American University of Beirut

Report of the

Tenure Design Committee (TDC)

Version: December 27, 2016

Committee Membership

Bizhan Azad, OSB

Carol Bellamy, Trustee

Ronnie Coffman, Trustee

Michael Collins (co-chair), Trustee

Zaher Dawy (co-chair), FEA

Arne Dietrich, FAS

Jocelyn DeJong, FHS

Nabil Habayeb, Trustee

Mohamed Harajli (chair), Interim Provost

Steve Harvey, OSB

Bashshar Haydar, FAS

Huda Huijer, HSON

Rabih Jabr, FEA

Ammar Olabi, FAFS

Boushra Rahal, Office of the Provost

Nemeh Sabbagh, Trustee

Najat Saliba, FAS

Ramin Sedehi, COO

James Wei, Trustee Emeritus

Drew Wickens, CFO

Philip Winder, Trustee

Fuad Ziyadeh, FM

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

2

Table of Contents

I. TDC Formation and Goals ............................................................................................... 3

II. Steady State Tenure System ............................................................................................. 5

II.B Steady State Tenure System: Summary Flowchart ................................................. 12

II.C Steady State Tenure System: General Criteria ........................................................ 13

III. Transition to Tenure for In-Post Faculty Members ....................................................... 15

III.A Key Design Components ......................................................................................... 15

III.B Transition to Tenure: Summary Flowchart ............................................................. 20

III.C Transition Implementation Timeline ....................................................................... 20

IV. Faculty Workload: Principles and Guidelines ................................................................ 23

IV.A Key Design Components .......................................................................................... 23

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

3

I. TDC Formation and Goals

Following the historic vote by the Board of Trustees (BOT) on November 20, 2015 to reinstate

tenure at AUB1, President Khuri formed the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) in February 2016

composed of faculty, administration, and BOT members with the mandate to develop a

comprehensive design for the tenure system. The President set January 1, 2017 as a deadline to

deliver a final report for approval by the BOT.

Tenure will position AUB to attract and retain the top faculty essential to offering high-quality and

high-impact research and graduate programs; it will allow for more effective recruitment strategies

by permitting the university to match, and sometimes exceed, the terms of employment at peer

institutions locally, regionally, and internationally. Tenure will also give faculty members the

academic freedom to explore new areas of inquiry, focus on innovative scholarship, and set long-

term research agendas, all features that are vital for AUB‟s position as the premier liberal arts

institution in the Middle East. In addition to recruitment, retention and academic freedom, tenure

will enhance AUB‟s competitiveness, as it builds long-term institutional loyalty, enhances effective

faculty governance, supports professional integrity, and provides career recognition.

The TDC initiated its activities in March 2016 by reviewing the existing internal documentation

related to tenure from the last 10 years with focus on the report of the First Task Force on Tenure

(published in December 2007), the faculty survey on tenure conducted in December 2011, and the

report of the Second Task Force on Tenure (published in November 20142).

In order to support its recommendations, the TDC collected a wide range of data from various AUB

administrative units including the Academic Assessment Unit, Benefits Office, Human Resources

Department, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Office of Financial Planning, and Office of the

Provost; in addition, the TDC did extensive benchmarking against the American Association of

University Professors (AAUP) guidelines and several peer US institutions focusing on several

aspects relevant to tenure design and implementation.

Moreover, TDC members met with the Deans/Directors of all faculties/schools to learn about

existing workload allocation and faculty evaluation processes, and consulted with few faculty

members who had extensive previous administrative roles at AUB including Drs. Makhlouf

Haddadin, Nasir Sabah, John Waterbury, and Huda Zurayk.

During October 2016, the first draft of this report was shared with the faculty at large and the TDC

held four faculty town hall meetings and collected valuable feedback and suggestions; as a result,

several changes were made to further enhance the tenure system design. These meetings were

followed by a special meeting of the University Senate on October 26; additional changes were

introduced based on recommendations from the Senators. On November 17, the report was

presented and discussed during a meeting of the Academic Affairs and Finance Committees of the

BOT. On December 16, the report was unanimously approved by the University Senate (Vote: 29-

0-0).

1 http://www.aub.edu.lb/news/2015/Pages/reinstate-tenure.aspx 2 https://www.aub.edu.lb/provost/Documents/Report-Second-Task-Force-on-Tenure%20-Nov2014-1.pdf

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

4

In terms of work methodology, the TDC decided early on to divide its members into three working

groups to progress on various fronts in parallel with regular group meetings and close coordination

among all its members.

The TDC set the following four main goals that complement each other towards the design and

implementation of a contemporary tenure system at AUB:

1. Develop general design components, mechanisms and criteria for the new tenure system at

steady state.

2. Develop general design components, mechanisms and criteria for the transition of in-post

faculty to the new tenure system.

3. Develop general guidelines for revising the university‟s workload policy to complement the

design of the new tenure system.

4. Develop general guidelines for implementing a retirement incentive plan to complement the

design of the new tenure system.

The work on the above four goals capitalized on the recommendations of the Second Task Force on

Tenure, and on the nearly unanimous vote in favor of implementing tenure (2015-18; 22-1-0) by

the University Senate, in its special meeting of January 23, 2015. That motion embodied the

following seven principles for tenure at AUB on the understanding that they will be elaborated in

due time1:

Reinstate a formal system of tenure at AUB

Tenure conferred upon promotion to associate professor

Evaluation process to follow current procedure for promotion in rank with rigorous

implementation of criteria

Effective post-tenure reviews conducted every five years

Conferral of tenure to in-post associate professors and full professors contingent on formal

review

Existing non-tenure system maintained for in-post full professors who decide not to apply or are

denied tenure

Tenure system accompanied by a phased retirement incentive plan

This report presents the TDC recommendations for each of the first three goals with justifications,

related benchmarking information, and action items, as applicable. Work on the retirement

incentive plan is still in progress and will be presented for discussion and approval as a separate

report in due time.

This report does not specify for all design components the level of detail needed for complete

implementation, but rather provides the principles, guidelines, and implementation framework for

the main features. Any remaining implementation-related details will then be further developed, as

needed, post final approval of the proposed recommendations by the BOT.

1 http://www.aub.edu.lb/senate/meetings/2013-14/Documents/23Jan2015mins.pdf

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

5

II. Steady State Tenure System

The TDC proposes a “steady state” tenure system consisting of 14 key design components that

cover all main aspects. These components define how the desired tenure system will function on

the long-term for new incoming tenure-track faculty members. They also impact the design of the

transition to tenure for in-post faculty members as elaborated in Section III.

II.A Key Design Components

1. Tenure will be granted solely to full-time tenure-track faculty members.

Professorial faculty members whose titles contain prefixes or suffixes, such as “Research”,

“Practice”, “Clinical”, “Visiting” or “Adjunct” will not be eligible for tenure. At FM, the

equivalent tenure-eligible ranks are in the Investigator Track (Track 1) and include the

Scientist-Investigator Subtrack (Subtrack 1A) and the Physician-Investigator Subtrack

(Subtrack 1B). Professorial faculty members with prefixes/suffixes will continue to be eligible

for promotion and for multiple year contracts in accordance with then existing policies and

procedures within their faculties/schools.

