This section contains the University charter and by-laws, and outlines the workings of the Board of Trustees, the governing body of the University responsible for ensuring that the University fulfills its mission.

Key Points

• The board consists of between 29-36 trustees; including the president of the University and nine alumni-elected trustees who rotate into three-year terms. Other trustees, elected by the board, serve six-year terms.

• The board elects the president of the University and can remove the president by a vote of two-thirds of the trustees.

• The board has six standing committees, three of which have faculty representation: campus affairs committee, finance committee, and university relations committee.

• Faculty representation on the three standing committees is elected by the faculty.

• The section defines the faculty as “professors, associate professors, assistant professors, lecturers, instructors, and the president of the University, together with such others as may be constituted members thereof by vote of the board.”

• It also indicates that “faculty, with the concurrence of the president, shall have power to determine, subject to approval of the board, the courses of study; the arrangements of the recitations, lectures, and other exercises; the times and modes of examination; and the general method of instruction.”

Comments

Faculty representatives to the three standing committees of the board of trustees are currently elected after candidates are selected for a slate chosen by the incoming chair of the faculty.

Contingent faculty (pops, adjuncts, artists-in-residence) are not listed as faculty as such, but older categories (instructors, lecturers) are included.

Faculty, not the president, should determine curricular matters. The president and the board approve initiatives originating with and approved by the faculty.

This section presents the standards of conduct for members of the University. Areas covered include the responsibility of the University to its members, academic freedom, the rights and freedoms of students, the standards and procedures for regulations on conduct (which, for the faculty, refers to the Faculty Committee on Rights and Responsibilities), guidelines on University disciplinary proceedings, and links to University policy statements.

Key Points

• Members of the University must respect the rights and privileges of others in the University.

• Seven rights and privileges are enumerated: 1 and 2 are those protected by local and national law; 1. freedom of speech and assembly and 2. protection from harassment, discrimination, and abuse. 3-6 address student rights, while 7 addresses “standards of justice and fairness in any proceedings with the University,” and applies to all members, not only students.

• Complaints not resolved by the University may be directed to the New England Association of Schools and Colleges or the Connecticut Office of Higher Education.

• Standards and Procedures Regulating Conduct indicates that for faculty “there is no clear distinction between responsibilities in the classroom and outside of it” and that faculty are therefore accountable for their “professional comportment in toto.”

• Guidelines on University Disciplinary Proceedings include the right to a fair process, the right to receive notice in writing of charges brought against a member of the University, the right to a speedy hearing, the right to counsel, and the right to appeal decisions.

• The section outlines the path of complaints against staff and administrators for “act[ing] in an arbitrary, unfair, or capricious way,” starting with the direct supervisor and ending with the president.

• Complaints by faculty or staff against a faculty member may proceed directly to FCRR, whereas students with a grievance against a faculty member should first consult with the VPAA, who will then recommend recourse (including, if necessary, an FCRR complaint).

Comments

This section is not really an inventory of standards of conduct but a collection of various standards for various members of the University.

The statement on academic freedom included in this section concerns freedom of expression (which is not identical to academic freedom).

The section on the “Responsibility of the University to Its Members” does not address the responsibility of the University to its members, but instead of members to one another.

Many of these matters are handled more directly in other sections of the handbook, including those that deal with faculty rights and responsibilities (including the FCRR) and the 1940 AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

“Freedom to teach” is referred to as one of the “inseparable facets of academic freedom,” but the section only elaborates on the related concept, the “freedom to learn.”

This section contains the by-laws of the faculty. It presents faculty’s powers and responsibilities, and provides details about faculty governance.

Key points

• Matters of department, program, and college administration should be determined by all faculty members in the department, program, and college (except personnel) regardless of academic rank.

• Faculty have the power to determine the educational mission--subject to approval/revision of the Board of Trustees--and may make recommendations or direct petitions to the president and/or the Board of Trustees.

• Faculty meetings must be held at least three times a semester; special meetings can be convened by the president or by petition of at least 20 percent of the active faculty.

• The standing rules followed by the faculty are Robert’s Rules of Order.

• The process for elections to roles and committees is outlined. Elections for chairs of departments and programs must occur by December 1; elections for committee members by April 1.

• Committee chairs and vice-chairs must be tenured, they serve one-year terms and are elected by continuing and newly elected members. They can be removed by ⅔ vote of the committee. Following Spring elections, the outgoing and incoming chairs must organize a transitional meeting.

Details of four standing committees are set out in this section:

The Educational Policy Committee (EPC) consists of six faculty members, two from each division. It is “responsible for conducting investigations of and making recommendations about all matters of graduate and undergraduate educational policy within the University.” EPC is required to report directly to the faculty and it regularly brings motions concerning educational policy to faculty meetings.

