the appeal, the chairperson of the Appeals Committee shall provide to the Dean of the Faculty a letter describing any difficulties encountered in applying or interpreting these procedures. The Dean of the Faculty shall maintain a file of these letters, a digest of their central points, and other documents useful to subsequent appeals committees or to anybody authorized by the FCR to evaluate these procedures.

Adopted by the Faculty Council of Representatives, May 13, 1981, Records, pp. 5342‑54C;  Executive Committee, Board of Trustees, May 30, 1981, Records, p. 10,808, Appendix D, Records, pp. 10,839‑45; Board of Trustees, May 30, 1981, Records, p. 10,856; Faculty Council of Representatives, October 10, 1984, Records, pp. 5923‑39C (with editorial and stylistic changes incorporated by the Dean of Faculty and University Counsel); Board of Trustees, January 25, 1985, Records p. 357, Appendix A, Records, pp. 379‑84.