Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment Policies for the

College of Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences1

CAHSS TENURE, PROMOTION, AND REAPPOINTMENT PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES

1. OVERVIEW
These College of Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences (“CAHSS” or “College”) guidelines supplement the
University of Denver (“University”) Policies and Procedures Relating to Faculty Appointment, Promotion,
& Tenure, approved by the Board of Trustees, on January 16, 2015 or faculty and board approved
revisions thereof (“University guidelines” or “APT”). College policy and procedures elaborate and expand
on University policies and are intended to be consistent with University policies. Similarly, all CAHSS
departmental criteria and processes are intended to be consistent with College and University guidelines
(see also APT section 4.4.11) and shall be interpreted and implemented to maintain this consistency.

The University guidelines (section 1) state that the provisions in the current University guidelines
supersede the provisions concerning faculty members in earlier versions of the University Handbook and
in earlier versions of the Faculty Personnel Guidelines Relating to Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure.
If there is a claim either of a conflict or that the provisions of one of the earlier documents should apply,
the provost, after consultation with the Personnel Committee of the Faculty Senate, shall decide which
provisions shall prevail. Similarly, these CAHSS guidelines supersede all previous versions; in the case of
uncertainty at the College or departmental level, the dean shall decide proper application of the policy,
with consultation with the provost as necessary (see APT 4.4.11).

CAHSS departmental and College review committees (“College committees” refers also to committees
organized at the college level by division) will uphold the philosophy of promotion in APT section 4.1:
“The University is committed to academic excellence as determined principally by teaching, scholarly
research and/or creative activity, participation in shared governance, and service to the University,
profession, and public. Both promotion to a higher academic rank and reappointment are primary ways
for recognizing such excellence in performance. Decisions about the promotion of a faculty member
shall be based upon high standards to ensure that the candidate possesses qualifications which meet
current University, college, school, division, department, and center expectations. It is recognized that
standards for promotion may change over time.”

The College committees review materials and personnel recommendations coming from departments
concerning the promotion of all College faculty to a higher rank (associate or “full”); granting of tenure
for tenure series faculty; renewal of contracts for associate professors and (full) professors in the
teaching, clinical, and “of practice” faculty; and new appointments from outside the University to the
rank of associate professor or professor. The dean participates in considerations of each of these

1
Approved by CAHSS faculty vote 7 June 2019; approved by provost 12 June 2019

page 1
recommendations per the procedures below and the University guidelines. The dean, chair, and
departmental committees will also consider the pre-tenure review for faculty in the tenure series, and
the mid-term contract renewal review for faculty in the teaching, clinical, or “of practice” series.

All individuals reviewing faculty in these situations are to follow the departmental/school guidelines, the
guidelines in this document, and the University guidelines. However, deviations from these guidelines
due to factors such as accident (e.g., clerical error, formatting differences, inadvertent error) or
situational necessity (e.g., portions of information are not available or complete or a situation leads to
missed deadlines) do not themselves indicate a lack of adequate consideration of a case for
reappointment, tenure, or promotion. In all cases, the goal is to provide consistent and appropriate
information on which the professional and expert judgement of those reviewing these materials can be
applied.

Note: departmental committee is synonymous with academic unit committee, as referenced in the
University APT. Also, chair is synonymous with director, and department is synonymous with school and
program.

2. MID-POINT REVIEW
Faculty in the tenure, teaching, clinical, and “of practice” series receive a mid-point review, as described
in the sections below. Faculty in the research series do not participate in a mid-point review, as they are
not evaluated for tenure and do not operate on multi-year contracts.

In all cases, the department shall give the mid-point review documents and evaluation to the candidate
and the dean. Confidential information—e.g., identifiers of external reviewers or student or faculty
letter writers, if used—must be redacted before sharing with the candidate. The dean will meet with the
candidate and the department chair to discuss the evaluation. The committee report will be included in
the candidate’s materials for subsequent evaluation for promotion.

TIMING
Specific timing for the mid-point review will differ by department, depending on the materials to be
included in the review. For example, review processes may start earlier if external letters or classroom
observations are part of the evaluation. In general, the following time windows are recommended.

