revised: June 2007
The University, including Barnard College but excepting the Faculty of Law, follows a regular system of review by an ad hoc committee whenever a school or department recommends a candidate for a tenure position. This review is conducted whether or not the nominee is at the time an officer of instruction in the University. The purpose of the system of tenure review is to ensure that the same standards of judgment are applied to all appointments to tenure in the University, regardless of the school or department originating the nomination and thereby to secure faculty of comparable quality and distinction throughout the University.
Ad hoc committees serve in an advisory capacity to the Provost who determines whether the nominees should be recommended to the President and Trustees of Columbia University for tenure. The ad hoc system is administered on behalf of the Provost by the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Administration.
This document governs the review of tenure nominations originating in Barnard College. While the criteria and standards of judgment for all tenure nominations in the University are the same, the procedures by which Barnard nominations are reviewed differ in some respects, according to the provisions contained in the Amended Agreement between the University and Barnard, dated June 8, 1982. In the case of inconsistencies between this document and the Amended Agreement, the provisions of the Agreement govern. Part I of this document sets forth the general policies and procedures that guide the review of Barnard nominations. Part II provides guidelines for Barnard departments to follow in preparing nominations for ad hoc committee review and a schedule for submitting materials to the Provost of the University. A separate document sets forth the policies and procedures which govern the tenure review of candidates from other parts of the University.
Part I of this document sets forth the general policies and procedures that guide the review process as a whole. Part II provides guidelines for schools and departments to follow in preparing nominations for ad hoc committee review and a schedule for submitting materials to the Provost.
Part I of this document begins with a discussion of the criteria by which nominations to tenure from Barnard College are evaluated. These are the same as the criteria used for the rest of the University, with the exception that the need for the appointment is not considered by the ad hoc committee. The Amended Agreement provides that the question of need is the subject of a consultative process involving the nominating department at Barnard and its counterpart in the University, with the final decision resting with Barnard. Therefore, Part I continues by separately describing the consultative arrangements mandated by the Amended Agreement and the evidence which is considered by an ad hoc committee. It then explains how ad hoc committees are constituted and describes the work of the committees and the manner in which their meetings are conducted. A final section discusses the confidentiality expected of all those who take part in the tenure review process.
An appointment to tenure is made in the University only when an individual of widely recognized excellence is found to fill a scholarly need that is demonstrably vital to a discipline central to the College’s and the University’s purposes. The process of tenure review, therefore, is concerned both with the state and objectives of the nominating department and with the qualities of the nominee. The first of these considerations is evaluated through the consultative process described in the next section of this document, with Barnard making the final decision on academic need; the review of the ad hoc committee is confined to the second, using the criteria described below.
In every instance, a candidate for tenure must be an outstanding scholar; a person who has demonstrated the capacity for imaginative and original work and who shows promise of continuing to make significant contributions to research. Excellence as a teacher is also necessary, but by itself is not a sufficient basis for tenure. The essential requirement for the appointment of any nominee is scholarly achievement testifying to an unusually original and creative mind.
Regardless of academic age, every candidate should have produced work of truly outstanding quality. The quantity of publications is of lesser concern. A candidate need not be one who has published much, provided his or her scholarly work meets the University’s high standards of excellence. Tenure, however, is not simply a reward for past accomplishments. It is also a vote of confidence that the candidate will continue to be an important and productive scholar. Thus, a candidate must continue to have an active scholarly agenda that shows strong promise of yielding answers to fundamental questions in his or her discipline.
Peer esteem is a valuable measure of scholarly ability. Established scholars must be widely recognized as being among the leaders in their disciplines. Younger scholars must have achieved an exceptional level of scholarly accomplishment which demonstrates extraordinary promise. If a younger scholar lacks recognition, it must be for reasons of academic age alone. Serious consideration should be given only to those younger scholars who can be expected, with a high degree of confidence, to become leaders in their disciplines.
Nor is any lesser standard to be applied when the candidate is in a professional or artistic discipline. The customary academic measure provided by publications and papers may be augmented or replaced by other considerations, such as creative works of arts. However, in every case, candidates must have a record of highly original accomplishments, exhibit the potential for continuing to make influential professional or artistic contributions and be regarded by their peers as among the very best in their fields.
These criteria must necessarily be interpreted with flexibility to take into account the differing disciplines of the candidates. Nonetheless, all candidates must be or have the potential of becoming leading figures in their fields. The burden of demonstrating that a candidate meets those criteria rests with the nominating department. If the ad hoc committee believes that the department has not made a compelling affirmative case for the nominee, it should not hesitate to recommend against awarding tenure. If the committee is satisfied that the candidate is truly an outstanding scholar in mind and in performance, it should recommend in favor of the appointment.
When a department at Barnard College decides to consider a tenure nomination, its chair formally notifies the chair of the counterpart department at Columbia. The Columbia chair designates one or more departmental representatives who work with the Barnard department in evaluating the nomination. In the case of an external candidate, the consultations begin with the participation of the representatives of the counterpart department in the search and selection process. The precise manner and extent of the consultations between the two departments are at the discretion of their chairs, subject to the review of the University’s Vice President for Arts and Sciences and the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard.
