I.B.(2) The candidate and the DEO should work together to ensure that a candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service, including those activities of an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary nature, are accurately portrayed in the promotion dossier.

I.B.(3)(c) It is assumed that all faculty members obtain regular student evaluations of their teaching in accordance with collegiate and University policy and that, under the college’s policy, there are adequate provisions for consistent practice to ensure the integrity of the evaluation process and to ordinarily preserve the anonymity of the student evaluators. A college is permitted to include evaluations by students who are identified but whose identity is treated as confidential vis-à-vis the candidate. When such a practice is employed, it is imperative that the college’s written policy governing promotion decision making specify its details and that it be applied evenhandedly. The candidate’s dossier is not expected to include teaching "evaluations" used for experimental, mentoring, or other non-evaluative purposes.

I.B.(3)(f) The college may want to require additional items in the dossier such as teaching materials; refereed conference papers; invited papers, lectures, or presentations; unfunded grant proposals; etc. The college’s written policy governing promotion decision making should specify the items required and apply the requirement evenhandedly to all candidates.

I.B.(6) Examples of "materials which could not have been available by the specified date" include decisions on submitted manuscripts or grant proposals after the specified date, published book reviews of which the candidate had no previous knowledge, teaching evaluations of classes being taught in the fall semester.

I.D The minimal procedures specified here for evaluation of teaching are not assumed to be adequate for purposes of mentoring and teaching-improvement, and this proposal is not intended to discourage other and different methods for satisfying those purposes.

It should be stressed that "teaching" is described here in traditional terms and that appropriate extrapolations must be made for teaching in fields such as the creative or performance arts.

I.D.(2) This provision in no way privileges or elevates "observation" over such written materials as course syllabi or teaching materials created by the candidate. These written materials will be a part of the candidate’s dossier and will be subject to evaluations as part of the total record on the basis of which the candidate is evaluated. Nor should this provision be taken to devalue still other aspects of the teaching process, such as supervising in a clinical setting, supervising dissertation work, advising graduate students, or overseeing the work of teaching assistants; although those teaching activities are not easily reduced to writing nor are they ordinarily subject to observation, these activities are important and nothing in these Procedures prevents a college that is able to evaluate these other teaching activities from doing so as part of the promotion decision-making process. In this connection, as elsewhere, the critical requirement is that a college inform candidates in its written policy governing promotion decision making that this evaluation will occur and how it will be carried out, as well as that the college apply its policy consistently to all candidates.

I.E.(2)(11) Although the records related to external reviewers that are required to be kept under this subsection do not become a part of the Promotion Record concerning each candidate, they would be available for consideration should a question subsequently arise concerning the denial of a promotion to that candidate or another candidate for promotion in the department.

I.H.(1) The integrity of academic decision making requires that all participants base their evaluation on a careful study of the relevant materials, and standards of ethical academic behavior require nothing less. The integrity of particular academic decisions also requires 1) that all faculty members honor their duty to participate fully in the assessment of their colleagues, and 2) that the evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications not be compromised by the participation of anyone having a disqualifying conflict of interest. This requirement entails that any faculty member or administrator who would otherwise participate in the recommendation to grant or deny a promotion should be disqualified if that person has a relationship or interest which would give the appearance of biasing that person either in favor of or against the candidate. Conflicts of interest exist not because actual bias is assumed, but because of the appearance of a lack of sufficient impartiality. Whether a disqualifying conflict of interest does exist often presents the difficult question of degree, and it depends upon a determination by a participant in the process to identify the conflict and to disqualify herself or himself when appropriate. In lieu of disqualification, it can be sufficient that the circumstances giving rise to an apparent conflict of interest be fully disclosed. When disqualification is required, that can be effected by a decision of a member of the DCG not to vote or otherwise to participate in the evaluation process; at a stage of the process involving a single decision maker, such as the DEO or the collegiate Dean, more burdensome arrangements for a substitute decision maker would have to be made. Although treatment of conflicts of interest in the college’s written policy governing promotion decision making would be appropriate, these Procedures have not attempted to address the specific situations that might create conflicts of interest nor to provide procedures for avoiding them. (For general guidelines on conflict of interest, refer to sections II.18 and III.8 of the University’s Operations Manual.)

The integrity of the promotion decision-making process also requires that all documentary material be available only to those entitled to participate in the process and that every participant treat as confidential all information obtained from reading documents in the Promotion Record or from participating in any discussion concerning the qualifications of a candidate for promotion.

I.H.(5) and I.I(3) Because the Promotion Record may be redacted to protect reviewers’ confidentiality where appropriate, it will be especially important that the DCG’s report and the DEO’s letter be written in sufficient detail to enable the candidate to submit a written response should the candidate choose to do so.

I.I.(5) This is the first point in the decision process at which there is a specific reference to transmitting the Promotion Record. Prior to this stage of the process, it is assumed that the Promotion Record is compiled within the department under the joint management and custody of the DCG and the DEO. If the location of the Promotion Record would not otherwise be clear, the college’s written policy governing promotion decision making should provide some means of informing decision-makers of the location of various materials comprising the Promotion Record from time to time as the decision process moves from the candidate to the DCG to the DEO.