Appointment to Tenure

Appointments to tenure are made in the grades of professor and associate professor following the process of peer review described in this chapter. Consideration for tenure begins with an evaluation by the Faculty in which the officer will serve. If the results of that evaluation are positive, the dean or vice president submits a nomination to the Provost, who establishes an ad hoc committee to conduct a second, University-wide review; only nominations from the Faculty of Law are not subject to this second review. If the recommendation of the ad hoc committee is positive and the Provost concurs, or if the Provost decides not to accept a negative recommendation by that committee, the nomination is forwarded to the President. Upon approval by the President, the nomination is presented to the Trustees, who make the final decision on all appointments to tenure.

Officers with tenure hold appointments without stated term until they retire. Tenure necessarily implies some financial obligation, but it does not guarantee any specific level of compensation.

Tenured faculty members may be dismissed for cause or suspended in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the "Code of Academic Freedom and Tenure" (see Appendix B), or released due to the discontinuation of an academic unit (see "Termination," below). They may be disciplined in accordance with the "Statement on Professional Ethics and Faculty Obligations and Guidelines for Review of Professional Misconduct" (see Appendix E) and the "Rules of University Conduct" (see Appendix C).

Criteria for Appointment to Tenure

An appointment to tenure is made in the University only when an individual of widely recognized excellence is found to fill a scholarly need demonstrably vital to a discipline entral to the University's purposes. The process of tenure review, therefore, is concerned both with the state and objectives of the nominating department or school and with the qualities of the nominee.

The rapidly changing nature of research and the diverse ways in which it is conducted make it impossible to expect that any university, even one rich in tradition and resources, will have on its tenured faculty an expert in every disciplinary specialty and method of inquiry. Appointments to tenure are offered only to the most able scholars in those areas of highest priority to the University. Nomination to tenure is the occasion for a department or school to consider its condition and to restate its objectives, both within its discipline and the University. It is part of the work of an ad hoc committee to test the strength of these claims and, thus, the appropriateness of the appointment.

Even more critical than the academic need for a tenure appointment are the qualifications of the individual proposed to fill it. In every instance, the nominee must be an outstanding scholar; a person who has demonstrated the capacity for imaginative and original work; a person, moreover, who is making, and shows promise of continuing to make, significant contributions to research in vital fields of knowledge or, in special cases, to the creative arts or the learned professions. A person's proven capacity for the highest effectiveness 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 a scholarly or professional record testifying to an unusually critical or original 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 scholarship meets the highest standards of excellence in his or her field. Tenure, moreover, is not strictly a reward for past accomplishments. 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 are required to be widely recognized as being among the leaders in their disciplines. Younger scholars must have achieved an exceptional level of scholarly accomplishment that 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 every possible degree of confidence, to reach positions of leadership and the highest standing 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 journalistic achievements, built architectural projects or 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 some flexibility to take into account the differing disciplines of the candidates and the missions of their Faculties. Nonetheless, all candidates must be or have the potential of becoming among the leading figures in a field that is intellectually vital and important to the University. The burden of demonstrating that a candidate meets those criteria rests with the nominating department or school. If the ad hoc committee believes that the department or school has not made a compelling affirmative case for the nomination, it is under no obligation to recommend in favor of tenure. If, on the other hand, the committee is satisfied that the candidate is truly an outstanding scholar in mind and in performance, it should not hesitate to recommend the appointment.

Nominations to Tenure

The nomination process begins with budgetary consideration of the desirability of the appointment. Because of the financial implications of a tenure appointment, no school or department may fill a tenure position without authorization from the dean or academic vice president of the Faculty that will fund the appointment (or Faculties in the case of joint appointments). Budgetary authorization will generally specify the subfield or set of subfields within which a school or department may make a tenure appointment, thus implying a decision on academic priorities. But it is not a substitute for the case the nominating Faculty must make, and the ad hoc committee must review, for the appropriateness of the appointment.

Once budgetary authorization is given, the department or school normally conducts a search for the best available candidate. The selection of an external candidate is preceded by a full outside search, except when the school or department can show that a rare opportunity has arisen to appoint an individual widely recognized to be among a very small group of leading scholars, none of whom would normally be expected to be available.

Although the department or school may elect to conduct a full outside search before recommending one of its nontenured faculty members for promotion to tenure, it is not obligated to do so. If it does not, it must nonetheless identify possible outside candidates, evaluate its own faculty member in comparison with them, and nominate the faculty member only if he or she is the most qualified person available for the appointment. The decision on whether to forego a full search is made by the Vice President for Arts and Sciences for the departments of Arts and Sciences and by the dean for the other Faculties.