Action items: The implementation of tenure will require revising relevant policies and

procedures including the Faculty Bylaws1, Faculty Manual

2, and Academic Policies

3 to be in

line with the approved tenure system design recommendations.

2. Tenure will be granted upon promotion from assistant to associate professor.

Promotion to associate professor is not possible without obtaining tenure. Once attained, tenure

remains in effect regardless of whether or not a candidate is promoted to full professor rank.

Justification: This is in line with the recommendations of the first and second task forces on

tenure, the January 2015 Senate vote on tenure principles, the AAUP guidelines on tenure4, and

standard practice at peer US institutions.

3. Tenure-track assistant professors will have a maximum of eight years to obtain tenure.

Justification: Assistant professors should apply for tenure by the end of the seventh year in

rank, have their applications considered in the eighth year, and be appointed to a ninth year,

which will be their first year in the rank of tenured associate professor (if tenure is awarded) or

terminal year (if tenure is denied). This extends the probationary period by one extra year with

respect to current AUB promotion guidelines and AAUP guidelines as listed in the AAUP

Statement on Tenure4. This extra year aims at providing assistant professors with more time, if

needed, to further strengthen their portfolios, taking into account the available research

resources and the teaching load at AUB as compared to peer US institutions. The duration of

eight years to apply for tenure should be revisited at a future point in time (e.g., 7-10 years after

implementation) to study the feasibility of aligning it with AAUP guidelines, as research related

1 https://aub.policytech.eu/dotNet/documents/?docid=86&LinkedFromInsertedLink=true&public=true 2 http://www.aub.edu.lb/pnp/generaluniversitiesmanuals/Documents/FacultyManual/facultymanual.pdf 3 https://www.aub.edu.lb/provost/Pages/AcademicPolicies.aspx 4 https://www.aaup.org/issues/tenure

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

6

resources and support at the university are expected to grow with the implementation of the

tenure system.

4. Early application for tenure will be permitted, but no assistant professor may apply for early

tenure more than once. For early tenure cases, the same evaluation criteria will hold.

Justification: This provides research-active assistant professors with the possibility of applying

for tenure early, which is important to retain exceptional candidates given the relatively longer

tenure clock of eight years.

5. Eight years of service may include years served in the rank of assistant professor at another

institution of higher education. The inclusion of prior service and the number of years counted

should be agreed on by the candidate, Dean, and Provost in writing upon appointment.

6. A mandatory substantive documented pre-tenure review will usually take place during the

fourth year of an assistant professor‟s initial appointment. If successful, the candidate will be

reappointed to a second term of four years; if not, the candidate will be given a terminal year.

This should be combined with an effective mentoring system to junior faculty members.

Pre-tenure reviews for assistant professors appointed with one or two years of prior service at

another institution will take place during the second year at AUB. There will be no pre-tenure

review for assistant professors appointed with three or more years of prior service.

Action item: Develop a procedure for pre-tenure review based on the current reappointment

procedure as documented in the Academic Appointment Policy1 and Reappointment Schedule

2.

Action item: Faculties/schools will be requested to develop guidelines for mentoring junior

faculty members at the departmental level using effective practices.

7. The tenure clock will be suspended for one year for a tenure-track faculty member who

becomes a primary caregiver following the birth or adoption of a child. In exceptional cases, it

may also be suspended due to serious health issues, a significant administrative load at the

university level, or on humanitarian grounds.

Justification: This is framed using gender-neutral terms in accordance with the requirements of

Title VII (applicable to US citizens) and AUB‟s non-discrimination policies.

Action item: Revise the existing policy related to the freezing of the promotion/tenure clock in

the Faculty Manual1 (Chapter Two – Academic Policies, Section 3) to be in line with the

recommended gender-neutral language. This should also include the corresponding procedure

and approval process.

8. Tenured associate professors may seek promotion to full professor and more than once so long

as at least three years have passed since the previous decision (i.e., four years have passed since

the previous application). Tenured associate professors are expected to strive towards achieving

the full professor rank.

1 https://www.aub.edu.lb/provost/Documents/Acad_%20Appoint_TenureNov2009_updated_grievance_policy_Nov18,%202012.pdf

2 https://www.aub.edu.lb/provost/Documents/re%20appointment_schedule%20for%202016-17.pdf

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

7

9. University-wide general criteria for awarding tenure and/or promotion are recommended in line

with AUB‟s mission focusing primarily on high academic standards in scholarly research or

creative work in the arts, effective teaching, and professional service.

Tenure-Track Assistant Professor Applying for Tenure with Promotion to Associate Professor:

It is recommended that promotion to the rank of associate professor along with the granting of

tenure be in accordance with the following requirements (see Section II.C for more details

including related clarifications): A successful candidate must have a record of excellent

achievement and recognition in scholarly research or creative work in the arts, in addition to

an excellent record in either teaching or service, and at least a very good record in the other

one.

Tenured Associate Professor Applying for Promotion to Full Professor: It is recommended that

promotion from the rank of tenured associate professor to the rank of tenured full professor be

in accordance with the following requirements that reflect a higher level of achievement

compared to the existing promotion criteria (see Section II.C for more details including related

clarifications): A successful candidate must have demonstrated outstanding scholarly

achievement in scholarly research or creative work in the arts combined with international

recognition, and at least an excellent record in either teaching or service, and a very good

record in the other one.

The TDC acknowledges the importance of having clear evaluation criteria for the successful,

fair, and transparent implementation of tenure. Therefore, faculties/schools will be required to

develop supplementary criteria for tenure and promotion based on the specifics of their

disciplines and on expectations of faculty members in terms of research, teaching, and service

achievements and contributions.

Action items: Each faculty/school will be requested to document its current practice for the

evaluation of promotion cases and to develop its customized set of criteria for tenure and

promotion, consistent with its own disciplines and goals and with university-wide criteria and

general guidelines; the process should engage all departments within the faculty/school, and the

final criteria should be voted on and approved in the faculty/school. The criteria should include

qualitative definition with quantitative indicators, as applicable, of the qualifiers „outstanding‟,

„excellent‟, „very good‟, and „good‟ in research, teaching, and service; these definitions should

take into account the profiles of the cohort of existing faculty members, standards and practices

at peer US institutions of similar size, quality and ranking, and aspirations towards continuous

improvement. A task force or standing committee reporting to the Provost will closely guide the

process, and will approve and monitor the various faculty/school criteria in order to ensure

university wide consistency.

10. The procedure for awarding tenure will largely follow the current procedure for promotion1,

with the key change of adding a University Promotion and Tenure Committee (UPTC)

evaluation stage to replace the Board of Deans evaluation stage.

1 https://www.aub.edu.lb/provost/Documents/Promotion-procedures-guidelines-update-august%202014.pdf

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

8

The procedure will consist of seven evaluation stages including external peer reviews; this will

encourage scrutiny and validation at each of the stages in the evaluation process and result in a

set of sequential recommendations from independent groups. It will also include a due process

monitoring layer in line with current practice. The stages are as follows:

Stage 1: Department including Chair. This layer has three components: i. Peer Review

Committee evaluation and recommendation, which for small departments can be collapsed

into the departmental level; ii. Department evaluation and vote; and iii. Chair evaluation and

recommendation.

