Introduction

Auburn University publishes and implements policies regarding the appointment, employment, and evaluation of all faculty members across its ranks for full- and part-time positions. The university has established policies and procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of each faculty member on a regular basis. Criteria for appointment, employment, and evaluation of faculty are published and maintained on the Provost’s website, and in the University Faculty Handbook.

The professorial faculty includes the ranks of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. Except for the rank of instructor, which is part-time, these are tenure-track positions. Other nontenure-track faculty includes such positions as visiting faculty, adjunct faculty, resident, intern, extension specialist, agent, program associate, clinical titles, research titles, and lecturer titles.

The Office of the Provost oversees and works closely with department heads/chairs, the University Promotion and Tenure Committee, the University Senate leadership, and the academic deans in all processes related to faculty hiring, evaluating, and in issues related to the promotion and tenure process, post-tenure review, and systematic administrator review.

Faculty Appointment Policies and Procedures

The Faculty Handbook provides definitions, criteria, and procedures for initial faculty appointments and for the granting of academic promotions and tenure. Appointments to the faculty, promotions in rank, and tenure decisions are made by the President in accord with the policies established by the Board of Trustees.

Position Posting and Search Process

Faculty hiring begins at the department and faculty level. Initial appointments are made as the result of departmental or unit searches, based on the needs of the department/unit as determined by department faculty and chairs. Prior to initiating the recruitment process, a memo indicating the title, rank, rationale for filling the position (as tied to the strategic plan), and the funding source is submitted to the Provost to approve the search. For a faculty position within a department, the approval of the department head/chair, dean, and Provost are required.

Departments and units have some leeway in establishing the search procedures most appropriate for their particular circumstances. The department or unit might act as a committee of the whole, or smaller screening committees might be used; a recommendation by a search committee might be transmitted to the department or unit as a whole for further consideration and transmittal to the department head/chair or unit head, or it might be transmitted directly to the department head/chair or unit head. The department faculty or search committee develop a position description with the qualifications a successful candidate must have. All candidates who meet the minimum requirements of the position must be considered, and any candidate who does not meet all minimum requirements must be eliminated from consideration for the position. The description and qualifications are used to form the position listing to be distributed.

After the review date indicated in the position announcement, the search committee screens all applications submitted for the position. Any applicant who does not meet the required qualifications indicated in the position announcement will be eliminated from further consideration. The search committee makes note of the criteria for non-selection; the criteria must be directly related to advertised criteria and must be specific.

The search committee then performs a closer review of all applicants meeting the required qualifications for the position to determine those applicants to be interviewed. After all interviews have been conducted, the search committee polls the faculty for their vote/comments (when applicable) and the committee, faculty, or department head/chair selects a candidate for appointment.

The department head/chair then submits the requisite appointment forms through the appropriate dean and/or director to the Provost for approval.

The hiring of lecturers and part-time instructors follows normal university hiring procedures.

Contract Process

When approved by the Provost, the department head/chair or dean contact the successful candidate and a conditional offer is discussed (i.e., salary, tenure clock, rank, etc.). The offer is contingent on Provost and Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity approval and background check. After Provost and other approvals are made, an official offer is made in writing to the successful candidate. This letter constitutes the faculty member’s written terms of the initial employment.

If a faculty member has had fewer than three years of full-time service in a faculty rank at one or more other institutions, they may request that up to two years be credited toward the probationary period for tenure. If a faculty member has had three or more years of full-time service in a faculty rank at one or more other institutions, they may request that up to three years be credited toward the probationary period for tenure. Such requests shall be made in writing at the time of initial appointment and shall be binding. They should be directed to the department head/chair, who will then make a recommendation to the dean and the Provost for written approval.

Sample faculty offer letters are included as documentation.