The various Faculties follow different methods for evaluating candidates for tenure. In the Arts and Sciences, Medicine, Public Health, and Engineering and Applied Science, candidates' qualifications are reviewed first by the departments in which they will serve. Following an affirmative vote by the department, nominations in the Arts and Sciences are reviewed by the Vice President; in the Faculty of Medicine by the Health Sciences Committee on Appointments and Promotions, acting on behalf of the Executive Vice President for Health and Biomedical Sciences; in Public Health by the School's Committee on Appointments and Promotions, acting on behalf of the dean; and in Engineering and Applied Science, by ad hoc committees that are established by and report to the dean. Since the other Faculties are themselves single departments of instruction, the review is conducted by the full tenured faculty who vote on whether to propose a nomination to the dean. In the case of some of those Faculties, this review is preceded by an evaluation by a division or by a standing committee on academic appointments. Nominations from Dental and Oral Surgery, Nursing and Public Health are also reviewed by the Health Sciences' Committee on Appointments and Promotions following the completion of their internal school reviews. For information on the policies and procedures governing the departmental and Faculty reviews, officers should contact the office of the dean or vice president. Regardless of the form of the School's internal review, the final decision on whether to forward a nomination for ad hoc review rests with the vice president or dean.

Nominations for ad hoc review require a favorable vote by a majority of the tenured faculty in the department or school, or of an appointments committee duly authorized to make judgments on tenure on their behalf. In the case of joint appointments, they require positive votes from all of the nominating departments and schools. When one department or school votes not to nominate, a second may initiate a review of the candidate only with the prior permission of the Provost. Regardless of the form of the School's internal review, the final decision on whether to forward a nomination for ad hoc review rests with the vice president or dean, except in the case of those from the Faculties in the Health Sciences where they must also be approved by the Executive Vice President for Health and Biomedical Sciences.

Departments and schools may reconsider candidates whom they previously decided not to nominate for tenure if there is evidence of substantial scholarly development since the first review. For those who already hold appointments at the University, the new evaluation must be permitted by the provisions of the Statutes governing the limits on nontenured service. The new review focuses exclusively on the work completed since the first evaluation. The judgment of the first review that the earlier scholarship and teaching were insufficient to merit a nomination is not reconsidered. The vice president or dean will forward the nomination of a candidate who has previously been turned down at the departmental or school level on being satisfied that there has been a sufficient improvement in the quality of the individual's work since the first review such that the original negative decision is no longer valid.

Ad Hoc Review

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 tenure. The purpose of this system is to ensure that the same standards of judgment are applied to all appointments to tenure, regardless of the school or department originating the nomination, and thereby to secure a faculty of exceptional quality and distinction throughout the University.

Ad hoc reviews, with the exception of those for candidates from Barnard College, are conducted according to the policies and procedures set forth in detail in the Provost's statement "Principles and Customs Governing the Procedures of Ad Hoc Committees and University-Wide Tenure Review," which is reissued every year. Because there are some differences in procedures, a separate statement governs the review of nominations from Barnard. Copies of both documents can be obtained from the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Administration, which administers the ad hoc system on behalf of the Provost. The remainder of this section summarizes the ad hoc process for nominations outside Barnard College.

Each ad hoc committee consists of five tenured faculty, one of whom serves as its chair. Ad hoc committees and their chairs are appointed by the Provost in consultation with the Tenure Review Advisory Committee (TRAC), which includes at least nine tenured faculty who are selected annually, plus the Vice President for Arts and Sciences and the Executive Vice President for Health and Biomedical Sciences who serve ex officio.

The members of an ad hoc committee are chosen primarily from the tenured members of the University faculty who are familiar with the candidate's field of specialization. They may hold appointments in any Faculty of the University, including Barnard College, as long as they have not already stated an opinion on whether the nominee should receive tenure. Faculty with tenure of title who have passed an ad hoc review may also be asked to serve, as may retired members of the Columbia faculty.

Since the purpose of the ad hoc system is to provide a second, entirely independent review of each nomination, members of the nominating department(s) or school(s) are not asked to serve on the committees for its candidates. Similarly excluded are faculty from other departments who have collaborated with the candidate, voted on the nomination, written letters of evaluation, served on a search committee that selected the nominee for the tenure position, participated in a Faculty-wide review of the nomination, or otherwise stated an opinion on the desirability of giving the candidate tenure.

While every effort is made to avoid asking professors on leave or department chairs to serve, it may sometimes be necessary to appoint them to ad hoc committees. A professor already sitting on one committee is appointed to a second only when the Provost and TRAC consider his or her expertise to be essential to the conduct of the review.