Late September of the review year: The process of the review should be communicated to the
candidate if it has not been so, already. The chair should notify the faculty member of the time of the
departmental review and request the appropriate materials with a clear deadline.
Winter quarter: Committee reviews candidate materials.
Late winter quarter or early spring quarter: Review is completed and feedback is provided to the
candidate.
March: The department chair sets a meeting between the faculty member, chair, and the dean to occur
in April or May.

page 2
Late March-May: Departments submit all candidate materials to the CAHSS dean's office at least one
week prior to the faculty member, chair, and dean meeting occurring in April or May.

2.1 TENURE SERIES

Pre-tenure reviews should be completed as per the guidelines in the University APT, section 5.2. “A
purpose of the pre-tenure review is to provide the faculty member with an honest and frank progress
report and to suggest what the faculty member might need to accomplish in the areas of teaching,
scholarly research and/or creative activity, and service before the tenure review.”

The review occurs prior to the faculty member’s fourth year unless the probationary period is three
years or less (APT 5.2). If the probationary period is three years or less, no pre-tenure review is
conducted. Unless otherwise agreed by the chair and dean, in CAHSS the pre-tenure review occurs at
the end of the third year for probationary periods of seven (standard clock) or six years (one year on the
clock). It occurs at the end of the second year for probationary periods of five years (two years on the
clock). It occurs at the end of the first year for probationary periods of four years (three years on the
clock).

2.2 REAPPOINTMENT REVIEW FOR TEACHING, CLINICAL, AND “OF PRACTICE” SERIES
As indicated in APT 3.4.3 A, “before an Assistant Professor [in a renewable non-tenure-line professorial
appointment] may be employed for a fourth year, a reappointment review shall be conducted by an
academic unit reappointment committee.” This review will occur near the end of the first contract,
typically near the end of the third year. This mid-point review for contract renewal at the assistant level
should be completed in a manner analogous to faculty in the tenure series, with criteria appropriate for
the tasks assigned to each faculty member.

APT section 3.4 describes policies and procedures for reappointment, including that “Reappointment is
primarily recognition of excellent performance. Reappointment decisions shall be based on rigorous
standards and reappointment shall be denied if past performance is not of sufficiently high quality or
does not meet the standards of professional behavior in Section 1 [of the University APT].
Reappointment may also be denied for financial or programmatic reasons.” In CAHSS, criteria include (1)
meeting the department’s needs and expectations for the position, (2) meeting the minimum
expectations for performance in teaching, service, and scholarship/creativity (as applicable to the
person’s series and duties) defined by the department and the College, (3) meeting the qualifications for
assistant professor as defined in the departmental guidelines and the University APT section 3.6, and (4)
evidence supporting ongoing engagement in activities to sustain performance at this level.

3. TENURE, PROMOTION, AND REAPPOINTMENT

CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION
Consistent with APT section 4.2, promotion in CAHSS requires that a positive case be made and judged
sufficient for meeting the criteria of the appropriate rank and series. Years of service and meeting

page 3
minimum expected standards of performance at one’s current rank are not adequate justification for
promotion to a higher rank.

The College looks for evidence of excellence and impact appropriate to each level of evaluation and the
duties assigned each person based on series, department, and position, and based on criteria
appropriate for the discipline and area of each candidate. The committee will review the materials and
the case made within the dossier. Evidence in each domain should come from multiple sources. For
scholarship and creative work, evidence should include invited, reviewed, or juried public or
professional presentation of the work, demonstrating external evaluations of excellence and impact, as
well as external expert evaluations from peers, scholars and artists, and community members (as
appropriate to expectations for the candidate) who can speak with knowledge regarding the excellence
and impact of the work.