The Vice President for Arts and Sciences works with the representatives of the counterpart department in an advisory capacity in evaluating the current state and objectives of the Barnard department and judging whether the nomination fills an appropriate academic need. If the counterpart department wishes to state its views formally on these matters, it does so in writing to the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard through the Vice President for Arts and Sciences. Following these consultations, Barnard makes the final decision on the subject of academic need.
If the Barnard department votes to proceed with a nomination, a complete tenure dossier is forwarded to the Columbia department for the review of its members. The Barnard chair then presents the case for the candidate to the counterpart Columbia department which discusses the nomination and votes on the qualifications of the candidate. The results of this vote are communicated to the Barnard department, the Vice President for Arts and Sciences, and the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard. A record of the vote on the nominee’s qualifications and a written assessment of his or her qualifications are also included in the dossier given to the ad hoc committee.
Following the receipt of the vote and the accompanying evaluation, the Barnard department makes its final recommendation on whether or not to nominate the candidate.
Every nomination sent to the Provost of the University should be accompanied by the same types of materials for the ad hoc committee's review. While the department originating the nomination will take the lead in preparing these materials, the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard reviews them for completeness and accuracy and sees that they are submitted in a timely fashion after a positive recommendation by Barnard’s Appointment, Tenure and Promotion Committee and the approval of the Barnard President.
The Provost of the University has established a schedule for the submission of nominations and dossiers which may be found in Part II of this document. Failure to observe the deadlines it contains may result in the postponement of the ad hoc review to the following academic year, or, in the case of an internal candidate in the seventh year of counted service, to a decision not to hold a review, in which case the individual’s full-time instructional appointment will be terminated after an eighth and final year.
The Senior Vice Provost’s Office normally does not schedule the meeting of the ad hoc committee until it has received a complete set of the materials described in this document. The department chair should, therefore, submit the dossier to the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard as early as possible, following the procedures and time lines established by Barnard for its own review process. The original dossier may be augmented with new materials at any point prior to the meeting of the ad hoc committee. It is especially important for the department chair to ensure that the committee has a current curriculum vitae at the time of its meeting.
In judging a Barnard nomination, an ad hoc committee relies especially on evidence of three kinds:
(1) supporting documents including a representative sample of the candidate’s work;
(2) letters of evaluation solicited from recognized scholars in the nominee’s discipline; and
(3) the personal testimony of witnesses.
Each of these is briefly described below. Part II of this document contains more detailed guidelines for the preparation of the written materials in a candidate’s dossier.
1. Supporting Statements: The nominating department prepares two written statements for the ad hoc committee:
a) The Report on the Search and Selection Process addresses the methods by which the nominee was chosen. It describes how possible candidates were identified, explains how and why the nominee was selected over others, and reports on the formal vote by which the nomination to tenure was made. It also includes the vote of the counterpart department in the University on the nominee’s qualifications. Whenever members of the nominating department or counterpart department oppose a nomination or abstain, the departmental report includes an explanation of the reasons for their votes. A dissenting faculty member is also expected to prepare a written assessment of the candidate which may accompany the report or, at the individual’s discretion, be submitted directly to the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard or the Provost of the University. Copies of all correspondence obtained as part of the search and selection process are included with this report.
The selection of an external nominee is preceded by a full outside search. The Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard will permit exceptions only when there is a rare opportunity to appoint an individual who is widely recognized to be among a very small group of leading scholars, none of whom would normally be expected to be available. The Provost and Dean of the Faculty may also authorize exceptions in the case of the promotion of non tenured faculty who meet the scholarly criteria specified in this document in a comparative evaluation with others in the field.
Nominations for ad hoc review require a favorable vote by a majority of the tenured faculty in the Barnard department, a favorable review by the College’s Committee on Appointments, Tenure and Promotion, the endorsement of the Provost and Dean of the Faculty, and the approval of the President of the College. Joint appointments require positive votes from all of the nominating departments. Following the submission of a nomination to the Provost of the University, the President of the College retains the right to withdraw it at any point prior to its approval by the Trustees of the University.
When one department has voted not to nominate, a second may initiate a review of the candidate only with the prior permission of the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard and the Provost of the University. In such cases, this statement also describes the earlier evaluation, the reasons why the original decision was negative and why the nominating department believes those reasons are no longer valid.
b) The Statement on the Nominee’s Qualifications evaluates the nominee on the basis of scholarly achievements and potential for future growth, teaching ability, and record of service to the College, University and profession. It also compares the candidate with the leading scholars in the field.
These statements provide the core of the nominating faculty’s case for the tenure appointment. They are accompanied by the following supporting materials:
• A current curriculum vitae supplemented, if necessary, with sufficient information to provide a complete record of the nominee’s academic and professional training, achievements, and previous employment.
• A representative set of the nominee’s written work, published and unpublished.