The Provost routinely selects one or more persons from outside the University to serve on ad hoc committees. The outside member of an ad hoc committee may not be someone who has collaborated with the candidate or supervised his or her doctoral studies or postdoctoral training. Similarly, individuals who have written an evaluation of the candidate are not asked to serve. Given these restrictions, the selection of an outside member normally occurs before the department or school solicits external evaluations for a candidate to ensure that the most appropriate individuals can be considered for that role.

The Vice Provost for Academic Administration conducts the search for an outside member before the dean or vice president solicits written evaluations of the candidate. In compiling a list of recommendations for the consideration of the Provost and TRAC, the Vice Provost normally consults with the appropriate chair or dean and with scholars at other universities. The Vice Provost typically starts by asking the chair or dean for suggestions. Before responding, that officer may consult with other members of the Columbia faculty or scholars at other institutions, but not with the candidate. Along with the recommendations for the outside member, the chair or dean submits the names of several scholars at other institutions with whom the Vice Provost can consult for further suggestions, the proposed referee and comparison lists, and a list of anyone who has already been asked for an evaluation of the candidate as part of the internal review of the department or school. Before submitting a list of possible outsiders to the Provost and TRAC, the Vice Provost will give the chair or dean an opportunity to comment on their suitability. It is the responsibility of the chair or dean 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.

While the various Faculties appropriately follow different methods for nominating candidates for tenure, every nomination sent to the Provost is accompanied by the same types of materials for the ad hoc committee's review. In many cases the department or division originating the nomination will take the lead in preparing these materials, but in every case it is the responsibility of the dean or vice president to review them for completeness and accuracy and to see that they are submitted in a timely fashion. That officer may supplement the dossier with additional materials after its original submission.

In conducting its review, an ad hoc committee relies on evidence of three kinds:

1. The nominating department or school prepares three written statements. One analyzes its current state and objectives; the second reports on the process by which the candidate was selected; and the third assesses his or her qualifications. With these statements, the department or school also submits the nominee's curriculum vitae; a representative set of his or her written work, published and unpublished; a statement from the candidate on his or her current research and teaching and future scholarly projects; evidence of the nominee's contribution to the educational programs of the department or school and teaching performance; and any other information it wishes the committee to consider. For a candidate in the Arts and Sciences, the supporting materials also include an assessment of the individual's qualifications by the nominating department's counterpart at Barnard College and a record of the counterpart department's formal vote on whether he or she should receive tenure.
2. Recognized experts in the candidate's specialization are asked to write letters evaluating the nominee's qualifications and comparing him or her with other prominent scholars in the field. Referees include the leading individuals in the candidate's field of specialization. Other established scholars and professionals who can assess the quality of the nominee's work and its contribution to his or her broader discipline may also be asked for evaluations, especially in those cases where the field of specialization is narrow and the number of individuals working in it is limited. In selecting the comparison scholars, care is taken to define the field of specialization in a manner which is appropriate and yet not so narrow that the referees find it difficult to make a meaningful comparative evaluation of the candidate. The comparison list includes the most outstanding of the candidate's peers. When the nominee is a younger scholar, it will also include more senior individuals who are judged to be the best in the field. In those cases, the referees are asked if the nominee has the potential of reaching the level of achievement of the more senior comparison scholars.
3. The Provost arranges for witnesses to appear before the ad hoc committee who can speak to the need for the tenure appointment and the nominee's qualifications. The dean or department chair normally makes the case for the nomination, although he or she may delegate that responsibility to another tenured member of the nominating unit. The department or school may have a second witness appear to provide further testimony on the candidate's scholarship and teaching. Additional witnesses may be asked to testify at the discretion of the ad hoc committee. In particular, when there is evidence of disagreement within the nominating department or school, care is taken to ensure that the committee hears from individuals representing the full range of opinion on the candidate's qualifications. When a nominee will have major responsibilities in more than one school or department, the chairs or deans of all of the relevant units are routinely invited to appear as witnesses or submit letters of evaluation.

The work of an ad hoc committee begins with a careful evaluation of the materials submitted in support of the nomination. This includes a critical reading of the candidate's scholarly work. The letters of evaluation provide the committee with the views of leading scholars on the candidate's work. However, they cannot substitute for the members' own reasoned assessment of the quality of the candidate'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 if further information is needed and to alert each member to any special concerns that the others might have about the nomination.

The members of a committee are expected to seek whatever additional information they feel is needed to ensure a thorough and careful review of the candidate. For example, they may ask the Provost to solicit additional referee evaluations or written statements from the nominating unit, or they may ask that additional witnesses, even from outside the University, be invited to give testimony. They also may make further inquiries, both within and outside the University, by telephone or personal interview. While all members of the committee may make such inquiries, they should take special care to coordinate their efforts with their chair and act with the greatest discretion to ensure the confidentiality of the ad hoc review.