Stage 2: Faculty/School Advisory Committee. This will no longer be an Expanded Advisory

Committee including external faculty members, as the review by peers will be captured by

the formation of the UPTC. Small faculties/schools will have the option to supplement the

advisory committee with additional external faculty members, if needed.

Stage 3: Faculty/School Dean

Stage 4: University Promotion and Tenure Committee (UPTC). For the purpose of

promotion and tenure evaluations and recommendations, this replaces the Board of Deans

and becomes a peer-review committee composed of tenured faculty members.

Stage 5: Provost

Stage 6: President

Stage 7: Board of Trustees

External review of publications and other scholarly or creative output will be mandatory during

tenure and promotion reviews. External reviewers will be asked to assess the originality, rigor,

and fundamental significance of the work of the candidate; to compare the candidate to other

scholars in the field; and whether the reviewer would recommend the candidate for tenure

and/or promotion.

UPTC formation guidelines: The UPTC will consist of 17 tenured full professors with the

following composition: 2 from FAFS, 4 from FAS, 3 from FEA, 2 from FHS, 3 from FM, 1

from HSON, and 2 from OSB.

11 members nominated by the Deans in consultation with the faculty/school advisory

committee, approved by the Provost and the President, with the following distribution

among faculties/schools based on their sizes in terms of the number of tenure eligible

faculty members: 3 from FAS, 2 from FEA, 2 from FM, 1 from HSON, 1 from FAFS, 1

from FHS, and 1 from OSB.

6 members (1 from each of FAS, FEA, FM, FAFS, FHS, OSB) with the following

distribution: 2 members elected by the University Senate and 4 members appointed by the

President.

Members serve for a two-year term with a maximum of two consecutive terms; a faculty

member can be appointed again to serve on the UPTC after a break of at least two years.

Initially, half of the members should serve for a one-year term to allow for staggered formation.

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

9

The proposed UPTC composition will allow the UPTC to mature as it is a new concept for

AUB, prevent membership to be excessively vulnerable to lobbying, and allow the UPTC to be

supplemented with complementary expertise so that the pool of applicants can be evaluated in

the most informed manner.

A positive recommendation by the UPTC requires an absolute majority of voting members; this

means that abstentions and absences are counted as negative votes. In Robert‟s rules, an

abstention is not considered a vote and a majority is simply more positive than negative votes

discounting abstentions. For instance, a 6:5:1 is a positive vote according to Robert‟s rules,

whereas it would be a negative vote in the UPTC. This voting mechanism is recommended

because faculty members in the UPTC are expected to evaluate applications and vote on them

with clear recommendation, as a case for tenure should be unambiguous and clear. In addition,

UPTC members should not participate in peer, department, or faculty/school advisory

committee meetings related to promotion and/or tenure and, thus, should evaluate and vote only

in the UPTC.

The TDC also recommends that the UPTC be chaired by the Provost as a non-voting member,

and does not include Deans or ex-officio administrator members, since Deans already provide

their detailed evaluation and recommendation for candidates in their faculties/schools.

Benchmarking (see Appendix I.A for details): The TDC reviewed peer US institutions that have

an evaluation stage for tenure applications similar to the UPTC. The main findings based on the

benchmarked universities can be summarized as follows: it should be a standing committee; one

of its key goals is to ensure consistency of standards across the university; and its size varies

normally between 12 and 16 members with term of appointment ranging between two and three

years with staggering in some institutions (e.g., Columbia University). Membership ranged

from being appointed fully by the Provost (e.g., Columbia University, Boston University) to all

elected (e.g., Emory University) or hybrid (e.g., Georgetown University); in Duke, membership

is done through a nomination process by the Executive Committee of the Academic Council.

Members were selected to represent disciplines in certain institutions (e.g., Duke University,

Georgetown University). Deans served in certain committees as voting members (e.g.,

Villanova University).

Action items: Finalize the details of the UPTC composition and functions based on the above

recommended guidelines; update related existing policies and procedures accordingly.

11. Incoming faculty members recruited at the associate or full professor ranks will either receive

tenure upon appointment or at a time agreed by the candidate, Dean, and Provost prior to

appointment. In the latter case, unsuccessful tenure applicants will be given a terminal year. In

the former case, the search committee oversees the recruitment process and the UPTC conducts

a separate expedited tenure review before the faculty member joins AUB. Since these steps are

time-consuming, departments seeking to recruit senior faculty members with tenure are advised

to begin the process well in advance of the expected appointment date. Every effort should be

made by the Dean, Provost, and UPTC to complete the tenure and appointment process prior to

the arrival of the faculty member to the university.

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

10

Action items: Revise the content of the Guidelines for Searches and New Appointments1

document that is related to the process for recruiting mid-level and senior faculty members.

12. Unsuccessful applicants will have the option to appeal tenure and promotion decisions to the

President on the basis of non-adherence to then-existing policies and procedures including

discrimination as described in AUB‟s Non-Discrimination Policy2, or the decision being so

inconsistent with the evidence in the record that it must be judged arbitrary or capricious.

Based on the current practice, only cases positively endorsed by the President are referred to

the BOT Academic Affairs Committee for its own endorsement. The full BOT will then vote

based on the recommendations of the Academic Affairs Committee, and the decision is final

and cannot be reversed.

Benchmarking (see Appendices I.B and I.C for details): The TDC reviewed the appeal process

for negative tenure and promotion decisions at peer US institutions, with focus on (1) at what

level a negative decision stops, (2) how unsuccessful candidates are notified, (3) when and how

can an appeal be submitted and to whom. Regarding the grounds for appeal submission at the

benchmarked institutions, reasons included violations of procedure, procedural irregularities,

discrimination allegations, inadequate documentation, bias or improper evaluation, etc. Only

the University of Kentucky among the benchmarked institutions listed merit as a possible

ground for appeal.

Action items: Review the current procedure for grievance as listed in the Faculty Manual3

(Chapter Two – Academic Policies, Section 5) taking into account standard practices at peer US

institutions and related AAUP guidelines4.

13. Post-tenure reviews will be conducted every five years by a peer review committee to evaluate

the faculty member‟s career trajectory through a positive, thorough, fair, and transparent

process. The purpose of the review is to provide recognition for achieving faculty and provide

guidance for furthering faculty development. It will also form a basis for merit raises, honors,

resource allocation, and teaching and service loads; for more details on workload allocation

guidelines with the implementation of the tenure system, check Section IV.

If a post-tenure review indicates that corrective action is desirable, the faculty member, Chair,

and Dean will agree on an action plan with a timeline that concludes with a second review no

more than two years after the first.

The post-tenure review is a developmental process and cannot, by itself, lead to the revoking of

tenure. However, under specific circumstances, e.g., successive unsatisfactory reviews, it can

lead to the initiation of a review for termination process (see design component 14 for more

details on termination).

