DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR
TENURE AND PROMOTION
PURPOSE
The Purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the internal policies and procedures to be followed by the Department of History. The Citadel, in matters of promotion and tenure, such matters to be decided with the general policies and procedures contained in relevant college regulations, the central one of which is:
General Order # 4; “Policies and Procedures on Probationary Reappointment, Academic Tenure, Academic Promotion, and Termination of Tenured Faculty.”
PHILOSOPHY
The mission of the Department of History is to teach history. In the members of the faculty, Department of History is vested the responsibility of communicating to students the significance of the human past and ideas about that past as truthfully and as comprehensively as possible.
Members of the faculty, Department of History, The Citadel, are teaching scholars; pedagogical excellence is both expected and demanded. Teaching scholars of the discipline of history seek to communicate a corpus of historical information and interpretations regarding the major eras, events, forces, processes, and personalities which have shaped the past, a knowledge of which is the hallmark of an educated, thoughtful person; to develop in students the ability to think, speak, and write critically about the present in terms of the past and the past in terms of the present; to expose students to the methodologies, ideas, and ways of thinking which historians have used to understand the past; and to impart to students a sense of context, of wisdom, by which to deal with the unknowable future.
A college is an arena for the exchange of ideas, and teaching scholars of history discharge their responsibilities in three critical areas: teaching; scholarship/professional growth and development; and service in ways decorous to the college and to the wider community which the college serves. The essence of the academic calling is that the professor professes; the teaching scholar pursues the truth wherever it may lie and wherever it may lead. The process of professing means that the teaching scholar studies a thing, subjects the findings to intense evaluation and reflection, and finally communicates the ideas so formed in both lectures and Socratic interaction with students, and from time to time, in ways subject to the peer review of other teaching scholars of the profession. Although The Citadel regards itself foremost as a teaching rather than a “publish or perish” research institution, the teaching scholars of history conduct research to sharpen the focus of their lectures, to maintain their standing as active members of the scholarly community, and to hold for the for their students and fellow citizens the example of the life devoted to scholarly service and the love of learning. An active career of research scholarship redounds to the credit of the individual and the whole department, not just in terms of its reputation, but also and particularly because of its essential contribution to the intellectual life of the college. Likewise, the unique ethos of The Citadel places a premium on the involvement of the teaching scholar across the spectrum of the life of the college.
ACADMIC FREEDOM
Consistent with the American Association of University Professors’ 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure,
A teacher in the Department of History is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of his or her academic duties: but research for pecuniary return is based upon an understanding with both the Department of History and the authorities of The Citadel.
The teacher is entitled to freedom in the classroom discussing his subject, but she or he should be careful not to introduce into the teaching controversial matter which has no relation to the subject.
The teacher in the Department of History is a citizen, a member of a learned profession, and an officer o fan educational institution. When he or she speaks or writes as a citizen, he or she should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but the special position in the community imposes special obligations. A person of learning and an educational officer, he or she should remember that the public may judge the profession and The Citadel by his or her utterances. Hence he or she should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that he or she is not an institutional spokesperson.
ACADMEIC RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS
As prescribed in the 1970 AAUP Council Statement: Freedom and Responsibility, and in the 1987 AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics:
Membership in the academic community imposes on students, faculty members, administrators, and trustees an obligation to respect the dignity of others, to acknowledge their right to express differing opinions, and to foster and defend intellectual honesty, freedom of inquiry and instruction, and free expression on and off the campus.
Students are entitled to an atmosphere conducive to learning and to even-handed treatment in all aspects of the teacher-student relationship. Faculty members may not refuse to enroll or teach students on the grounds of their beliefs or the possible uses to which they may put the knowledge to be gained in a course. The student should not be forced by the authority inherent in the instructional role to make particular personal choices as to political action or his own part in society. Evaluation of students and award of credit must be based on academic performance professionally judged and not on matters irrelevant to the performance, whether personality, race, religion, degree of political activism, or personal beliefs.
It is the teacher’s mastery of the subject of History and one’s own scholarship that entitle her or him to the History Department classroom and to freedom in the presentation of the subject. Thus, it is improper for an instructor persistently to intrude material that has no relation to her or his subject, or to fail to present the subject matter of the course as announced to students and as approved by the faculty in their collective responsibility for the curriculum.
Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence.
FACULTY APPOINTMENTS
The Department of History makes four types of appointments. [Consistent with the AAUP’s 1978 Statement on Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Appointments and Regulation 1(b) in the 1982 AAUP Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure,] all full-time faculty appointments are of two kinds:
Probationary appointments, as stated in General Order 4, Section 1.b.
Tenure appointments, also as described in General Order 4, Section 1.b.
The Department of History may also make two other kinds of appointments:
Adjunct appointments, when the department feels that a specific and specialized course should be offered where expertise among full-time faculty is limited or when full-time faculty have been assigned full teaching loads and the need for further course offerings can be justified.
Temporary appointments, in the event of a special condition which requires the appointment of a faculty member full-time. Consistent with the AAUP’s 1978 Statement on Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Appointments and Regulation 1(b) in the 1982 AAUP Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, temporary appointments are for one year and are clearly limited to that brief association with The Citadel.