• Evidence of the nominee's contribution to the educational programs of the department and the College, such as course syllabi.
• Evaluations of teaching performance, such as student or departmental reviews, and other evidence of the nominee’s abilities as a teacher.
• The vote of the counterpart department in Columbia’s Arts and Sciences and a statement of its assessment of the candidate’s qualifications.
• A brief statement from the nominee that discusses his or her current research and teaching and plans for future projects. The Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard may waive this requirement in the case of external recruits to tenure.
• Any additional information the nominating department wishes the ad hoc committee to consider, such as reviews of publications.
2. Referee Letters: Written evaluations of the proposed appointment by recognized authorities form a critical source of information for the ad hoc committee. These evaluations are solicited by the Provost and Dean of the Faculty and are used by the Barnard department, its University counterpart, and the Barnard President’s Advisory Committee on Appointments, Tenure and Promotion in their reviews of the candidate. As part of its work of evaluation, described below, an ad hoc committee may request that further referee letters be solicited by the Provost of the University.
A copy of the standard letter which is sent to referees for Barnard nominations is shown as Exhibit A. This letter may be modified by agreement between the Provost of the University and the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard. A sample copy of the letter of request and copies of all replies received, as well as a complete list of persons solicited, are included in the nominee’s dossier. Any additional letters solicited by the Provost of the University are shared with the chair of the nominating department and its University counterpart, and with the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard, unless specifically restricted to the Provost and the ad hoc committee by the referee.
The Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard determines how many scholars should be contacted for evaluations as well as their identities. Typically, a dossier will contain 12-15 referee letters. The number of evaluations matters less than the scholars who provided them. Referees should consist primarily of the leading individuals in the nominee’s field of specialization, but may also be established scholars or professionals in related fields who can provide the ad hoc committee with informed evaluations of the nominee’s work. They may include scholars from abroad as well as from other institutions in the United States but may not be members of the faculty of Barnard or Columbia.
Each referee is asked to compare the candidate with other scholars in his or her field. In selecting the comparison scholars, care should be taken to define the field of specialization in which the appointment is being proposed in a manner which is appropriate but not so narrow that the referees find it difficult to make meaningful comparisons between the nominee and other scholars. The comparison list always contains leading figures in the nominee’s field of specialization as well as the most outstanding of his or her peers, even when the nominee is a younger scholar. In these cases, the referees are asked to give their assessment of whether the nominee has the potential of reaching the level of achievement of the more senior comparison scholars. A comparison list generally contains four to six names and should not exceed eight.
Since the comparison scholars are chosen on the basis of their academic distinction, they too may be asked for evaluations of the nominee. While they should not be excluded from the list of referees simply because they are peers of the nominee, there may be other reasons why they should not be asked for evaluations. For example, a comparison scholar may hold a non tenured appointment at another university or have applied for the position for which the candidate is being considered.
The Provost and Dean of the Faculty collects the referee evaluations before the department decides whether to nominate the candidate for tenure. Typically the letters are solicited at the start of the unit’s internal deliberations but may be obtained at another point in the process. Regardless of when the letters are collected, they are shared with the department, before it votes on the nomination.
To assist the referees, they are provided with the nominee's curriculum vitae and, at the discretion of the Provost and Dean of the Faculty, samples of the nominee's written work. As a matter of courtesy, potential referees are normally contacted prior to being sent a request for an evaluation to determine if they are willing to undertake the work involved. The Provost and Dean of the Faculty may delegate the responsibility for making that inquiry to the department. However, in all cases, the potential referees should be contacted in writing rather than by phone, and a list of those who declined to write should be included in the candidate’s dossier along with their responses explaining why.
The Provost and Dean of the Faculty coordinates the selection of referees and comparison scholars with the search by the Office of the Provost for the outside member of the candidate’s ad hoc committee. The Provost and Dean of the Faculty or the chair of the nominating departments submits the proposed lists to the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Administration, along with other materials as described in later sections of this document, and waits for the Senior Vice Provost to identify the outside member before making any requests for referee evaluations.
3. Witnesses: The Provost of the University regularly calls upon persons to appear before the committee who can present information on the nominee’s qualifications. These witnesses are selected in consultation with the chair of the ad hoc committee, the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard, and the department chair.
The department chair presents the case for the nominee and is usually the principal witness. He or she may delegate this responsibility to another tenured faculty member who can more effectively discuss the nominee’s qualifications. A second witness from the counterpart department at the University is also asked to testify on the quality of the candidate’s scholarship. At the discretion of the ad hoc committee, other witnesses from within or outside the University may be invited to give testimony. Above all, if there is evidence of disagreement within the nominating department or its Columbia counterpart regarding the nominee’s qualifications, special care is taken to ensure that all relevant views are adequately presented to the committee. The Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard and the chair of the department are informed in advance of all witnesses who appear will before the ad hoc committee.
When the candidate will have appointments in more than one department, the chairs of all of the relevant units are routinely invited to appear before the committee.