• College of Agriculture (Associate Dean)
• College of Architecture, Design and Construction (Assistant Professor)
• Harbert College of Business (Lecturer)
• College of Education (Assistant Professor)
• Samuel Ginn College of Engineering (Senior Lecturer)
• College of Forestry, Wildlife and Environment (Assistant Research Professor)
• College of Human Sciences (Lecturer)
• College of Liberal Arts (Lecturer)
• College of Nursing (Assistant Professor)
• College of Pharmacy (Professor of Practice)
• College of Science and Mathematics (Lecturer)
• College of Veterinary Medicine (Assistant Professor)

Types of Appointments

Members of the faculty of Auburn University are appointed to temporary, probationary, tenured, or continuing positions. The professorial faculty includes the ranks of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. Except for the rank of instructor, these are tenure-track positions. Other nontenure-track faculty positions include visiting faculty, adjunct faculty, resident, intern, extension specialist, agent, program associate, clinical titles, research titles, and lecturer titles.

Academic Ranks

Academic rank is accorded to qualified individuals whose primary assignment is to any of the three major functions of the university: teaching, research/creative work, and outreach. The following general considerations apply to appointment or promotion to faculty ranks:

• Assistant Professor: Assistant professor is the usual entry-level rank for a candidate who has completed the appropriate terminal degree (usually a doctorate) or has the equivalent in training, ability, and experience. While a terminal degree or the equivalent is required, an appointee is not required to have a minimum number of years in academic service to be eligible for the rank of assistant professor.

• Associate Professor: Associate professor is a rank of distinction that is attained through successful performance of assigned duties. A candidate should hold the appropriate terminal degree (usually a doctorate) or the equivalent. Normally, a candidate must serve at least five complete years on full-time appointment at the assistant professor level before they may be nominated for promotion to associate professor. Prior faculty service at other colleges or universities or prior service in appropriate professional activities may qualify for consideration in meeting the requirement for years in rank for promotion.

• Professor: Professor is a rank requiring professional peer recognition of the individual as an authority in their field of specialization. A candidate must be recognized by associates as a capable teacher, scholar or artist, or outreach specialist. It is therefore expected that peers within and outside the university will attest to the candidate’s high professional standing. Normally, a candidate must serve at least four complete years on full-time appointment at the associate professor level before they may be nominated for promotion to professor. Only in exceptional and well-documented cases in which a faculty member has met requirements for promotion to professor in a shorter time should they be recommended for early promotion by the department head/chair, with majority support of the faculty members who hold rank superior to that of the candidate.

• Lecturer: This nontenure-track faculty appointment is designated for those with an emphasis on the teaching mission at Auburn University who are qualified to teach in their discipline. The appointments are not tenurable and are made on an annual basis with no right or expectation of employment beyond the period specified in the letter of appointment. These appointments may be renewable on an annual basis contingent upon availability of funds, the need for services, and satisfactory performance.

   

• Senior Lecturer: This nontenure-track faculty appointment is designated for those who have sustained outstanding performance in teaching and service at the lecturer level. There is no fixed requirement for years of service at the lecturer rank before a lecturer can be promoted. However, the qualifications for promotion to senior lecturer rank generally cannot be demonstrated fully in less than five complete years of service. A lecturer may apply for promotion to senior lecturer following criteria and procedures for promotion maintained in the college of appointment. These appointments may be renewable on an annual basis contingent upon availability of funds, the need for services, and satisfactory performance and are not tenurable.

• Clinical Lecturer: Clinical lecturer is an entry-level rank for a candidate who has completed the appropriate terminal professional degree or has the equivalent in training, ability, and experience and meets appropriate credentialing requirements for course instruction. An appointee is not required to have a minimum number of years in clinical service to be eligible for the rank of clinical lecturer. Promotion from clinical lecturer to assistant clinical professor is possible if allowed by college promotion guidelines.

• Assistant Clinical Professor: Assistant clinical professor is the usual entry-level rank for a candidate who has completed the appropriate terminal professional degree or has the equivalent in training, ability, and experience and meets appropriate credentialing requirements. An appointee is not required to have a minimum number of years in clinical service to be eligible for the rank of assistant clinical professor.