The ad hoc committee meetings are scheduled by the Coordinator for Tenure Reviews in the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Administration. 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 University, it may be necessary to ask participants to reschedule other commitments 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 in order 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 dean or chair of the nominating unit for someone else to testify on behalf of the candidate or to proceed with the ad hoc review without the individual who cannot attend. Similarly, the Coordinator will schedule meetings at times when the administrators who have the right to attend 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 committee members have received the candidate's full dossier. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the nominating department or school 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 or a representative is present at all ad hoc committee meetings and may actively participate in the questioning of witnesses and in the discussion of the committee. When appropriate, other administrators, such as the Vice President for Arts and Sciences, the Executive Vice President for Health and Biomedical Sciences, the Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, or the Dean of the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, are invited to attend. 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 in writing.

The ad hoc committee serves in an advisory capacity to the Provost, who may not accept its recommendation. In particular, a split vote in favor of a candidate is not a strong recommendation and may not, therefore, reflect a sufficiently strong endorsement to warrant tenure. In addition to its final vote, the Provost weighs the evidence presented to the committee and the discussion of the members at their meeting before deciding whether to forward the nomination to the President and the Trustees. The Provost may also obtain additional information after the ad hoc meeting, such as written assessments from the members of the committee and further evaluations, verbally or in writing, from experts at other institutions. Any such additional information is normally not shared with the chair or dean of the nominating department or school.

Upon completion of his or her review, the Provost will submit a recommendation to the President on whether the candidate should be awarded tenure. A nomination is forwarded to the Trustees for their approval only if the Provost and President are satisfied that the candidate deserves tenure. Candidates from the Faculty of Medicine who pass their ad hoc reviews are also reviewed by the Faculty Council before they are proposed to the Trustees for appointment without stated term.

After every ad hoc review, the Provost informs the appropriate departmental chair, vice president or dean of the decision, who will inform the candidate. In those unusual cases where the Provost, President, or Trustees do not accept the formal recommendation of the ad hoc committee, the Provost informs its members of the reasons. A candidate who is denied tenure may meet with the Provost to discuss the decision.

A similar process exists for evaluating a nomination from the School of Law, even though the review is performed by the tenured faculty of the School rather than by an ad hoc committee. The School's tenured faculty serve in an advisory capacity to the Provost. Following the completion of their review and the acceptance of a positive recommendation by their dean, the candidate's dossier is submitted to the Provost who may obtain additional information on his or her own before deciding whether to forward the nomination to the President and the Trustees.

A second ad hoc review may be conducted for a candidate who is denied tenure if the Provost determines that the first was marked by procedural irregularities of a magnitude that cast doubt on its thoroughness or impartiality. The Provost may choose in such cases to appoint a new ad hoc committee to consider the nomination.

In the absence of procedural irregularities, a candidate is reconsidered only in rare instances where the Provost is persuaded that there is evidence of substantial scholarly growth following the original, negative decision. It is the responsibility of the department or school seeking the new ad hoc review to obtain the permission of the Provost prior to starting any further review of its own. Requests from departments require the endorsement of the dean or vice president before they are forwarded to the Provost. In evaluating requests for second reviews, the Provost may seek the advice of selected scholars in the candidate's field. If the Provost is satisfied that a new review is warranted, it is normally conducted by the original ad hoc committee whose members are best situated to decide if the new scholarship is sufficient to overcome the reservations that led to the initial negative decision. In such cases, the candidate's new work is the focus of the second review. The committee does not reconsider the scholarship evaluated during the first review.

The ad hoc review can only provide the type of rigorous yet fair examination needed to ensure tenure decisions of the highest quality if all of its aspects are kept confidential. Confidentiality is also an act of civility to everyone involved in the review, especially the candidate and those who are asked to evaluate his or her credentials. Consequently, only those who are directly involved in a review are informed of the membership of a committee and when it is scheduled to meet. Information about the committee's deliberations and vote is similarly restricted to its members, the Provost, and the President. Committee members, witnesses, deans, department chairs, and any others who are involved with a review in any way are expected to maintain confidentiality at all times.

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 Vice Provost for Academic Administration sends the candidate a copy of the policy statement on the principles and customs governing ad hoc reviews 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 Vice Provost to discuss the process. Further information may be obtained from the deans or chairs who have a special responsibility, consistent with the requirement of confidentiality, for advising their candidates on how ad hoc reviews are conducted.