According to the by-laws, EPC’s tasks are:

• review the curriculum and course offerings;

• consider and recommend major changes in the calendar and curriculum and in the requirements for graduation;

• consult with and advise the president on the establishment of the University budget as it relates to educational policy;

• advise the dean of admission in the making of admissions policy and the operations of the Office of Admission;

• be responsible for academic review, implementing academic regulations, and recommending to the faculty degree candidates for the BA, MALS, and MPHIL degrees;

• consult with the president on the establishment and implementation of policy with regard to nonacademic discipline, financial aid, and other matters affecting campus and community life;

• appoint, at its discretion, subcommittees, task forces, or consultants from its own membership, or from the community, and may delegate this appointing power to others;

• designate a member to serve as a liaison with the University librarian.

The Committee on Honors consists of nine faculty members, three from each division. The committee examines University honors candidates and establishes guidelines for department honors.

The Faculty Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (FCRR) consists of six members, at least one tenured, at least one untenured, with two members from each division. Advises the president in matters involving complaints by undergraduate and graduate students against a member of the faculty; or with respect to disputes between members of the faculty and members of the administration, their departments or other members of the faculty or staff.

The Compensation and Benefits Committee (CBC) consists of three tenured faculty members, one from each division, two untenured faculty members not both from the same division, one professor of the practice, one member of the adjunct faculty and one professional librarian. The vice president for academic affairs and the treasurer are ex-officio members. The committee meets during budget deliberations with the vice president of academic affairs and treasurer; consults with faculty representatives of Finance Committees; consults with the chair of the faculty, the faculty, and professional librarians; and reports directly to the faculty and professional librarians. It also forms a merit appeal sub-committee.

Comments

Chairs’ roles are described as being more consultative than is often true in practice.

The timing of elections is not always adhered to.

The role of EPC has in practice diminished and it is not able to do its required work unless all members of EPC are granted teaching relief.

CBC was instituted to replace the erstwhile AAUP compensation negotiation committee and now has less power.

This section contains the by-laws of the Academic Council. It is the faculty’s governing body that establishes and, when needed, reforms the rules for faculty appointments, reappointments, and promotions. Its function is both to legislate the proper process for appointments and promotions and to ensure that this process functions as intended.

Key Points

• The president, all tenured faculty, and three elected tenure-track representatives from each division constitute the Academic Council.

• Academic Council meets at least once a semester, and is convened by the president, who casts the tie-breaking vote if needed. Meetings follow Robert’s Rule of Order; minutes are kept by the academic secretary.

• Academic Council has two standing committees, the Advisory Committee and the Review and Appeals Board (RAB).

• The Advisory Committee “advises the president on matters pertaining to appointments, reappointments, and promotions in the faculty, and reports its advice to the council.” It also drafts legislation for the consideration of the Academic Council and acts as a conference committee on behalf of the Academic Council for conference with the Board of Trustees.

• Since the function of the Advisory Committee is merely advisory, the ultimate authority to appoint, reappoint, confer tenure, and promote lies with the president.

• The RAB reviews and votes on all promotions conferring tenure. Regardless of whether the Advisory vote concurs with the department’s vote, it is the task of RAB to ensure that no “telling procedural error” was committed and that none of the three “inappropriate criteria” were applied; these are 1) decisions in bad faith; 2) “improper considerations,” i.e., decisions violating academic freedom or anti-discrimination rules and/or laws; 3) decisions that were based on insufficient or too narrow consideration of all available evidence.

Comments

There is no compelling reason why professors of the practice and other non-tenure-track faculty are not represented in the Academic Council.

There are no Academic Council policies for reappointing and promoting professors of the practice; the faculty has ceded this procedural decision-making power to Academic Affairs.

Departments have the primary power to appoint, reappointment, and promote candidates – and should ensure that their policies for reappointment and promotion are as clear, detailed, and transparent as possible.

Concerning Advisory’s role in appointing faculty, in recent practice Advisory does not advise the president on matters of appointment, but only on matters of reappointment and promotion.

Academic Council by-laws do not give candidates the right to appeal a negative decision.

The procedural review standard of “inadequate consideration” needs to be explicated in more detail and with greater clarity.

Of the three criteria for evaluating candidates, “colleagueship” is ambiguous. “Service” may be a better criterion.

This section outlines the procedures by which the Advisory Committee executes its duties relating to promotion and tenure cases.

Key Points

• Details the specific rights candidates for tenure have regarding which materials will be sent to external referees for consideration.

• Details the specific responsibilities candidates for tenure have regarding the preparation of their tenure case.