• Associate Clinical Professor: Associate clinical professor is a rank of distinction that is attained through successful performance of assigned duties. A candidate should hold the appropriate terminal professional degree or has the equivalent in training, ability, and experience and should meet appropriate credentialing requirements.

• Clinical Professor: Clinical professor is a rank requiring professional peer recognition of the individual as an authority in their field of specialization. A candidate must be nationally recognized by associates as a clinician. It is therefore expected that peers within and outside the university will attest to the candidate’s high professional standing. A candidate should hold the appropriate terminal professional degree or have the equivalent in training, ability, and experience and meet appropriate credentialing requirements.

• Assistant Research Professor: Assistant research professor is the usual entry-level rank for a candidate who has completed the appropriate terminal degree (usually a doctorate) or has the equivalent in training, ability, and experience and meets appropriate credentialing requirements. While a terminal degree or the equivalent is required, an appointee is not required to have a minimum number of years in research service to be eligible for the rank of assistant research professor.

• Associate Research Professor: Associate research professor is a rank of distinction that is attained through successful performance of assigned duties. A candidate should hold the appropriate terminal degree (usually a doctorate) or the equivalent in training, ability, and experience and should meet appropriate credentialing requirements.

• Research Professor: Research professor is a rank requiring professional peer recognition of the individual as an authority in their field of specialization. A candidate must be recognized by associates as a researcher. It is therefore expected that peers within and outside the university will attest to the candidate’s high professional standing. A candidate should hold the appropriate terminal degree (usually a doctorate) or the equivalent in training, ability, and experience and should meet appropriate credentialing requirements.

Promotion and Tenure of Tenure-Track Faculty

Auburn University nurtures and defends the concept of academic tenure, which assures each faculty member the freedom, without jeopardy at the department, college, or university level, to criticize and advocate changes in existing theories, beliefs, programs, policies, and institutions and guarantees faculty members the right to support, without jeopardy, any colleague whose academic freedom is threatened. Policies and procedures for the promotion and tenure processes are published in the Faculty Handbook. The promotion of faculty at Auburn University is based on merit. A candidate for promotion should have acceptable achievements in the areas of teaching and/or outreach and research/creative work. Faculty considered for promotion are also expected to consistently demonstrate distinctive achievement in the past five years in one or both of these areas, comparable to that of successful candidates in the discipline. The candidate’s employment conditions and academic assignments determine which criteria are most emphasized, and standards for promotion are based on the weights of each performance area as described in the initial letter of offer and subsequent annual evaluations. In addition, they are expected to have contributed service to the university.

There is no fixed requirement for years of service before a faculty member can be promoted or tenured. However, the qualifications for tenure or for promotion to associate professor generally cannot be demonstrated fully in less than five complete years of service and further promotion to professor cannot generally be demonstrated fully in less than four complete years at the associate professor level. The norm for consideration of candidates for tenure and promotion to associate professor is therefore during the sixth year of appointment.

Except in highly unusual circumstances, a faculty member holding the rank of assistant professor recommended for tenure is recommended for promotion to associate professor as well. However, recommendation for promotion at this level does not necessarily entail recommendation for tenure because the criteria for tenure are more exacting than the criteria for promotion. Recommendations for promotion and tenure are voted separately.

The promotion process can be initiated by the candidate’s department head/chair or by the candidate. In the case of tenure, it is the joint responsibility of the department head/chair and the faculty member to see that the tenure process begins at the appropriate time. The process, timeline, and requirements are outlined in the Faculty Handbook.