The Provost of the University appoints ad hoc committees in consultation with a Tenure Review Advisory Committee (TRAC) consisting of at least nine members of the tenured faculty selected for three-year terms by the Provost, plus the Vice President for Arts and Sciences, the Executive Vice President for Health and Biomedical Sciences, and the Executive Vice President for Research, who serve ex officio.
The members of an ad hoc committee are chosen primary from tenured faculty who are familiar with the candidate’s field of specialization. Each ad hoc committee reviewing a Barnard nomination consists of two tenured members of the University faculty, two from Barnard, and one from an academic institution which is unaffiliated with either. One of the members from the University or Barnard is selected as its chair. The Provost appoints the Barnard members from a list of four names provided by the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard. TRAC and the Provost may ask the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard for additional recommendations. The Provost appoints the outside member with the advice of the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard and the Barnard department chair.
The University members of the ad hoc committee may hold appointments in any of its Faculties other than Barnard, including Teachers College. Faculty with tenure of title who have passed ad hoc review may also be asked to serve, as may retired members of the tenured faculty when TRAC and the Provost conclude that they can bring a needed expertise to the evaluation of a candidate.
Since the purpose of the ad hoc system is to provide a second, truly independent review of every nomination, members of a nominating department and its University counterpart are not asked to serve on the ad hoc committees for its candidates, nor are individuals in other parts of the University who have collaborated with the nominee. Similarly, faculty in other departments or schools are excluded from ad hoc service when they have voted on the candidacy, participated as members of a search committee which selected the nominee for the tenure appointment or served on Barnard’s Committee on Appointments, Tenure and Promotion.
While every effort is made to avoid asking professors on leave to serve, it is sometimes necessary to appoint them to ad hoc committees. A professor already sitting on one ad hoc committee is appointed to a second in the same academic year only when the Provost of the University and TRAC consider his or her expertise to be essential to the conduct of the review.
The outside member of an ad hoc committee is from the same discipline as the nominee. He or she may not be someone who has collaborated with the candidate, written a letter of evaluation for the tenure review or served as a colleague at another institution. Similarly excluded from consideration are individuals who participated in the candidate’s doctoral or postdoctoral training or who were trained by the candidate. To avoid the possibility of a prior association, the Provost normally does not ask other scholars who were at the institutions at which the candidate was a doctoral student or a postdoc.
The Senior Vice Provost for Academic Administration conducts the search for an outside member on behalf of the Provost of the University. In compiling a list of recommendations, the Senior Vice Provost normally consults with the appropriate chair, the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard and with scholars at other universities as well as the members of TRAC. The Senior Vice Provost typically starts by asking the chair for suggestions. Before responding, that officer may consult with other faculty at the College, University or other institutions but not with the candidate. Along with the recommendations for the outside member, the chair submits the names of several scholars at other institutions with whom the Senior Vice Provost can consult for further suggestions, and the proposed referee and comparison lists. Before submitting a list of possible outsiders to the members of TRAC and the Provost of the University, the Senior Vice Provost will give the chair an opportunity to comment on their suitability. It is the responsibility of the chair to raise any questions about the appropriateness of a proposed outsider at that time. The Provost will take any such information into consideration but reserves the right to ask anyone he or she deems to have the expertise needed to evaluate the candidate.
It is the responsibility of an ad hoc committee, working under the guidance of its chair, to conduct a thorough and independent review of the nomination it has been asked to consider. A committee should not feel pressured to come to a hasty judgment. At the same time, fairness to the candidate and the interests of the University require that the committee complete its review and reach its decision as soon as it responsibly can.
The work of an ad hoc committee begins with a careful review of the nominee’s dossier. This includes a critical reading of the candidate’s scholarly work. While referee evaluations provide the committee with the views of leading scholars in the nominee’s field, these cannot substitute for the members’ own reasoned assessment of the quality of the nominee’s scholarship.
The committee chair is responsible for ensuring that the dossier is sufficient to meet the committee’s needs. The chair is expected to consult with the rest of the committee in advance of its meeting to determine whether further information is needed and to alert each member to any concerns that other members might have about the nomination.
After evaluating the documentation presented by the nominating department, the ad hoc committee is expected to make any further inquiries it feels are necessary to
ensure that it has sufficient information about the proposed appointment. For example, a committee has the right to have the Provost of the University solicit additional referee evaluations or written statements from the nominating department. It may ask that additional witnesses, even from outside the University, be invited to give testimony before it if it is not satisfied that those suggested by the department will enable it to make an informed judgment about the nomination.
The committee may acquire additional information by letter, e-mail, telephone or personal interview from sources both within and outside the University. While all of its members may make such inquiries, they are expected to coordinate their efforts with their chair and act with the greatest discretion to ensure the confidentiality of the ad hoc review.