Action items: Develop guidelines for post-tenure review of tenured faculty, including review

committee(s), material to be submitted, criteria, possible evaluation outcomes, evaluation

1 http://www.aub.edu.lb/provost/Documents/Guidelines%20for%20Searches%20and%20New%20Appointments-6.pdf

2 http://www.aub.edu.lb/pnp/generaluniversitypolicies/Documents/InstitutionalIntegrityPolicy/NonDiscriminationPolicy/NonDiscrimination.pdf 3 http://www.aub.edu.lb/pnp/generaluniversitiesmanuals/Documents/FacultyManual/facultymanual.pdf 4 https://www.aaup.org/report/recommended-institutional-regulations-academic-freedom-and-tenure

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

11

consequences, timeline, etc. The guidelines should be based on existing faculty annual

evaluation procedures, AAUP‟s recommendations for post-tenure reviews1, and best practice at

peer US institutions.

14. Tenured faculty members may be terminated only: (i) for adequate cause; (ii) because of force

majeure or financial exigency; (iii) in conjunction with the discontinuance of an academic unit

or program.

Adequate cause includes, but is not limited to: (i) serious professional misconduct; (ii) failing to

carry out the obligations of the position with respect to teaching, research, and service, as

evident by gross inefficiency or intentional neglect of duty; (iii) criminal conduct.

In the AAUP “Termination & Discipline (2004)” document2, one of the included definitions for

adequate cause is the following: “The term refers especially to demonstrated incompetence or

dishonesty in teaching or research, to substantial and manifest neglect of duty, and to personal

conduct which substantially impairs the individual's fulfillment of his/her institutional

responsibilities.”

Action items: The above items are based on benchmarking with peer US institutions and, thus,

the text included is compatible with applicable US laws. AUB‟s current Letter of Academic

Appointment template is based on Lebanese and US laws; therefore, the university‟s legal

office should revise the content of this design component and define all listed items clearly

taking into account both US federal law and Lebanese law. This should be also accompanied by

the development of a wide range of new policies and procedures that cover the various possible

scenarios for tenure termination. In addition, the current Letter of Academic Appointment needs

to be modified to be compatible with the relevant components of the new proposed tenure

system.

Tenure termination guidelines: The following are additional details that will be relevant to the

development of the needed tenure termination policies and procedures:

To the extent any term in the definition of “cause” is not already defined in AUB‟s policies,

a policy should be put in place to provide further guidance as to what conduct is prohibited.

Similarly, a policy should be developed to further define what it means to “fail to meet the

obligations of the position.” AUB‟s existing policies concerning discrimination and

discriminatory harassment should be sufficient to define those terms for purposes of tenure

termination.

When the alleged cause is the faculty member‟s failure to comply with an AUB policy, if

the conduct at issue was the subject of an investigation under a complaint made pursuant to

one of AUB‟s policies, termination (or lesser sanctions) will be imposed only if the

investigation concluded with a finding that the policy was violated.

1 https://www.aaup.org/report/post-tenure-review-aaup-response

2 https://www.aaup.org/issues/appointments-promotions-discipline/termination-discipline-2004

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

12

Termination of tenure in conjunction with the discontinuance of an academic unit or

program will occur only after the university has made reasonable efforts to reassign tenured

faculty. In this case, affected faculty members (i) will be given at least two semesters‟

notice before tenure is terminated, and (ii) will have the right to be reinstated if the unit or

program is reinstituted as an independent unit or program within two years of closure.

In addition to policies, detailed procedures need to be developed including at least the

following (or similar) steps: (i) proceedings may be initiated by the President (or the Board

of Trustees), (ii) written notice of the grounds for the proposed termination will be provided

to the faculty member, (iii) the faculty member will have an opportunity to respond in

writing and to request a hearing by a panel of faculty members of equal or higher rank, (iv)

the faculty member may have legal representation at the hearing, (v) the panel must make

written findings in support of its recommendation, and (vi) the President (or the Board of

Trustees) must approve the panel‟s decision.

II.B Steady State Tenure System: Summary Flowchart

Figure 1: Flowchart summarizing key features of the steady state tenure system. “PT” stands for promotion &

tenure application, “P” stands for promotion application, * stands for terminal year due to negative decision,

and clock sign indicates that there is a deadline to apply.

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

13

II.C Steady State Tenure System: General Criteria

This section elaborates on the recommended general university criteria for awarding tenure and

promotion to support high academic standards in scholarly research or creative work in the arts,

effective teaching, and professional service, as listed in the key design component 9 in Section II.A.

Tenure is a recognition by one's peers and by the university of achieved distinction in the areas of

research, teaching, and service, in the advancement of the mission of the university, and ultimately

in the career aspirations and academic freedom of the faculty members. Therefore, tenure should be

granted to faculty members whose high standards of scholarly achievements in serving the

university's mission and potential for effective long-term performance warrant the institution's

reciprocal long-term commitment.

Assistant Professor Applying for Tenure with Promotion to Associate Professor

Promotion to, or appointment of, an associate professor along with the granting of tenure should be

in accordance with the following general requirements:

A successful candidate must have a record of excellent achievement and recognition in scholarly

research or creative work in the arts, in addition to an excellent record in either teaching or

service, and at least a very good record in the other one.

In the absence of such evidence tenure will not be granted, and the candidate will be given a

terminal year.

Routine competence in either research or teaching, by itself, even when accompanied by adequate

time allocation and conscientiousness, is insufficient grounds for tenure. Moreover, while a

meritorious record of professional service should be expected, it cannot in and of itself be sufficient

grounds for tenure nor can it substitute for excellence in research or effectiveness in teaching.

Tenured Associate Professor Applying for Promotion to Full Professor

Promotion to, or appointment of, tenured associate professor does not necessarily imply that the

individual faculty member will achieve eventual promotion to the rank of full professor during their

academic career.

The rank of professor should be reserved for faculty members who have clearly met the criteria for

tenure and have demonstrated their outstanding scholarly achievement and international visibility in

a particular discipline or field. Thus, promotion to professor with tenure should be in accordance

with the following general requirements:

A successful candidate must have demonstrated outstanding scholarly achievement in research or

creative work in the arts combined with international recognition, and at least an excellent record

in either teaching or service, and a very good record in the other one.

In the absence of such evidence, promotion to professor will not be granted, and the candidate

would remain associate professor with tenure.

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

14

Interpretative Guidelines

Each faculty/school must establish its own set of guidelines for promotion and tenure, consistent

with its own goals and culture, and define the qualifiers „outstanding‟, „excellent‟, „very good‟ and

„good‟ in each of the three domains of scholarly research/creative work in the arts, effective

teaching, and professional service. These discipline-specific guidelines must conform to the

university-wide general guidelines outlined above.

The process of evaluating a candidate for tenure and promotion is essentially an inquiry: Is the

candidate for tenure and promotion among the stronger scholars and significant contributors to the

field or profession, in comparison with peer individuals in the same field at similar points in their

careers?

a) The quality and quantity of scholarly research output or creative work in the arts should be

considered in assessing the value and impact of this output or work of the applicant, and should

be acknowledged as such by peers and internationally-recognized scholars in the relevant fields.