The candidate’s dossier (consisting of the departmental guidelines, weights for each performance area, information supplied by the candidate, and information supplied by the department head/chair), and supporting material is made available for review exclusively by faculty eligible to vote on the candidate. The department head/chair then convenes a meeting for eligible faculty to discuss the nomination of the candidate. Confidentiality and the right of faculty members to express their viewpoints openly without fear of retaliation are the hallmarks of this discussion. The nomination is then voted on by eligible faculty of the department in a secret ballot at a closed meeting, the results of which are announced at the meeting. The faculty then write a summary of the discussion and the results of the vote. In addition, the department head/chair writes their own evaluative letter with an explicit recommendation for or against promotion and/or tenure. An example of such a letter and vote results is provided.

These letters (and any that faculty wish to write individually) are submitted to the Promotion and Tenure Committee of the University Senate for review. The department head/chair also shares the results in writing to the candidate along with copies of the letters submitted to the Promotion and Tenure Committee. After reviewing the letters, the candidate has five working days to write a rebuttal if desired. The candidate can also make an informed decision about whether or not to continue with the process of seeking promotion and/or tenure.

If there is a college committee, its members will review the dossier, letters, and the candidate's rebuttal (if submitted), and they will vote by secret ballot. The committee will write a summary letter that reflects the vote and represents all aspects of the discussion leading to that vote. The dean will also write an evaluative letter (that will count as his/her vote) with an explicit recommendation for or against promotion and/or tenure. The dean shall communicate, in writing, the college committee vote and provide copies to the candidate of the college's and dean's letters. After reviewing the letters, the candidate has five working days to write a rebuttal if desired.

The University Promotion and Tenure Committee then reviews each candidate’s full dossier (including all letters and rebuttals). The Committee votes by secret ballot whether or not to recommend the candidate for promotion and/or tenure and sends its recommendation and the candidate’s dossier to the University President for final action. Candidates are then notified in writing of the decision.

Should tenure not be granted during the sixth year, the head/chair shall give the candidate at least a 12 months’ notice of non-continuation. Such a candidate may be considered for tenure during the seventh year of full-time service, but this consideration does not invalidate the non-continuation notice unless tenure is granted. In no case shall a candidate be considered for tenure by the Promotion and Tenure Committee more than two times. The candidate may also appeal promotion and tenure decisions, the grounds and process for which are laid out in the Faculty Handbook.

Annual Reviews

All department heads/chairs or unit heads conduct at least one annual review of each faculty member to evaluate their performance and to discuss their future development. To review the faculty member fairly, the head/chair requests a current vita and any supporting material the head/chair or the faculty member deems appropriate prior to the review.

The head/chair prepares a written report summarizing the major points of the annual review, a copy of which is provided to the faculty member within a month of the annual review. If there are no objections, the faculty member signs the report as confirmation of having seen it. If the faculty member does not agree with the material in the report, they may write a response to be appended to the report. All Faculty Annual Review files are submitted to the Provost’s Office. The Provost’s Office confirms submission of all Faculty Annual Reviews and keeps appropriate logs for auditing purposes,,.

This annual review process applies to all faculty members, including those who have already earned tenure, with the exception of faculty members holding full-time administrative assignments, such as deans and department heads/chairs, who are evaluated at least every three years using a different mechanism.

To illustrate the results of this process in each academic college, sample faculty annual reviews are included as documentation.

• College of Agriculture
• College of Architecture, Design and Construction
• Harbert College of Business
• College of Education
• Samuel Ginn College of Engineering
• College of Forestry, Wildlife and Environment
• College of Human Sciences
• College of Liberal Arts
• College of Nursing
• College of Pharmacy
• College of Science and Mathematics
• University Libraries
• College of Veterinary Medicine

Third-Year Reviews

Each department or academic unit conducts a third-year review of all its probationary tenure-track faculty members. The particular focus of this review is the faculty member’s progress toward achieving tenure. The review therefore must address the criteria for tenure set forth in the Faculty Handbook.

The review involves the entire tenured faculty of the department. Input from tenured faculty should include issues of concern as well as recognition of accomplishments. The review concludes with a vote by secret ballot on whether or not, in the judgment of the tenured faculty, the candidate is making appropriate progress toward tenure, the result of which is announced at the meeting.