• Outlines the process for soliciting letters evaluating a tenure candidate’s research.

• Promotion cases not involving tenure do not have a mandated specific time to present the case, and a negative vote does not terminate the appointment.

• Student evaluations of teaching (SET), including numerical data arising from evaluations, are used by Advisory in the evaluation of a candidate’s teaching. Advisory examines patterns of student response as articulated in individual comments and assesses trends in numerical data.

• Faculty have the right to request divisional or departmental statistics about SETs. This request is made to the Chair of the candidate’s department.

Comments

Procedures for the promotion and reappointment of non-tenure-track faculty are vague and incomplete. Departments should treat such cases “by the same principles” as promotions of tenure-track faculty.

Certain practices, such as the scheduling of spring tenure cases and the interpretation of prior employment as it pertains to the tenure clock, are not enforced uniformly, and/or yield to ad hoc decisions negotiated by the candidate, the department, and the administration.

No part of this section addresses how Advisory defines colleagueship or how it evaluates a candidate’s colleagueship in a promotions case.

This section codifies the procedures by which the Review and Appeals Board (RAB) constitutes itself, and the procedures by which it reviews the cases forwarded to it by the Advisory Committee.

Key Points

• RAB consists of thirty tenured faculty members, elected from the Academic Council. Seats are distributed equally among the three divisions. While every seat is filled by a particular division, some seats are voted on by the entire Academic Council, while others are voted on only by Council members in the relevant division.

• Any particular department or program should not have more than two members on RAB at any given time.

• The process by which RAB reviews a case is detailed. Notably, new evidence as it pertains to a case can be introduced in only very limited circumstances.

• RAB discusses every recommendation made by Advisory, but not every recommendation is also voted on. In particular, positive recommendations from Advisory are only voted on by RAB in cases involving tenure.

• RAB holds a vote on any negative recommendation of Advisory, whether the case involves tenure or not.

• Appeal cases (cases in which the Department and Advisory reach opposite conclusions) are restricted to the “points of disagreement” between the Department and Advisory, as ultimately determined by RAB.

• RAB evaluates cases solely based on “telling procedural errors and the “three inappropriate criteria” – bad faith, improper consideration, inadequate consideration.

This section covers responsibilities of departmental chairs, as well as potential sources of external income for faculty, patents and inventions, research misconduct, and perquisites due to retired faculty.

Key Points

• Provides a detailed guide to the chair’s role as liaison between Academic Affairs and departmental faculty, including their oversight of personnel, curricula, and budgets.

• Includes a chart of non-tenure track appointments detailing their responsibilities as well as the University’s hiring and promotion policies for each rank.

• Outlines policies on potential conflicts between the University and individual faculty members with regards to income that might arise directly or indirectly from research.

• Outlines policies on misconduct in research, largely focused on Division 3.

Comments

Chairs have numerous responsibilities but little if any authority.

The chart of non-tenure track appointments is incomplete. Absent from the chart are various other forms of non-tenure track positions, including but not limited to teaching fellows, distinguished professors, university professors, and others.

Non-tenure track appointments are made on an ad-hoc basis producing wide discrepancies in terms of duties to the department and the University; teaching loads; salaries; contract-length etc.

The tone of much of this section of the Handbook assumes an antagonistic relationship between Academic Affairs and the faculty.

In the Faculty Handbook “department” stands in for “program,” “college,” and “center.” Thus the assertion that Academic Affairs can determine how “departmental gifts and endowment funds” are used so that they “serve the purpose of the donor” may also be used to justify donor-directed use of monies in the creation and development of colleges.

Greater transparency about departmental endowments and funds would be a worthwhile pursuit.

This section contains two statements made by former President Douglas Bennet in 2005 and 2006 about his expectations for tenure and promotion. They explain the president’s position on the need for excellence in scholarship, teaching, and colleagueship; what that might look like; and how the model of “scholar-teacher” is important to the University.

Key Points

• Affirms Wesleyan’s commitment to the scholar-teacher model, the basis for “the surest indication of the continued success of the University.” Success is determined by “high achievement” in the three areas of scholarship, teaching and colleagueship.

• Details the Board of Trustees’ expectations for how the president should approach appointments and promotion.

Comments

If the success of the University depends on the centrality of the scholar-teacher model, the increased reliance on so-called “teaching-only” positions, represented by various contingent labor positions (pops, adjuncts, visiting professors, et al.), suggests that the University may no longer be successfully fulfilling its mission.

The president makes an independent assessment of the cases for tenure and promotion. The president will refer to AC, departments, and external reviewers’ assessments, but is not bound by them.

Clearer standards are needed about what colleagueship and/or service to the University means.