Where applicable, the value of the output‟s impact can be assessed by several measures that

typically include, but are not restricted to: the quality as well as the number of publications or

the critical appraisal of the output in the creative arts; a record of attempts and successes at

attracting funding for research; evidence of efforts at becoming an independent researcher or

leader of collaborative work in one or more focused areas of research; continued or sustained

research output over a period of years; and dissemination at international professional

conferences and invitations to serve on advisory boards of journals, panels of grant review, and

research consultancies.

b) Candidates shall also demonstrate their effectiveness in teaching through qualitative evaluation

of their teaching and advising activities with quantitative indicators, as applicable. Effective

teachers carry out the education mission using a variety of teaching strategies that foster student

learning and result in professional knowledge, attitudes, and skills.

As effective teachers, faculty members respond positively to feedback from students; they also

engage in the learning process through one or more of the following educational activities:

classroom teaching; training during practice activities; thesis supervision; and student

mentoring activities. Academic program development and enhancement, curriculum

development and preparation of courses, syllabi, or other instructional material are also

components of an impactful teaching portfolio. In some disciplines, teachers also may get

involved in organizing or providing continuing education activities to professionals and the

community.

c) Candidates for tenure must also have a meritorious contribution in professional service. It is

expected that they contribute positively to their departments, the university, the profession and

the academic community, and/or have meaningful impact on the local/regional community.

Appropriate instruments and tools for assessing the value and weight of professional service at

these various levels should be developed and adopted by various faculties/schools.

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

15

III. Transition to Tenure for In-Post Faculty Members

This section includes the proposed recommendations for the transition to tenure for in-post faculty

members in the ranks of regular full-time assistant, associate, and full professors. The proposed

recommendations complement the key design components for the tenure system at steady state

presented in Section II and, thus, aim at filling the gaps that are specifically applicable to the

transition phase.

All non-tenured professorial faculty members, including

(i) tenure eligible assistant, associate, and full professors,

(ii) physician educator and academic clinician faculty members in FM,

(iii) clinical, practice, and/or research faculty members in FAS, FHS, HSON, OSB,

are eligible and expected to continue to participate actively at all levels of university governance

and are eligible to retain all current privileges, except for serving on UPTC and voting on tenure

recommendations.

The following table presents an approximate number of existing in-post faculty members (by rank

from all faculties/schools) who are eligible to apply for tenure.

Table 1: Tenure eligible faculty members per rank, where in FM this includes only faculty members in

Subtracks 1A and 1B [Source: Human Resources Department December 2016, FM Dean‟s Office August 2016].

Rank FAS FEA OSB FHS FAFS FM HSON Total

Full 69 36 9 12 12 61 4 203

Associate 49 26 12 8 6 17 2 120

Assistant 71 34 19 5 9 18 2 158

Total 189 96 40 25 27 96 8 481

III.A Key Design Components

1. The conferral of tenure to in-post faculty members will be contingent upon formal review for all

ranks. Moreover, the existing contract-based system will remain in place alongside the

proposed steady state tenure system for in-post full professors only.

Justification: This is in line with the recommendations of the first and second task forces on

tenure, and with the January 2015 Senate vote on tenure principles.

Action items: The implementation of tenure will require revising relevant policies and

procedures including the Faculty Bylaws1, Faculty Manual

2, and Academic Policies

3 to be in

line with the approved recommendations on the transition to tenure for in-post faculty members.

2. In-post assistant professors: Assistant professors in post when the new tenure system is

implemented will automatically be eligible to apply for tenure and will simultaneously be

evaluated for both promotion and tenure. If tenure is granted, the candidate becomes a tenured

1 https://aub.policytech.eu/dotNet/documents/?docid=86&LinkedFromInsertedLink=true&public=true 2 http://www.aub.edu.lb/pnp/generaluniversitiesmanuals/Documents/FacultyManual/facultymanual.pdf 3 https://www.aub.edu.lb/provost/Pages/AcademicPolicies.aspx

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

16

associate professor and follows the steady state tenure system design components. If tenure is

denied, the candidate receives a terminal one-year contract.

Application deadline for in-post assistant professors: Assistant professors in rank for less than

three years (i.e., joined after summer 2014 if tenure implementation is initiated in September

2017) will receive an extension of one year (i.e., submit their application for tenure and

promotion by the end of their seventh year in rank) and those in rank for more than three years

receive an extension of two years (i.e., submit their application for tenure and promotion by the

end of their eighth year in rank). As is the case in the proposed steady state tenure system, early

application for tenure is permitted but no assistant professor may apply for early tenure more

than once.

Justification: Currently, assistant professors are evaluated for promotion during the seventh

year of appointment (promotion files are submitted by the end of the sixth year in rank).

However, considering that the current cohort of assistant professors joined AUB without the

expectation of tenure, the contracts of assistant professors will be automatically extended. This

is also consistent with the proposed steady state tenure system design, which gives assistant

professors seven rather than six years to apply for tenure.

3. In-post associate professors: Associate professors in post when the new tenure system is

implemented will have two options:

a) Option I – Apply for tenure alone:

If the outcome is positive, then the candidate is awarded tenure only (becomes tenured

associate professor) and follows the steady state tenure system design components.

If the outcome is negative and the application was submitted by the deadline, then the

candidate receives a terminal one-year contract.

If the outcome is negative and the application was submitted early before the deadline,

the candidate will have only one other chance to apply again to either Option I or II.

b) Option II – Apply for both tenure and promotion to full professor:

If the outcome is positive, then the candidate is either awarded tenure only (becomes

tenured associate professor) or awarded both tenure and promotion (becomes tenured

full professor), and follows the steady state tenure system design components.

If the outcome is negative and the application was submitted by the deadline, then the

candidate receives a terminal one-year contract.

If the outcome is negative and the application was submitted early before the deadline,

the candidate will have only one other chance to apply again to either Option I or II.

Faculties/schools may opt to put a mechanism in place that allows retaining associate

professors, who do not achieve tenure/promotion, on a contractual basis with higher teaching or

service loads, based on a recommendation by the Dean and approval by the Provost. This

should be offered to associate professors whose accomplishments are deemed valuable and for

whom continued need is evident and, thus, should not be a default action. In terms of

implementation, this can be achieved: i. by allowing transfer to existing specialized tracks, as

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

17

applicable (e.g., clinical tracks in FAS/HSONFM, research and practice tracks in FHS); or ii. by

offering renewable contracts in the rank without further promotion possibility similar to current

practice1, however, with enhanced job conditions (e.g., allowing up to three-year contracts and

revisiting voting rights).

Justification: The TDC considered two other possible outcomes for in-post associate professors.

The first outcome is “tenure denied but promoted to full professor”. The TDC agreed that this

would unnecessarily prolong the existence of the non-tenure system, which should be phased

out sooner rather than later; in addition, achieving full professor rank should be the next goal

and career milestone for tenured associate professors. The second outcome is “denied tenure,

denied promotion, but not out”. This would effectively result in a non-tenured associate

professor track. This, too, the TDC did not favor as it would also prolong the existence of two

systems at AUB. Moreover, it would limit the available faculty lines to recruit new research-

active tenure-track faculty members.