The Coordinator for Tenure Reviews in the Office of the Provost of the University schedules the meetings of the ad hoc committee While the Coordinator makes every effort to find a time that is convenient for everyone involved with a review, it is not always possible to avoid conflicts with other responsibilities. Since tenure reviews are of the highest importance to the future of the University, it may be necessary to ask members and witnesses to reschedule other commitments in order to attend a committee meeting. Ad hoc meetings take precedence over all other committee assignments and all administrative duties within the University. In some cases, it may even be necessary to ask participants to rearrange consultations with students and, in very rare instances, classes to provide sufficient time for the committee’s deliberations.
While every effort is made to ensure that all members of the ad hoc committee attend the meeting in person, that is not always possible to arrange. The Provost may, therefore, choose to have members participate by videoconferencing or by telephone, especially those from other institutions.
When the schedules of the committee members conflict with those of others who will participate in the review, the Coordinator gives priority to the former. While every effort is made to accommodate the witnesses, it may be necessary to ask the chair of the nominating department for someone else to testify on behalf of the candidate or to proceed with the ad hoc review without the individual who cannot attend. If the chair considers both of those alternatives detrimental to the case for the nominee, he or she may ask the Senior Vice Provost to delay the ad hoc to a time when the witness is available. The Coordinator will schedule meetings at times when administrators who have the right to attend the ad hoc as observers are unavailable rather than unduly delaying the completion of the review.
To ensure that the members of an ad hoc committee have adequate time to prepare for their meeting, the Coordinator normally does not start to schedule the review until the ad hoc committee members have received the candidate’s dossier. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the nominating department to submit the supporting materials for a candidate in a timely manner in order to avoid delays in the completion of the review.
The committee chair conducts the meeting of the ad hoc committee. The Provost of the University or his or her representative attends the meetings of each ad hoc committee reviewing a nomination from Barnard, as does the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard and the Vice President for Arts and Sciences or his or her representative.
If the committee decides that additional information, testimony, or deliberation is required, further meetings are scheduled. Once the committee concludes its deliberations, its five members vote on the nomination and the chair conveys their recommendation to the Provost of the University in writing.
The ad hoc committee serves in an advisory capacity to the Provost of the University who is not bound by its recommendation. In particular, a split vote in favor of a candidate is not considered to be a strong recommendation. In addition to the final vote, the Provost weighs the evidence presented to the committee and the discussion of the members at their meeting before deciding whether to accept their recommendation. The Provost may also obtain additional information after the ad hoc meeting before reaching a decision on the nomination, such as written assessments of the nominee from the members of the ad hoc committee or further written or verbal evaluations from experts at other institutions. This additional information is normally not shared with the chair of the nominating department.
Upon completion of his or her review, the Provost will submit a recommendation to the President of the University on whether the candidate should be awarded tenure. At the same time, the Provost sends a copy to the President of Barnard to give her the opportunity for discussion and reflection before a final decision is rendered by the President of the University. A nomination is forwarded to the Trustees for their approval only if the Provost and President of the University and the President of Barnard are satisfied that the candidate deserves tenure. Upon approval by the President, and with the concurrence of the Trustees of Barnard, it is presented to the Trustees of the University, who make the final decision on all appointments to tenure.
In those unusual cases where the Provost, President, the Trustees of Barnard or the Trustees of the University do not accept the recommendation of the ad hoc committee, the Provost informs its members of the reasons. A candidate who is denied tenure is invited to meet with the Provost to discuss the decision.
A second review may be conducted for a candidate after a negative decision if the Provost determines that the first was marked by procedural irregularities of a magnitude that materially affected its outcome. In such cases, the Provost may choose either to reconvene the original ad hoc committee or, if the Provost feels that the irregularities compromised its ability to reach a reasoned decision, to appoint a new ad hoc committee to consider the nomination.
In the absence of procedural irregularities, a candidate is reconsidered only in those rare instances where there is evidence of substantial scholarly growth following the original negative decision. It is incumbent upon the department to obtain the approval of the Provost of the University to conduct a new review before it solicits any further letters of evaluation, votes on the candidate or prepares for a new nomination in any other way. Requests from departments require the endorsement of the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard before they are forwarded to the Provost of the University. In support of such requests, the nominating department submits a statement that explains why it believes the new work meets the standard for a second review. That statement should deal only with the new materials and not with the work considered during the first review. The Provost may seek the advice of selected scholars in the candidate’s field before reaching a decision on whether to reopen consideration of the nomination.
The Provost normally reconvenes the original ad hoc committee, replacing only those members who are not available for service. The committee does not reassess the quality of the materials submitted in support of the original nomination. Instead, the new evaluation focuses on the work completed after the first ad hoc and on whether it is of sufficient quality to overcome the reservations that led to the initial negative decision on the candidate’s nomination.
All aspects of the ad hoc proceedings are conducted with strict confidentiality, which is both an act of civility to all concerned and a prerequisite for the type of critical examination the ad hoc review requires. The membership of an ad hoc committee and the dates and times of its meetings are not made known to anyone other than those consulted in its appointment or participating in its deliberations. Information about the committee’s deliberations and the actual vote on the nomination are similarly restricted to the members of the committee, the Provost, the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard, and the Presidents of Barnard and the University, or their representatives. Committee members, witnesses, deans, department chairs, and any others who are involved with the tenure review process in any way are expected to maintain confidentiality at all times. Because of the need for confidentiality concerning every aspect of the ad hoc review, a member of the committee or anyone appearing before it who wishes to discuss the proceedings should do so by communicating with the Office of the Provost.