PROBATIONARY APPOINTMENTS
Pursuant to the 1971 AAUP Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments, during the probationary period a teacher in the Department of History shall have the academic freedom that all other members of the faculty have. Lacking the reinforcement of tenure, however, the academic freedom of the probationary faculty member depends primarily upon the understanding and support of faculty colleagues. Consistent with good practice, the policy of the Department of History is:
To advise every faculty member, early in her or his appointment, of the substantive and procedural standards generally employed in decisions affecting renewal and tenure, and to bring any special standards to the faculty member’s attention.
To make available to the nontenured faculty member the advice and assistance of his or her senior colleagues.
To reach recommendations regarding renewal or tenure by an appropriate faculty group in accordance with procedures approved by the faculty.
When ABD candidates are hired, to specify in the letter of appointment that employment after the first two years of the probationary period depends in part on the successful completion of the degree within that time.
PROBATIONARY PERIOD AND REVIEW
As specified in General Order 4, Policy on Academic Tenure, Section 1.d., the probationary period consists of a series of probationary appointments.
The History Department provides for the periodic review of the faculty member’s situation during the probationary service. Probationary faculty are advised of the times when decisions affecting renewal and tenure are ordinarily made, and probationary faculty are given opportunity to submit material they believe will be helpful to adequate consideration of their circumstances.
The initial decisions regarding renewal and tenure are reached by and appropriate faculty body in the Department of History in accordance with procedures approved by the History Department faculty. Specific College procedures for deciding whether to grant tenure at the end of the probationary period or a terminal appointment at any time during that period are specified in General Order 14, Sections 1.d, 1.e and 1.f.
In probationary and tenure reviews, the Department of History adheres to the standard of “adequate consideration,” as set forth in the 1971 AAUP Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments. As the AAUP Statement notes,
It is easier to state what the standard “adequate consideration” does not mean than to specify in detail what it does. It does not mean that the review committee should substitute its own judgment for that of members of the department on the merits of whether the candidate should be reappointed or given tenure. The conscientious judgment of the candidate’s departmental colleagues must prevail if the invaluable tradition of departmental autonomy in professional judgments is to prevail. The term “adequate consideration” refers essentially to procedural rather than substantive issues. Was the decision conscientiously arrived at? Was all available evidence bearing on the relevant performance of the candidate sought out and considered? Was there adequate deliberation by the department over the import of the evidence in the light of the relevant standards? Were irrelevant and improper standards excluded from consideration? Was the decision a bona fide exercise of professional academic judgment? These are the kinds of questions suggested by the standard “adequate consideration.”
“Adequate consideration: is made operational in the Department of History by adhering to the guidance on faculty evaluation sent to the Chair of Faculty Council on February 8, 1983, by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. This guidance requires that all academic departments adhere to “demands placed on [The Citadel] by South Carolina law and federal guidelines.” With regard to criteria and procedures, the Department of History guarantees:
The reliability of all information used in the evaluation process.
Written communication of all evaluations to the Faculty member.
A rating which permits the faculty member to assess his or her standing among colleagues.
Specific statements about any perceived shortcomings.
Opportunity for direct discussion of the evaluation report.
As recommended in the 1977 AAUP Report on Processing Complaints of Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, which assumes that procedural irregularities often indicate substantive violations, the Department of History rigorously excludes from all review processes direct gender bias such as the unequal application of standards or the inappropriate application of superficially equal standards. The Department also excludes less evident gender bias, including vague criteria, failure to give reasons for nonrenewal upon a faculty member’s request, inadequate grievance mechanisms, and deviation from procedures normally employed in the department.
As required in Section 3 of General Order No. 12, the Department of History adheres to the following procedures regarding probationary appointments and tenure reviews:
Each year the department head advises each member of the department in writing of the procedures for review of probationary appointees and the standards and criteria by which appointees within each academic rank will be judged.
The procedures for reviewing candidates for tenure and the standards and criteria by which candidates within each academic rank will be judged are presented in writing to each member of the department by the department head.
Evaluation for probationary reappointment or for tenure is initiated with the preparation by the probationer of a Personal Data Sheet. The probationer’s Personal Data Sheets and other supporting documents are reviewed by the department to ensure that the probationer understands the standards and criteria on which reappointment or the award of tenure will be based.
The recommendation for probationary reappointment or tenure is a responsibility assumed by all tenured members of the History Department. Each year, the department head makes available all materials presented by the probationer and convenes at appropriate times all recommendations for tenure.
The assessment of the progress of the probationer includes an open discussion between the probationer and the tenured faculty and a vote by confidential and anonymous ballot. Whether or not the vote supports reappointment or a recommendation for tenure, the probationer is provided copies of these confidential and anonymous ballots of the tenured faculty.
These detailed and documented recommendations must address criteria established by The Citadel and the Department of History.
If the recommendation is for non-renewal of appointment, in the case of probationary faculty, or against awarding tenure, the probationer is given the opportunity to present in writing to the department head justification for a second review of his or her case. If a negative recommendation is sustained by the tenured faculty or department head, the justification for and results of the second review become attachments to the original recommendation. Otherwise, a new recommendation will be prepared as described above and without reference to the need for a second review.