Criteria for promotion to the rank of associate professor

The College committee and dean will apply University criteria (section 3.7) as further specified by
departmental tenure, promotion, and reappointment documents. The College committee will evaluate
the University required “excellence,” “beginnings of . . . recognition,” and “growth and
accomplishments” in the domains of teaching, scholarship/creative work, and service (as appropriate to
series) by examining all materials in the dossier, and the committee will use these materials provided by
the candidate, departmental committee, and chair to consider whether the candidate has met
departmental and University requirements as specified for promotion to this rank. Promotion requires
judgments of meeting or exceeding criteria appropriate to each domain.

Criteria for promotion to the rank of (full) professor

The College committee and dean will apply University criteria (section 3.8) as further specified by
departmental tenure, promotion, and reappointment documents. The College committee will evaluate
the University required “excellence,” “recognition,” and “growth and significant accomplishments” in
the domains of teaching, scholarship/creative work, and service (as appropriate to series) by examining
all materials in the dossier, and the committee will use these materials provided by the candidate,
departmental committee, and chair to consider whether the candidate has met departmental and
University requirements as specified for promotion to this rank. Promotion requires judgements of
meeting or exceeding criteria appropriate to each domain.

Reappointment review for associate and full teaching, clinical, and “of practice” faculty
Following sections 3.4.3 C and D of the University APT, associate professors in the teaching, clinical, and
“of practice” faculty are periodically reviewed for reappointment and promotion, and full professors in
these series are periodically reviewed for reappointment. Criteria for promotion to full professor rank
are described in departmental guidelines, this document, and the university APT. In these series,
contract renewal evaluations also include consideration of reappointment. APT section 3.4 describes
policies and procedures for reappointment, including that “Reappointment is primarily recognition of
excellent performance. Reappointment decisions shall be based on rigorous standards and
reappointment shall be denied if past performance is not of sufficiently high quality or does not meet

page 4
the standards of professional behavior in Section 1 [of the University APT]. Reappointment may also be
denied for financial or programmatic reasons.” In CAHSS, criteria include (1) meeting the department’s
needs and expectations for the position, (2) meeting the minimum expectations for performance in
teaching, service, and scholarship/creativity (as applicable to the person’s series and duties) defined by
the department and the College, (3) meeting the qualifications for the candidate’s current rank as
defined in the departmental guidelines, College guidelines, and the University APT section 3.7 and 3.8,
and (4) evidence supporting ongoing engagement in activities to sustain performance at this level.

4. DEPARTMENT LEVEL
4.1 PARTICIPANTS
Departmental tenure, promotion, and/or reappointment committee (academic unit committee). Rank
and number of participants to be determined by the department's by-laws and the University guidelines
(See APT 4.4.1). Departmental guidelines must ensure rights of faculty established in the APT, including
the ability to request omission or replacement of members (4.4.1), confidentiality of committee
deliberations and votes (4.4.5), and candidate appeal and possible re-review (see sections 4.4.5 and 7).
Variations from departmental guidelines for participation may be proposed by the departmental chair
(or chair of the committee if the department chair is under review) to address unusual or unexpected
circumstances for review; variation requires approval by the dean.

The departmental guidelines may (but are not required to) allow the academic unit’s administrative
head to serve as an ex-officio member of the departmental committee (4.4.1); this person may not
participate in the vote or final recommendation of the committee and may not chair the committee
(4.4.1). This role is distinct from the chair's role as reviewer (see next paragraph).

Department Chair (see APT 4.4.6). The chair reviews the material separately from, and after, the
department committee (or reconstituted committee in the case of appeal), and the department
committee does not review or modify the recommendation of the chair. This ensures consistency with
the review and appeal processes described in the APT.

There may be no other departmental vote or evaluation beyond that described in the University APT,
which includes only the academic unit committee (and the reconstituted committee if necessary; see
requirements below and University APT 4.4.1 – 4.4.5) and the chair.