While candidates are not told of the membership, date and deliberations of their ad hoc committees, the Office of the Provost does inform them of the process by which their nominations are evaluated. Upon receipt of a nomination, the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Administration sends the candidate a copy of this policy statement and invites the individual to call with any questions about how the evaluation will be conducted. The candidate may also ask to meet with the Senior Vice Provost to discuss the process. Further information should be obtained from the chairs who have a special responsibility, subject to the limits imposed by the requirement of confidentiality, for advising their candidates on how ad hoc reviews are conducted.
Part II of this document is intended to assist departments in preparing their tenure nominations in a thorough and timely manner. It offers detailed guidelines on the each of the materials that should be included in a tenure dossier and, in the final section, provides a schedule for their submission to the Provost. A checklist of the required materials is included at the end of this section.
An ad hoc committee begins its evaluation of a nomination with the information provided in the tenure dossier. It is, therefore, in the interest of the nominating department to present its case as clearly and coherently as possible, addressing all of the issues which an ad hoc committee is charged to consider. The following outline of the required materials should be read with reference to Part I of this document, particularly the sections which describe the “Criteria for an Appointment to Tenure" and the "Evidence Considered by an Ad Hoc Committee.” It is the responsibility of the Office of the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard to see that the dossier is complete, accurate and submitted to the Office of the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Administration on schedule after it is prepared by a department chair or a representative. Unless otherwise indicated, the Barnard Provost’s Office should provide seven copies of dossier.
This statement should describe the efforts made to locate the best possible candidate for the position and explain how and why the nominee was chosen over other potential candidates. For a candidate from another institution, the statement should describe the search; in the case of a promotion from the junior faculty, the department should explain how it evaluated the qualifications of the candidate in comparison to other scholars in the field.
This statement should also report on the vote of the tenured members of department making the nomination.
1. It should indicate the number of faculty with the right to vote on the nomination, state the date and method of voting, and give the results. If the information is known, it should also state the reasons why absent members did not participate in the review.
2. If any faculty voted against the nomination or abstained, the report should explain the reasons why. Faculty who opposed the nomination or abstained should also prepare a statement explaining the reasons for their vote. At the individual's discretion, these statements may be included with the dossier or submitted directly to the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard or to the Provost of the University.
3. If the candidate will have a joint appointment, this statement should also include a description of the process by which the second department conducted its review, a record of its vote and, if any of its faculty opposed the nomination, a description of the reasons for their vote.
If the department is nominating a candidate it previously decided not to propose for ad hoc review, the statement should also include a full description of the earlier evaluation. In particular, the department should report the vote or votes taken during the earlier review and describe the reasons for the decision not to nominate, taking care to present all points of view. Any letters of evaluation obtained as part of the earlier effort should accompany the description. Similar information should be provided if the candidate was previously considered by a different department.
This statement should be accompanied by the results of the vote by the Columbia counterpart department and its assessment of the candidate’s scholarly credentials.
The nominating department should use this statement to describe the qualifications, accomplishments, and future promise of the nominee in the areas of teaching, scholarship, research, and service to the College, University and discipline. If the nominee was previously evaluated for tenure and turned down at the departmental or College level, it should also discuss the scholarship, teaching and/or service completed since the first review and why they are deemed to be sufficiently better in quality than the earlier work to merit a reversal of the original negative decision.
A. Research and Scholarship
In this section of the statement, the nominating department should include:
1. an evaluation of principal publications, research, and other accomplishments;
2. an evaluation of the nominee’s qualifications in comparison with other leading scholars in the field, i.e., those on the comparison list sent to referees and any others who may be appropriate; and
3. a discussion of the nominee’s potential for future scholarly development.
B. Teaching
The statement should describe the nominee's contribution to the educational programs of the institution in which he or she currently holds appointments, such as courses taught, students advised (both graduate and undergraduate), and, where appropriate, participation in curricular development. Copies of course syllabi and other supporting evidence of the nominee's educational contribution may be included.
The nominating department should also discuss the nominee's qualities as a teacher and identify the sources on which the assessment is based. When possible, the discussion should be accompanied by documentation such as the results of surveys of student opinion, letters from current and former students, and departmental evaluations of teaching performance. In the case of student evaluations, a statistical summary of the results should be included rather than copies of evaluation forms.
C. Service
This section of the statement should address the extent to which the nominee has made contributions, beyond teaching and scholarship to the College, University and profession. Comments on the future potential of the nominee with regard to service may also be included.
If English is not the first language of the nominee, the statement should describe his or her command of English and its adequacy for communicating with students.