Application deadline for in-post associate professors: Associate professors in rank for less than

three years will receive an extension of two years (i.e., submit their application for tenure

with/without promotion by the end of their eighth year in rank) and those in rank for more than

three years receive an extension of three years (i.e., submit their application for tenure

with/without promotion by the end of their ninth year in rank). Currently, associate professors

are evaluated for promotion during the seventh year of appointment (promotion files are

submitted by the end of the sixth year in rank).

Associate professors who have previously received three-year extension in rank, based on

promotion review process, will not be given extra time extension, with the exception of one

year extension for applicants with deadline in September 2017 (see Section III.C on

implementation timeline).

As is the case in the steady state system, a tenured associate professor is expected to strive

towards achieving the full professor rank and, thus, may seek promotion to full professor more

than once so long as at least three years have passed since the previous decision.

4. In-post full professors: Full professors in post when the new tenure system is implemented will

have the option of applying for tenure, if they so wish. Full professors who do not wish to apply

for tenure will remain with term contracts that will follow the then existing reappointment

procedure.

Full professors who apply and receive tenure become professors with tenure and follow the

steady state tenure system design components. Those who apply but do not receive tenure

continue to be reappointed on the existing system.

Non-tenured full professors may reapply for tenure as many times as they wish, so long as at

least three years have passed since the previous decision.

1 https://www.aub.edu.lb/provost/Documents/Acad_%20Appoint_TenureNov2009_updated_grievance_policy_Nov18,%202012.pdf

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

18

The workload allocation to in-post faculty members in all professorial ranks will follow a set of

guidelines that are proposed to complement the implementation of the tenure system as justified

and explained in Section IV.

5. General criteria are recommended for the granting of tenure to in-post faculty members in the

various professorial ranks.

Tenure will be granted to eligible in-post faculty members whose high standards of scholarly

achievements in serving the university's mission and potential for effective long-term

performance warrant the institution's reciprocal long-term commitment. University-wide

general criteria for awarding tenure are proposed in line with the steady state tenure system

criteria (see Section II.C) to support high academic standards in research, teaching, and service.

The faculty/school specific guidelines must conform to the university-wide general guidelines

listed below:

a) In-Post Assistant Professor Applying for Tenure with Promotion to Associate Professor: A

successful candidate must have a record of excellent achievement and recognition in

scholarly research or creative work in the arts, in addition to an excellent record in either

teaching or service, and at least a very good record in the other one.

b) In-Post Associate Professor Applying for Tenure Only: A successful candidate must have a

sustained record of excellent achievement and recognition in scholarly research or creative

work in the arts which is commensurate with the number of years in rank, in addition to an

excellent record in either teaching or service, and at least a very good record in the other

one.

c) In-Post Associate Professor Applying for Both Tenure with Promotion to Full Professor: A

successful candidate must have demonstrated outstanding scholarly achievement in

research or creative work in the arts combined with international recognition, and at least

an excellent record in either teaching or service, and a very good record in the other one.

d) In-Post Full Professor Applying for Tenure: A successful candidate: 1) must have a

cumulative record of excellent achievement and recognition in scholarly research or

creative work in the arts; 2) should have also maintained an excellent record, in the

previous five years or longer, of either effective teaching and/or professional service, in a

balanced combination of these two activities; and 3) must demonstrate the potential

sustainability of continued activity in scholarship, teaching and professional service over

the course of the faculty member’s career.

Action items: As recommended for the steady state tenure system, each faculty/school will be

requested to establish its own set of guidelines for awarding tenure and promotion for the

different eligible groups of in-post faculty members consistent with its own goals and

aspirations, while benchmarking against peer US institutions of similar size, quality and

ranking; the process should engage all departments within the faculty/school, and the final

criteria should be voted on and approved in the faculty/school. The criteria should define the

quality indicators in each of the three domains of scholarly research/creative work in the arts,

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

19

effective teaching, and professional service, taking into consideration factors such as years in

rank and the faculty member‟s contribution to, and impact on, their discipline and the

university. In addition, the recommendation to grant tenure should be supported by a peer-

evaluation process of the applicant‟s achievements during years in the current rank. A task force

or standing committee reporting to the Provost will closely guide the process, and will approve

and monitor the various faculty/school criteria to ensure university wide consistency.

Voting on tenure and/or promotion during transition: In-post associate and full professors will

continue to review and vote on promotion cases during the transition period based on the

following guidelines. These guidelines should be revisited after five years, since by then the

majority of in-post associate and full professors would have applied for tenure.

i. In-post assistant and associate professors applying for promotion and tenure, or tenured

associate professors applying for promotion only: Follow the steady state procedure with

seven layers of evaluation starting at the departmental level. The submitted portfolio will be

based on the current guidelines for promotion applications.

Peers, department, chairperson, and faculty/school advisory committee will recommend and

vote on promotion only. The underlying principle is that assessment by the peers provides

important insights especially for service and teaching contributions, and during the first few

years of the transition, there would not be a critical mass of tenured faculty members in the

various departments. The Dean will then make recommendation on both promotion and

tenure, and the UPTC will evaluate, recommend, and vote on both promotion and tenure;

the next evaluation layers include the Provost, President, and BOT.

ii. In-post associate and full professors applying for tenure only: Initiate the evaluation

process at the level of the Dean followed by UPTC, Provost, President, and BOT.

The submitted portfolio should include CV and statements. The UPTC will also access the

last promotion dossier and annual performance evaluations, as available. In addition, the

UPTC will solicit at least four external letters focusing mainly on scholarship and external

service. The UPTC will have the option to also solicit additional letters from within AUB

(e.g., graduate students, faculty members) as deemed necessary.

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

20

III.B Transition to Tenure: Summary Flowchart

Figure 2: Flowchart summarizing key features of the steady state tenure system. “PT” stands for promotion &

tenure application, “P” stands for promotion application, “T” stands for tenure application, * stands for

terminal year due to negative decision, ** stands for either terminal year due to negative decision or action

based on faculty/school mechanism, and clock sign indicates that there is a deadline to apply.

III.C Transition Implementation Timeline

The mechanisms to grant tenure during the start-up period of the transition will be divided into two

phases.

In Phase I, only in-post full professors will be given the option to apply for tenure, with evaluation

by an external UPTC. The portfolio should include CV, key publications, teaching evaluations, and

references (optional) in addition to research, teaching, and service statements. Limiting Phase I to

tenure only applications from full professors will help populate the UPTC with tenured full

professors at a faster rate, and will dedicate enough time to develop the needed supporting policies

and procedures that can enhance systematic implementation and reduce uncertainties, including

faculty/school specific criteria for tenure and promotion.

The UPTC during Phase I will be appointed by the President and the Academic Affairs Committee

of the BOT, composed of external members who are representative of different disciplines, and

chaired by the Provost as a non-voting member. Phase I will last one to two years depending on the

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

21

initial number of submitted tenure applications as there is a limit on the load that can be handled

during any given evaluation cycle (up to 40-50 cases per cycle based on experience with promotion

evaluations).

In Phase II, tenure and promotion applications will be open to faculty members from all ranks.

Moreover, the UPTC composition during Phase I will be different from Phase II, as in Phase II

tenured full professors from AUB will serve on it in addition to few external members.