The department head/chair then prepares a written report covering the findings of the review and communicating the department’s vote to the candidate. This report may be consulted by the tenured faculty when the faculty member is a candidate for tenure; otherwise, the report is to remain confidential.

Several examples of positive third-year reviews are provided,,,. Only one example of a negative third-year review is available as it is a rare occurrence.

Post-Tenure Review

Post-tenure review is a natural extension of Auburn University’s process of annual faculty evaluation as specified in the Faculty Handbook. Post-tenure review is intended to support faculty development and productivity and considers the professional quality with which faculty members discharge the academic duties associated with their positions. Additionally, post-tenure review at Auburn University is to enhance public trust in the university by ensuring that the faculty holds itself accountable to high professional standards.

Post-tenure review requires tenured faculty whose annual overall performance is rated “unacceptable” twice within any six-year period to undergo more extensive review, prepare a written plan for performance improvement, implement this plan, and show progress in restoring performance to at least a “satisfactory” level. An overall “unacceptable” annual evaluation is determined by the department head/chair based on weighted evaluations of the faculty member’s workload assignments, such as poor performance in teaching or research. The department head/chair must notify the faculty member and Provost in writing after the first overall “unacceptable” annual review that a second “unacceptable” review within any six-year period will trigger post-tenure review.

Once a faculty member has been identified for post-tenure review and the Office of the Provost and the faculty member have been notified by the faculty member’s dean and department head/chair, the Office of the Provost will send instructions to the faculty member, department head/chair, and dean regarding how to prepare the faculty member’s review packet for review by the University Post-Tenure Review Committee.

The materials required for review include: Annual reviews by the department head/chair for the previous six years, a current curriculum vita, a summary of accomplishments and plans during the faculty member’s past six years at Auburn University, a departmental tenured-faculty letter summarizing the discussion and secret-ballot vote on the reviewee’s satisfactory/unsatisfactory discharge of duties (and reviewee’s written rebuttal, if applicable), and a letter of evaluation to the Provost by the department head/chair regarding the reviewee’s overall performance (and the reviewee’s written rebuttal, if applicable).

These materials are provided to the University Post-Tenure Review Committee for review. The University Post-Tenure Review Committee, chaired by the Provost, provides the faculty member with a concise written summary of its review and a conclusion as to whether the faculty member’s performance is deemed satisfactory. The faculty member has the opportunity to appeal this decision.

A faculty member whose performance the University Post-Tenure Review Committee assesses to be unsatisfactory will undertake a development plan to be prepared jointly by the faculty member and department head/chair and approved by the dean and Provost. The development plan will outline what is needed to move the faculty member to a higher level of performance. It must have specific, measurable goals that can reasonably be attained during a 12-month period.

At the conclusion of the 12-month development period, the faculty member will prepare a report summarizing their progress on achieving the goals specified in the development plan. This report shall be forwarded to the Provost through the department head/chair and dean, who will jointly review the faculty member’s progress and prepare a report that is also submitted to the Provost. If the Provost (or President through the appeal process) decides that sufficient progress has been made, the faculty member shall be deemed to have completed the post-tenure review process. The faculty member will return to being reviewed annually.

Faculty members who are judged not to have demonstrated progress after completing a development plan will be notified and given an opportunity to respond to the Provost before deliberation on possible sanctions. Sanctions will be determined by the Post-Tenure Review Committee. Sanctions for failure to meet the goals specified in the development plan may include, but are not limited to, withholding of merit-based salary increases; reassignment of duties; and loss of eligibility for such privileges as travel funds, summer appointments, internal grants, and professional improvement leave. Along with any sanctions, the Post-Tenure Review Committee will make recommendations for a new 12-month development plan, prepared jointly by the faculty member and department head/chair and approved by the dean and Provost.