Every nomination to tenure must be supported by evaluations obtained from outside scholars using the "referee letter" appended to this document as Exhibit A. Evaluations of candidates from Barnard College are sought by the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard. These letters are obtained sufficiently early in the internal deliberations of the department that the members of its executive committee may review them before they vote on whether to nominate the candidate.
The Provost and Dean of the Faculty compiles the lists of referees and comparison scholars, taking into consideration suggestions received from the nominating department and its University counterpart. The candidate is not consulted in constructing those lists. When adequate assistance cannot be obtained from the University’s tenured faculty, the responsible person may seek the advice of scholars at other institutions. These lists are submitted to the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Administration prior to sending out the referee letters so that the collection of the external evaluations can be coordinated with the selection of the outside member of the ad hoc committee.
The criteria for choosing referees and comparison scholars are described in Part I of this document. Normally, the Provost and Dean of the Faculty should collect no more than 12-15 letters. These should include letters from the most prominent individuals in the candidate’s field. In the event that the ad hoc committee feels that the nominating unit has not obtained the views of the key people in the field, it may ask the Provost of the University for additional letters which will delay the completion of its review. No referee should be a member of the Barnard or Columbia faculty.
The comparison list sent to each referee who is also a comparison scholar is modified to exclude the referee’s name. The letter to referees who previously had given their opinion of the candidate (for example, during a search) is appropriately modified to refer to the earlier correspondence.
The comparison list sent to referees evaluating a younger nominee will include scholars who are significantly senior to the candidate. It is appropriate in such a case to include the following paragraph at the bottom of the list:
Note that some of the persons listed above are very senior and well-established. By including these names in seeking a comparison with _______________, we are not suggesting that [he/she] is now comparable to them; rather, we are requesting your best estimate of [his/her] potential to reach their standing.
At the discretion of the Provost and Dean of the Faculty, samples of the candidate’s publications may be included with the request for evaluations.
As a matter of courtesy, potential referees are asked if they will review the candidate’s work before they receive the formal request for evaluation. All preliminary inquiries should be made by e-mail and should ask the potential referee to respond in writing so that there will be a written record of who has declined to evaluate the candidate and their reasons.
Follow-up letters should be sent after an appropriate period of time to those referees who have not responded to the initial request. It may also be necessary to contact them by phone. The timing and form of these reminders is determined by the urgency of the tenure review.
The following documentation about the referees and comparison scholars should be included in the candidate's dossier with the letters that are received:
A. Annotated List of Referees
This list is composed of the names of everyone who was approached for an evaluation of the candidate, with a brief description of each potential referee’s credentials, including current affiliation and title, area of specialization and standing in the discipline. Individuals who declined to write in response to the preliminary inquiry should be included with an annotation indicating that they could not review the candidate. Similarly, annotations should be added for the referees who were also asked for their opinions during the search that led to the selection of the candidate.
B. Annotated List of Comparison Scholars
The referees are asked to compare the candidate with other scholars in his or her field. This list contains a brief description of the credentials of each comparison scholar, including current affiliation and title, tenure status, area of specialization, and standing in the discipline.
These lists should be accompanied by samples of all correspondence with referees, including the preliminary e-mail asking whether the referees are willing to provide an evaluation of the candidate; the letter(s) formally requesting the evaluations, including the date or dates of the request and the enclosed comparison list enclosed; and
any follow-up letter sent to referees, indicating the date the request was made, and a list of the people who received it.
The nominating department should provide copies of all the responses it received, including actual reviews of the candidate and letters or emails from potential referees who declined to write. To the extent possible, information about attempts to communicate with referees who did not respond at all to the formal referee request should also be included
The College normally collects only one round of evaluations as part of its internal assessment of a potential candidate. There may, however, be unusual circumstances where, by agreement between the Provost and Dean of the Faculty at Barnard and the Provost of the University, it may ask for a few preliminary letters before embarking upon the process described above to obtain the referee letters. For example, a department may need a small number of evaluations to help it determine if it wants to open negotiations with a potential external candidate about moving to the College. Copies of all such letters should be included in the dossier, along with the following information:
1. A complete list of the persons from whom these assessments were solicited, annotated with a brief description of their credentials, including current affiliation and title, area of specialization and standing in the discipline. Individuals who did not respond should be included with an indication that they did not write and, if the information is available, an explanation, of the reasons why.
2. A sample of the letter(s) requesting the evaluation, including the date or dates the request was made and
3. A copy of any comparison list included with the request for the evaluation.
The nominee’s curriculum vitae, with its date of preparation, should include:
A. Field of specialization
B. Academic training
1. Colleges and universities attended;
2. Degrees;
3. Dissertation title, whether published, and name of sponsor;
4. Honors and fellowships received, society memberships; and
5. Postdoctoral research appointments held.
C. Teaching experience
1. Courses the nominees has taught and their enrollments (for internal candidates)
2. The nominee’s experience as sponsor, first or second reader, and examiner of undergraduate majors and master’s and doctoral candidates; when possible, include the number of students in each category and titles of theses and dissertations.