Since assistant and associate professors with more than three years in rank will be given two and

three years additional time for their application deadline, respectively, none will be at the end of

their application clock during the first two years of implementation. Thus, there will be no negative

promotion decisions that can lead to giving an assistant or associate professor a terminal one-year

contract during the start-up phase.

The following tentative timeline is recommended for the implementation assuming Phase I will be

initiated in September 2017 and will only last one year (AY 2017-18). If Phase I lasts two years

(AY 2017-18 and 2018-19), then Phase II will be launched during AY 2019-20.

Phase I AY 2017-2018

September 2017 Only full professors can submit tenure applications.

November 2017 The UPTC is formed of all external members (around 12 members).

Internationally recognized members with major academic administrative

experience, and representative of different disciplines.

Members can be representatives of universities which would allow access

to a network of connections for consultations on specific applications.

The external UPTC will be advised on the local and regional context and

provided with institutional guidelines by the President and Academic

Affairs Committee of the BOT. These guidelines will ensure some level

of continuity in the evaluation process in order to help address

uncertainties inherent to external evaluations.

Based on the provided guidelines and on the number of submitted

applications, the external UPTC will fix the details of the process that will

be followed for the evaluation and recommendations during Phase I.

January – May 2018 Applications will be evaluated starting at the level of the UPTC (as an

exception during Phase I only).

In case the number of tenure applications is high and exceeds the ability

of the UPTC to handle in a single cycle, the applications would be divided

into two cycles, within one to two years, on a random basis.

Results will only be announced once all applications are evaluated.

February 2017–

September 2018

Faculties/schools and the university will have the time to develop the needed

supporting policies and guidelines.

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

22

Phase II

AY 2018-2019

September 2018 Both tenure and promotion applications can be submitted from all ranks.

November 2018

UPTC formation includes a mix between external members and internal tenured

full professors (tenured during Phase I).

In the following year (AY 2019-20), the UPTC will be fully formed of tenured

full professors following the UPTC composition and functions guidelines.

January – May 2019

For assistant and associate professors, applications will go through all seven

evaluation stages as per steady state tenure system design component 10

(see Section II).

For full professors, applications will be evaluated starting at the level of the

Dean.

The additional faculty/school criteria developed during Phase I will be

critical during this phase.

Note: As soon as tenure implementation Phase I is launched, the existing promotion system will be

discontinued; all in-post tenure-eligible assistant and associate professors will follow the new

tenure system. However, promotion applications from in-post assistant and associate professors

who are ineligible to apply for tenure will continue based on the then existing system, e.g., clinical

faculty in FM/HSON/FAS or research/practice faculty in FHS.

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

23

IV. Faculty Workload: Principles and Guidelines

The proposed tenure system provides an opportunity to evolve the current faculty workload policy

due to various interrelations. Therefore, it is recommended to replace the existing workload policy

with one that is in line with AUB‟s mission and AAUP‟s recommendations, is more dynamic and

flexible, provides better load equity and academic efficiency, avoids the creation of a two-track

system with educator track, can enhance research productivity, and can possibly contribute

financially towards faculty related funds. The revised workload policy will also provide the needed

flexibility to implement an effective post-tenure review process, which is an integral component of

the tenure system.

A workload policy currently exists at AUB1 but remains university-wide without addressing

faculty- or discipline-specificities, and focused on teaching with fixed load per faculty member and

without addressing the balance between research, teaching and service. Some faculties/schools do

have internal documented workload policies, while others do not.

The TDC reviewed AUB‟s existing workload policy and AAUP‟s statement on faculty workload2,

met with Deans/Directors to learn about the common practices in all faculties/schools, studied

teaching load related data from the Banner system, and benchmarked with peer institutions

regionally and internationally.

The TDC is recommending a set of principles and guidelines that can provide more flexibility in

workload allocation to better reflect and service the mission of the university, to better adapt with

the changing needs of the university/faculties/departments over time, and to complement the design

and implementation of the tenure system. The aim of these broad guidelines is to shape the

development of a revised university-wide workload policy, which can then form the basis for

deriving faculty/school policies that take into account the specifics of various disciplines and

pedagogical approaches.

IV.A Key Design Components

1. The university workload policy will apply to full-time faculty members in all faculties/schools,

except for FM due to the different system of teaching which is focused on MD and graduate

programs. The workload policy will exclude summer term teaching, winter term teaching, or

intensive teaching outside of regular semester offerings.

Action items: Revise AUB‟s workload policy based on the proposed guidelines and design

recommendations.

2. The university workload policy will clarify expectations in relation to scholarly research,

teaching and service based on the current practices in the various faculties/schools.

It is recommended that workload assignments take into account each faculty member‟s

involvement in research/scholarly activity, teaching and service. As a general university

guideline, the typical distribution of load should follow the 40-40-20 rule, where 40 percent of

1 https://www.aub.edu.lb/provost/Documents/Faculty_Workload_Policy-November2014.pdf 2 https://www.aaup.org/issues/faculty-work-workload

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

24

academic year (AY) effort is devoted to teaching, 40 percent to research, and 20 percent to

service. Each standard course (three-credit lecture based) is nominally weighted as 10% of AY

effort; this includes time dedicated to teaching, preparation, advising, and grading.

Currently at AUB, the normal teaching load level of regular full-time professorial faculty

members is 12 credits per AY (four standard courses, two per term) in FAFS, FEA, FHS,

HSON, OSB, in addition to selected departments within FAS; having four courses per AY with

each weighted as 10% of the annual effort is consistent with the 40-40-20 rule. Most

departments in FAS have a normal teaching load level of 15 credits per AY (five standard

courses), whereas basic science departments in FM do not have standard teaching load

requirements.

Benchmarking (see Appendix II.A for details): The TDC identified and reviewed several models

that highlight the principles and objectives of faculty workload at peer institutions. In general,

the majority highlighted the principles guiding the purpose of faculty workload policy which

are: support and align with the mission and goals of the university, provide fairness in the

distribution of workload among faculty members within and across faculties/ schools, be

equitable to faculty members in similar disciplines, ensure that the talents of the faculty

members are employed effectively, have flexibility within specified parameters for variation

between disciplines and individual responsibilities, have clear and transparent allocations of

workload based on criteria and proper procedures, and be financially sustainable.

Researching the workload policies at these peer institutions, it is shown that some do not

publicly post their faculty workload policies online, whereas other institutions do not have

university-wide faculty workload policies, but have instead faculty/school or department

workload policies. Faculty workload allocations vary among these benchmarked institutions,

some are output driven (whereby the load is determined based on productivity of the faculty

member such as Simon Fraser University), others are more input driven where effort is

measured in terms of hours, or some equivalent unit, such as Texas A&M University and

Howard University. What is common across institutions is that all of them define what

constitutes academic work, with some detailing the three key components of faculty workload

(teaching, research, and service), though specific workload percentages were specified only by

some of them, e.g., Howard University, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and University of

Arizona.

3. The university workload policy will provide a level of flexibility and will facilitate dynamic

allocation based on procedures that depend on regular performance reviews. The teaching load

of regular full-time professorial faculty members will be up to a maximum of 18 credits per

year (six standard courses). The teaching load per faculty member will typically vary between

the normal teaching load level based on current practices and the maximum load level.