There are two points in this process where decisions made by the Provost can be appealed to the President: (1) the Post-Tenure Review Committee’s decision regarding unsatisfactory performance and (2) the Provost’s decision that the faculty member has not satisfactorily completed the development plan. The appeal process parallels the process used in cases of promotion and tenure appeals and is detailed in the Faculty Handbook.

Materials from the most recent post-tenure review (from 2015) are provided; however, the need for such a review is rare:

• Provost Memo of Notification of Post Tenure Review Process
• Provost Memo to Notify Faculty Member of Needed Post Tenure Review Improvement Plan
• President Memo to Faculty Member Regarding Appeal Decision
• Post Tenure Review Development Plan
• Post Tenure Review Final Package

Promotion of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

Criteria for appointment, performance review, and promotion in the Lecturer title series are laid out in the Faculty Handbook. The Lecturer title series is a nontenure-track professional series for appointment of appropriately qualified individuals who contribute to the university’s academic mission by participation in activities that predominantly involve instruction and are of contractually specified duration. They are eligible for all departmental/University benefits except tenure, de facto tenure, and professional improvement leave.

Criteria for promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer are specific to each department and approved by the dean and the Provost’s Office. Promotion decisions are determined by the specific department head/chair and the dean of the respective college. There is no fixed requirement for years of service at a given rank before a lecturer faculty member can be promoted.

Policies for promotion for the Clinician and Research title series are identical to those of the Lecturer title series.

Sample promotion letters for non-tenure track faculty are provided,,.

Part-Time Faculty Appointment and Procedures

The Faculty Handbook also provides definitions, criteria, and procedures for part-time faculty appointments.

Part-time faculty hold the rank of “instructor.” These are also classified as “temporary appointments,” meaning the position is set for a specific period (usually one academic year or less). Appointment to the rank of instructor is based on ability or potential in research/creative, teaching, and/or outreach. The candidate must have a master’s degree or equivalent professional experience. For part-time faculty, a three-credit-hour semester course is considered equivalent to ten hours of other academic responsibilities.

Temporary full-time faculty appointments are for one semester only, and part-time faculty do not require a formal search process; however, Provost approval is required before an offer of employment is made. All temporary faculty must meet the minimum criteria established by SACS, and the candidate’s curriculum vita and graduate transcripts must be provided.

As with full-time faculty, instructors are subject to annual review and must demonstrate competence in their work assignments as a condition for reappointment. Temporary faculty members are not eligible for the insurance, medical benefits, annual leave, sick leave, and other fringe benefits available to other faculty members. When funds are available for merit raises, temporary and part-time faculty are included in individual consideration for salary improvement.29

Part-time Instructors are not eligible for tenure or promotion.

Grievance Processes

The procedure for faculty grievances is detailed in Article 6 of the University Senate Constitution and published in the Faculty Handbook. This procedure provides members of the faculty with a means of presenting grievances to other members of the faculty for evaluation and recommendation to the President.

As per the University Senate Constitution, a grievance is a complaint of alleged:

• violation of academic freedom;
• unfair or wrong use of procedures in matters concerning renewal of appointments or nomination for tenure or promotion––the point of the grievance being not whether tenure or promotion was granted (which is a separate appeals process) but whether correct procedures were followed;
• administrative mishandling in such matters as performance evaluations, departmental assignments, or other working conditions; or
• improper or unethical activities such as failure to honor commitments, harassment, or discrimination.

In cases where faculty wish to submit a grievance, they must submit a statement in writing to the Chair of the University Senate Grievance Committee (Grievance Committee) laying out the events surrounding the grievance, the effect on the aggrieved, and steps already taken to resolve the issue. The statement must be submitted within six months of the alleged occurrence.

The Grievance Committee then determines whether the persons involved are subject to this procedure, whether the issue constitutes a grievance as defined in the University Senate Constitution, and whether the faculty members filing the grievance have followed the correct procedure. If the above conditions are met, the Grievance Committee supplies a written statement of the grievance to be heard to the parties involved and compiles a list of seven members of the faculty who shall be available to serve on a hearing committee with no direct personal involvement in the case. Each of the opposing parties may strike two names from the list and the Grievance Committee selects three persons from the remaining list as the Grievance Hearing Committee. The Grievance Committee appoints one of these individuals as Chair of the Grievance Hearing Committee, who in turn designates the time and place of the meetings, which shall be private.

