Rank and Tenure Policies and Procedures: Within the framework of the University Rank and Tenure Guidelines, the following policies and procedures are followed in all divisions of the Meadows School of the Arts:

Criteria

Specific criteria and policies appropriate to each discipline are to be established by each division and approved by the Dean. If any changes in current policy are deemed essential by the division during an academic year, these changes should be discussed with and adopted by the tenured faculty of the division and approved by the Dean before any changes are officially made. Divisional policies and any changes should be communicated to all faculty of the division. Changes in rank and tenure guidelines should be complete before the review process begins in the fall semester.

In all the academic areas of the school the principal factors that should be considered in evaluations for promotion and for the award of tenure are teaching and scholarship/research/creative work. Valued service to the University will be a factor in all ranks, but it cannot substitute for the primary factors of teaching and scholarly or professional activities. The relative weighing of criteria may vary reflecting the conservatory nature of some divisions, but the criteria give approximately equal weight to teaching and scholarly/artistic activities, with due consideration to service to the University and the community. The University criteria state that the standards of achievement for those primary criteria (teaching and research) are "substantial achievements in one and performance of high quality in the other." In order to receive tenure in Meadows, a faculty member must demonstrate substantive achievements in teaching as well as in scholarly/creative areas. A faculty member whose responsibilities are primarily in a non-teaching area, such as administration, will have his or her special evaluation criteria described in the letter of appointment.

Evaluations at all levels should be rigorous and should reflect comparable standards of performance in the nation's leading institutions. Tenure cannot be granted because of promise alone. Demonstrated accomplishments in teaching and research or professional activities appropriate to the criteria must be clearly established. Because the nature of the various disciplines in the arts differs so widely, it is not possible to quantify specific numbers of performances, exhibitions, articles, books or recordings expected. The review committees of the separate divisions must determine the relative merits of accomplishments by candidates in their fields of expertise.

The Process

Procedure

1. Each faculty member must be informed in the initial contract of the year in which the review for promotion and tenure are scheduled to take place. In the annual review session in the spring of the year of the upcoming consideration for tenure or promotion the chair will request that the candidate submit a current curriculum vitae and personal statement by June 1.

2. The chair, divisions review committee and faculty member will assemble pertinent data according to divisional deadlines by September 15. Each division will establish criteria for committee selection and operating procedures.

3. The complete divisional recommendation, along with the original file of materials and eight copies, will be submitted to the Dean by November 15. It is the responsibility of the chair to make a specific recommendation to the Dean for action. The chair will notify the faculty member in writing of the action being recommended to the Dean at the time the file is sent forward. Copies of this letter will be sent to the Dean. In the case of negative decisions, the chair will meet with the candidate to explain the reasons for the negative decision. At that meeting, the Chair will also give the candidate a written statement outlining the reasons for the decision. A negative decision at the divisional level may be appealed to the Dean. If an appeal is to be made, the faculty member may submit any rebuttal or new data appropriate to the appeal. The appeal must be submitted to the Dean within three weeks of the date that the faculty member received written notification of a negative decision.

4. The Dean will review both positive and negative decisions of each division and will submit files to the Meadows Promotion and Tenure Committee. This committee will evaluate both the procedures and the substance of each division's recommendation. This committee is appointed by the Dean and consists of one tenured faculty member from each undergraduate division of the Meadows School (Advertising, Art, Art History, Cinema-Television, Corporate Communications, Dance, Journalism, Music and Theatre) and a tenured faculty member from outside Meadows. The committee will be chaired by the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs who will vote only to resolve a deadlock.

5. The review committee will submit a confidential report to the Dean for each candidate, stating the committee's conclusions and recommendations on each matter. A formal committee vote should be recorded. (The faculty member from the division submitting the recommendation abstains.) The report should include a summary of the discussions to provide insight into the rationale for the committee's recommendations. Each voting member of the committee will submit an individual letter outlining reasons for his/her vote.

6. The Dean will consider both the division's recommendation and the report of the Review Committee in making a final decision on recommendations to the Provost. The faculty member will be notified by the Dean of his/her action on promotion/tenure at the time the Dean's recommendations are forwarded to the Provost, on or about February 1.

7. A negative decision by the Dean may be appealed to the Provost. If a negative decision is not appealed, the process is complete.

8. Recommendations from the schools are considered by a faculty committee appointed by the Provost which evaluates each case and advises the Provost. (See University Policy 6.12)

9. The Provost makes recommendations to the President and ultimately to the Board of Trustees for action.

10. A negative decision of the Provost may be appealed to the President.

11. Any de novo reviews which are required as a result of the review process will be done at the divisional level.

Documentation

The preparation of the promotion/tenure file and the substantive evaluation of the faculty member's teaching, research/professional and services activities takes place at the divisional level. The file prepared for each faculty member should include the following:

1. To be submitted by the candidate

1. A current curriculum vitae by June 1.

2. A personal statement that includes discussion of curricular and academic/artistic philosophy by June 1.

3. A copy of all the materials (supporting documents) to be included in the candidate's file. These materials should include anything that the candidate deems relevant to his/her candidacy. They may include, but are not limited to, articles, tapes, videotapes, reviews, critiques, programs, photographs, or recordings, as appropriate.

4. A list of materials that will be sent to outside evaluators. These materials are selected from the supporting document for the candidate's file. The candidate and the division chair should consult on the make-up of this list, but the final decision about what is appropriate and representative of the candidate's work rests with the candidate.

5. A list, arranged by semester, of all courses taught while at SMU, or for the last five years (whichever is shorter), including course number, course title and enrollment.

2. To be compiled by the chair.

1. Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness, including enrollment figures and student evaluations by semester. (The raw data should be submitted as supplementary material.) The candidate should submit the names and the addresses of at least three former students who can evaluate the candidate's teaching. The chair will solicit responses from these, and the chair may request additional alumni reviewers.

2. Peer evaluation of teaching and scholarly/professional activities. Peer evaluation may take different forms depending upon the policies currently in effect in each of the divisions. However, it is essential that each file include peer assessment of both the faculty member's teaching and research/professional activities.

3. Outside evaluations. The candidate should submit the names and addresses of at least six outside reviewers, along with a brief statement of their professional qualifications. The chair will choose from these suggestions and add additional reviewers. The outside reviewers will receive the candidate's narrative rather than check list format.

4. Administrative evaluation (the chair's assessment of the faculty member's work in all areas). This evaluation should include reference to the relative quality of reviews and the professional ranking or comparison of publications, performances or exhibitions.