D. A list of all academic and non-academic positions held since baccalaureate degree was conferred
E. Publications (in bibliographic form)
1. All published work; and
2. All unpublished work completed or in progress, together with sponsoring or granting agencies.
Note: if any of the published or unpublished work was co-authored, the curriculum vitae should indicate whether the nominee was the first author.
F. Grants awarded
1. Size of grant;
2. Full name of granting agency (abbreviations should be explained);
3. Period of award;
4. If the grant was awarded to more than one individual, indicate whether the nominee was the principal investigator.
The nominee should prepare a brief statement of no more than 5-10 pages on his or her current and future plans with regard to research and teaching. The purpose of the statement is to provide the ad hoc committee with information about projects that are underway but have not been completed and those that are still in the planning stage. This statement is required of all junior faculty being considering for promotion to tenure. The Provost and Dean of the Faculty may waive the requirement for external candidates.
The dossier should include a select sample of the nominee’s published and other written work that is representative of the candidate’s scholarship. It may include forthcoming publications and manuscripts, conference papers and grant proposals that have a bearing on the nomination. If any of the papers or publications were written in collaboration with others, those works should be annotated to indicate who was the principal author. If important publications are in a language other than English, a brief synopsis in English of their content should be included.
The candidate’s dossier may also include any additional information the nominating department wishes the ad hoc committee to consider, e.g., teaching citations, reviews of publications, grant applications, etc.
While the department chair usually presents the case for the proposed appointment, this responsibility may be delegated to another faculty member who is closer to the field of the nominee. The letter from the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard transmitting the nomination to the Provost of the University should indicate who will present the case as part of the dossier. The Provost and Dean of the Faculty may also suggest other possible witnesses whose testimony would contribute to an ad hoc committee’s evaluation of the nominee’s accomplishments and qualifications for the position.
The Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard provides the Provost of the University with suggestions for the members of the ad hoc committee from the Barnard faculty from which two are chosen to serve on the ad hoc committee. Initially, the Provost and Dean of the Faculty submits four recommendations. TRAC and the Provost of the University may ask for additional suggestions.
The Provost and Dean of the Faculty may also suggest members of the Columbia faculty to serve on the committee. These persons may not be from the University counterpart of the nominating department. They also must not have served on a search committee which selected the nominee for a tenure appointment, written an evaluation of the nominee’s qualifications, collaborated with the candidate, participated in the candidate’s doctoral or post doctoral training or been trained by the candidate.
Schedule for Submitting Materials to the Provost
To assist the Office of the Provost of the University in planning the work of the ad hoc system, the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard should submit a list of individuals whom Barnard expects to consider for tenure during the year no later than April 15 of the academic year preceding the expected nomination, with information on their departments and fields of specialization. The list should also include the areas of specialization in which the College plans to conduct external searches for tenured appointments.
For each candidate the Provost and Dean of the Faculty should provide the following materials:
• the candidate’s curriculum vitae;
• the recommendations of the department for the outside member;
• suggestions of scholars the Senior Vice Provost can consult for advice on the outside member;
• the proposed referee and comparison lists; and
• when the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard and the Provost of the University have approved the collection of initial letters of evaluations, a list of the scholars from whom they were requested and copies of the responses received.
The lists should be annotated with the institutions and titles of the individuals who appear on them. The curriculum vitae should be sent to the Senior Vice Provost electronically; the other materials may be submitted in either printed or electronic form.
In the case of some nominations, the candidate will not be known by April 15 of the preceding year. For example, some searches may not be completed by that date. In addition, it may subsequently be necessary to organize an ad hoc review for a junior faculty member who is being recruited by another university. In such cases, the materials should be sent to the Senior Vice Provost as early as possible.
The nomination and complete dossier for internal candidates must be submitted to the Office of the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Administration by January 30, 2008. The Provost will grant exceptions to that deadline only to meet a competing offer from another university or where there are other special circumstances that make a late nomination unavoidable. A dossier is not considered complete until all of the materials described above have been submitted. Every effort should be made to identify external candidates as early as possible in the academic year. The College and University, along with most other major universities, endorse the AAUP policy guideline that sets May 15 as the last date that an offer can be made to a faculty member at another institution for appointment the following Fall. This offer cannot be a contingent one in any respect. In particular, it cannot be conditional on a favorable recommendation by an ad hoc committee, the Provost, or the President of the University. To meet this deadline, the Provost and Dean of the Faculty should request ad hoc reviews for external candidates and submit the supporting documentation by March 31, 2008 at the latest. Recognizing that negotiations with faculty at other universities can be protracted and delicate, the Provost of the University will conduct ad hocs for external candidates nominated after that date. However, if such a review cannot be scheduled by May 15, the Provost and Dean of the Faculty of Barnard will have to obtain a waiver of the AAUP’s deadline from the candidate’s institution before the ad hoc committee can be convened. If the waiver is not obtained in a timely manner, the appointment of the candidate, assuming a favorable outcome to the review, will be delayed for at least one semester and quite possibly a full academic year.