In Grievance Hearing Committee meetings, there are no formal rules of evidence, and all questions of procedure shall be resolved by the Chair of the Grievance Hearing Committee. All proceedings of the hearing shall be recorded. Each party involved in the hearing may be accompanied by another person of their choosing, such as legal representation. The opposing party shall be given prior notification of representation in order to have a representative present if desired.

Each party and the Committee may present its own witnesses. A list of witnesses to be heard shall be submitted to all parties ten days in advance of the hearing (or five days, at the Chair’s discretion). Each witness may be questioned by the parties and by members of the Committee in accordance with procedures established by the Chair of the Grievance Hearing Committee prior to the beginning of the hearing. A majority vote of the Committee shall determine the decision, which must be based exclusively on evidence presented at the hearing.

A recommendation to the University President is then made in writing by the Chair of the Grievance Hearing Committee within 30 days of the close of the formal hearing with copies sent to all parties to the grievance and to the Grievance Committee. The final disposition of the case, including a summary of all actions to be taken, shall be made known in writing to all parties to the grievance, the members of the Grievance Hearing Committee, and the Chair of the Grievance Committee by the appropriate administrator within 60 days of the filing of the Grievance Hearing Committee’s report to the President.

Members of the faculty bringing the case may withdraw a grievance at any time subject to agreement by both parties, and such withdrawal shall be without prejudice. No reprisal shall be brought against any person for participating in any way under this procedure. Such reprisal would be grounds for instituting another grievance.

Documentation is provided of the only case of the faculty grievance submitted to the University Senate Grievance Committee during 2021-2022, including the correspondence chain between the Grievance Committee Chair and a memo of the complainant and the committee’s decision. In this case, the committee determined the case did not constitute a grievance

per Faculty Handbook Article 675 and did not move this case forward to a hearing. The initial complaint is not included for privacy reasons, but hard copies of additional information or cases from previous years can be available upon request to the on-site committee.

Termination of Faculty Appointments

The Faculty Handbook details policies for the non-continuation and dismissal of all faculty.

Non-continuation of Appointments

Non-tenure-track faculty on continuing appointment as part-time instructors are considered to have ongoing appointments until written notice of non-continuation is given.

Tenure-track probationary faculty may also have their appointment subject to non-continuation. Notice of non-continuation prior to a tenure decision must be given in writing and the faculty member may request a written statement of reasons the appointment is not to be continued. Such reasons may include unsatisfactory performance of assigned duties, misconduct, or other reasons that do not violate applicable law or university policy. The faculty member may appeal the decision to the Faculty Dismissal Hearing Committee. This committee shall review the faculty member’s allegation to determine whether the decision was the result of adequate consideration in terms of the relevant standards of the institution. If the committee believes that adequate consideration was not given to the faculty member’s qualifications, it will request consideration by the departmental tenured faculty indicating the respects in which it believes the consideration may have been inadequate.

Dismissal of Faculty

Although there have been no recent examples of the termination or dismissal of tenured faculty, the Faculty Handbook details the policies and procedures for such a process.

Termination of a tenured appointment shall be carried out by the university only for just cause. Just cause for dismissal of a tenured appointment shall be related, directly and substantially, to the fitness of faculty members to continue in their professional capacities as teachers, researchers, and/or outreach specialists. Just cause for dismissal of a tenured appointment may result from actions of misconduct or may be directly related to the academic and/or administrative performance of a faculty member.