Justification: Facilitating dynamic teaching load allocation within a given range is in line with

standard practices at most peer US institutions (see Appendix II.B for details), due to various

benefits that include enhanced equity, higher impact, and improved academic efficiency.

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

25

In addition, the proposed dynamic model and load range are consistent with the AAUP‟s

Statement on Faculty Workload which recommends the following maximum teaching loads1:

“For undergraduate instruction, a teaching load of twelve hours per week, with no more than six

separate course-preparations during the academic year. For instruction partly or entirely at the

graduate level, a teaching load of nine hours per week.” The AAUP also outlines preferred

teaching loads as follows: “For undergraduate instruction, a teaching load of nine hours per

week. For instruction partly or entirely at the graduate level, a teaching load of six hours per

week.”

4. The teaching load allocation per faculty member will be determined on an annual basis based

on a rolling three-year evaluation period, and will be dynamic over time based on the faculty

member‟s performance, previous years‟ workload assignments and expectations, and stage of

academic career taking into account the institutional needs.

The teaching load of current and incoming assistant professors should be at the normal level

per faculty/school.

Justification: In-post and incoming assistant professors being at the outset of their academic

careers should be granted a normal teaching assignment to be able to develop their research

programs, prepare their teaching material, attract funding, and eventually meet the criteria

for tenure and promotion. Moreover, assistant professors during their first year at AUB

should have a teaching load below the normal level.

The teaching load of in-post associate professors should be at the normal level per

faculty/school. If an associate professor achieves tenure, then the load will typically

continue at the normal level till at least the next post-tenure review evaluation.

Justification: Current associate professors are required to apply for tenure by a predefined

deadline and, thus, are still expected to demonstrate excellence in research and effectiveness

in teaching with service contributions. Therefore, their teaching load should be maintained

at the normal level to give them the time needed to focus on scholarly research or creative

work in the arts.

The teaching load of in-post full professors will vary between the normal level and the

maximum level, based on the following options:

If a full professor applies and achieves tenure, then the teaching load will typically

continue at the normal level till at least the next post-tenure review evaluation.

If a full professor applies and does not achieve tenure or does not apply for tenure, then

the teaching load will be up to the maximum level of 18 credits per year based on annual

evaluations, in line with pre-defined policies and procedures at the faculty/school level.

Justification: Since tenure criteria have primary emphasis on research, full professors who

achieve tenure are expected to maintain significant research activity and, thus, should not be

allocated extra teaching load. On the other hand, a full professor who is less active in

research and is an effective teacher will be expected to take on a heavier teaching

1 https://www.aaup.org/issues/faculty-work-workload

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

26

responsibility up to the maximum level. From the faculty members‟ perspective, an

advantage of this is that annual performance evaluation will be based on the workload

assignment which can have direct implications on aspects such as career advancement,

merit increase, and contract duration.

The teaching load of tenured associate and full professors will vary between the normal

level and the maximum level, based on outcomes from the post-tenure review process.

Action items: Each faculty/school will be requested to document its current practice for annual

performance review/evaluation and to develop its customized procedures consistent with its

own disciplines and goals and with the university workload policy. The annual evaluations

should be based on a three-year sliding window taking into account workload assignments from

the previous years. The performance review procedures should be clear and detailed, and should

provide faculty members with an option to appeal. A task force or standing committee reporting

to the Provost will approve and monitor the various faculty/school faculty performance review

procedures to ensure university wide consistency.

5. The teaching load of a faculty member can be below the normal level in justified cases that

include the following, based on approval by the Chair and the Dean.

New tenure-track assistant professors during their first year at AUB.

Course buyout from external grants1.

Leading role in major research, educational, development, or outreach projects that require

release time for successful implementation.

Substantial administrative duties in line with university and faculty/school policies.

Having a teaching load less than three credits in a given term requires the approval of the Chair,

Dean and Provost.

Action items: Develop university-wide procedures for granting course releases to compensate

for substantial administrative duties, especially for standard positions such as Chair, Assistant

Dean, Associate Dean, Associate Provost, Director of Center or Administrative Unit, Program

Coordinator, etc.

6. The teaching load of full time instructors, lecturers, and senior lecturers will typically be 24

credits per year (eight standard courses, four per term). The teaching load can be reduced based

on notable involvement in research or service activities of value to the university in line with

faculty/school workload guidelines.

The teaching load of non-regular professorial rank full-time faculty members will depend on the

type of position in line with faculty/school guidelines, e.g., for clinical, research, or practice

professorial ranks.

The teaching load of part-time faculty members will depend on existing university guidelines

and the needs within the concerned department.

1 https://www.aub.edu.lb/provost/Documents/Course-Buyout-Guideline.pdf

Report of the Tenure Design Committee (TDC) December 27, 2016

27

Action items: Develop university wide procedures for the appointment of part-time faculty

members to assure hiring of qualified teaching faculty following a clear process, while ensuring

an acceptable level of consistency with respect to scope of service, load, benefits and titles

across faculties/schools.

7. Faculties/schools will be required to develop their own workload policies with clear criteria and

transparent procedures in line with the university workload guidelines taking into account the

specifics of their disciplines.

Workload decisions/allocations within faculties/schools should be made by Chairs in

consultation with the Dean who ensures equity across departments; the aim is to achieve a

balance between departmental/faculty needs and the teaching interests and expertise of

individual faculty members towards higher quality, impact and efficiency. To this end, the TDC

also recommends facilitating additional flexibility factors, as possible; for example, allowing

faculty members to teach nine credits in one term and three credits in the next term, or counting

multiple sections of the same course as different courses.

Justification: Faculties/schools workload policies and procedures are essential to assist Chairs

and Deans in making equitable and effective workload assignments taking into account their

educational needs and pedagogical approaches. Relevant factors to the definition of teaching

load include the following: course type (e.g., undergraduate, graduate, writing intensive, labs,

clinical, studios, etc.), class size, multiple sections of the same course, supervision activities

(e.g., labs, internships, fieldwork, seminars, etc.), supervision of student research (research

courses, theses, projects, etc.), course and curriculum development, and advising.

Action items: The following is a recommended plan with timeline for the development of

faculty/school workload policies/guidelines: Over a one-year period, each faculty/school will:

a) document their current practices in relation to workload allocation; b) justify continuing

existing practices; and c) perform revisions as needed to harmonize with the university

workload policy, including an appeal process in case a faculty member is dissatisfied with the

allocation of teaching load. The process should engage all departments within the

faculty/school, and the final policy should be voted on and approved in the faculty/school. In

order to ensure university wide consistency, a task force or standing committee reporting to the

Provost will closely guide the process, and approve and monitor the various faculty/school

workload policies; this approval process is expected to take another year leading to a two-year

total period to initiate implementation.

In addition, it is recommended to study the feasibility and financial implications of partially

reducing the teaching load of tenure-track assistant professors, as an initial step, across all FAS

departments to 12 credits per year instead of 15 credits.

8. The university workload policy should be complemented by a modern IT support system, e.g.,

based on Banner and the Faculty Management Information System (FMIS), which can help in

documenting, monitoring, and calibrating faculty workload allocations and annual performance

evaluations at the department, faculty/school, and university levels.