Dismissal proceedings against a faculty member must be initiated by the Provost. To initiate a dismissal action, the Provost requests an informal review of evidence in support of the charges brought against the involved faculty member and shall advise the faculty member of such actions. This request shall be made in writing to the members of the Faculty Dismissal Review Committee, comprised of the Immediate Past Chair of the University Faculty/Senate, the most senior current member (in terms of years of service at Auburn University) of the University Post-Tenure Review Committee, and the most senior immediate past member of the University Promotion and Tenure Committee. The extent of this informal review undertaken by the Review Committee shall be to determine whether sufficient credible evidence exists to serve as a reasonable basis for proceeding with the dismissal process. In doing so, the Review Committee may conduct interviews and request documents and records. However, this review is to be undertaken expeditiously and is not intended to collect and examine all evidence that may exist or may become available during the course of an investigation. This review shall not involve legal counsel on either side other than the providing of legal advice to the faculty member outside of the review process.

The results of the informal review by the Review Committee are forwarded in a report to the Provost within 30 calendar days of the Provost’s request for a review. Should the Provost decide to proceed with the dismissal process, the Review Committee presents the faculty member with a written statement of the specific charges accompanied by a copy of this statement of procedures. After being presented with the charges by the Provost, the faculty member has the right to request a hearing on the charges. The faculty member also has the right to attempt to reach a resolution in meetings with the Provost at any time during the review or hearing process.

If the faculty member waives the right to a hearing, the matter shall be referred to the President. The President shall review the charges and evidence and provide the faculty member with an opportunity to rebut the charges, orally and/or in writing. The President will then make a final decision regarding the disposition of the case, either assigning the case to the Hearing Panel or dismissing the case.

For purposes of conducting a dismissal hearing and immediately prior to the beginning of the hearing, the Faculty Dismissal Hearing Committee shall be reduced to a Hearing Panel consisting of five sitting members. The faculty member and the university administration shall have the option of challenging and having struck from the Hearing Committee up to two members each without stated cause.

The faculty member has the right to be accompanied by legal counsel, chosen by the faculty member, and is also permitted the assistance of an academic advisor during the hearing. The Provost, or their designee, is also permitted the assistance of an academic advisor, and if the faculty member is represented by counsel at the hearing, the Provost or designee also has the right to be accompanied by counsel at the hearing. However, if counsels are present, neither counsel may participate in the hearing other than through providing legal advice to their clients.

The Hearing Panel is not bound by strict rules of legal evidence; however, it should make every effort to obtain the most complete and reliable evidence available that is relevant and material to the charges. The faculty member is afforded opportunity to obtain necessary witnesses and documentary evidence, and the administration of the university, insofar as it is possible for it to do so, secures the cooperation of such witnesses and makes available necessary documents, communications, and other evidence within its control.

The written majority recommendation of the Hearing Panel shall be presented to both the President and the faculty member within 60 calendar days of referral of the matter. If the Hearing Panel recommends dismissal and the President sustains their recommendation, the President’s decision will be final. The President shall so notify the Hearing Panel and the faculty member, and the case shall be considered closed. If the Hearing Panel concludes that just cause for dismissal has not been established but other sanctions may be appropriate, the Hearing Panel can recommend such sanctions in its report to the President.

If the President rejects the recommendations of the Hearing Panel regarding dismissal and/or sanctions, they shall state such objections in writing to the Hearing Panel and to the faculty member. The Hearing Panel shall reconsider the case, taking into account the stated objections of the President to the original recommendations and receiving new evidence if available. The Hearing Panel will provide a written statement on this reconsideration to the President and the faculty member within 15 working days of receiving the President’s request for reconsideration. The President shall make a final decision only after studying the Hearing Panel’s reconsideration statement and officially notify the faculty member of this decision to complete the official hearing process.

Rights of due process also apply to any non-tenured faculty member who is dismissed before completion of their appointment.

Conclusion

Auburn University publishes and implements extensive policies regarding the appointment, employment, and evaluation of all full- and part-time faculty members. The university has a comprehensive process for evaluating all its faculty regularly, as outlined in published guidelines.