4.2 DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURE (see section 4.4 of University guidelines)

• Committees must review and follow procedures in the APT (sections 4.4.1 – 4.4.5)
• The committee and department chair will evaluate the candidate by relying upon the evidence
presented in the dossier. Activities and products listed on the CV can be evaluated by the
committee, even if the full product is not submitted as part of the packet. For example, if a
candidate lists a blog in her or his CV or statement, the committee may read this blog as part of its
evaluation. However, activities not listed on the CV or statement (e.g., social media or a personal

page 5
 blog) or references not formally part of the process (e.g., colleagues who know the candidate or the
field but are not listed external reviewers) are not to be included in the evaluation.
• All committee votes must be taken by secret ballot. Following section 4.4.4 in the University
guidelines, “Each member of a committee, at any level, that votes for or against tenure shall sign a
document attesting to his or her vote and that document shall be delivered to the dean and the
provost. Votes shall remain confidential in all other respects.” Of course, committee members must
express and discuss their evaluations within the context of committee evaluation of candidates.
Such a full discussion is critical to this process. In many cases, this may provide information through
which other committee members may infer the vote of other committee members. However, to
protect confidentiality and emphasize the individual judgment component of the recommendation,
committee members should not explicitly report their actual votes or request this information from
others on the committee.
• All committee deliberations and vote counts must remain confidential in all aspects (with exceptions
granted only by the provost).
• All committee members must participate in all deliberations and have access to all information
available to every other committee member.
• The departmental committee recommendation (but not their report) shall be communicated to the
candidate in writing, following procedures in APT section 4.4.5.
• The departmental committee members may not discuss their own (or anyone else’s) position or
their vote with the candidate or anyone else outside the committee.
• If the departmental committee recommendation is negative, the departmental promotion
committee shall forward a written memorandum to the candidate stating the specific reasons for
the recommendation (review APT section 4.4.5).
• If the departmental committee recommendation is negative, the candidate has the right to a
departmental review as specified in the University APT section 7.
• The chair report and review shall follow APT section 4.4.6. The statement of recommendation, but
not the supporting report, shall be shared with the candidate, the departmental promotion
committee, and if applicable, the departmental promotion review committee and the reconstituted
departmental promotion committee.
• At the discretion of the chair, the reasons for the chair’s decision may be shared with the candidate
and/or the other committees.
• Regarding candidates who are in an interdisciplinary program resulting in either two home
departments (a joint appointment) or a home department for their faculty line different from the
program in which they are currently working (e.g., if they are a core member of an interdisciplinary
program with its own administrative head who has faculty personnel supervision responsibilities for
the candidate): The specific processes for committee composition and program head input may be
governed by individual agreements upon hiring or by-laws for each specific program. In the absence
of such guidance, the academic units should strive to create a “departmental committee” that has
expertise appropriate to the candidate’s area of work and with representation appropriate to her or
his duties. Each academic unit administrative head (e.g., the home department head and the
program director) should provide a recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion, tenure
separate from that of the departmental committee and each other. Each recommendation should

page 6
 be informed by the departmental committee (and reconstituted departmental committee, if
applicable) report and recommendation, and each should be placed in the dossier.

4.3 TIMING
Departments and candidates begin planning the process and identifying potential reviewers in the
spring prior to the academic year in which the candidates come up for review. Note that in the cases of
appeals of the departmental committee recommendation (section 4.4. and section 7) the timing of all
CAHSS processes may be modified to allow for appropriate review. All appeals process will follow timing
and processes in the University APT section 7.

TEACHING, CLINICAL, AND “OF PRACTICE” SERIES TIMING

By April 1 of the prior year: The departmental committee should be seated
By April 15: If outside letters are necessary (if a candidate’s position includes more than 10%
research/scholarship/creative work) they should be requested from reviewers with the accompanying
packet of materials by April 15 and due back to the department by Sept 1. Note: “packet” refers to
materials typically sent to external reviewers, including:
Letter making request
Candidate CV
Candidate scholarly/research/artistic statement
Professional products to review

First week of September: Candidate materials due to the departmental committee

September – October 15: Departmental committees convene to review candidate materials and
external reviewer reports. Departments will prepare the departmental committee recommendation and
add to the dossier.
October 1 – October 15: The department chair reviews the materials in the dossier, including the
departmental recommendation.
October 15: Departments submit all candidate materials to the CAHSS dean's office.

TENURE AND RESEARCH SERIES TIMING

April of the prior year: Departments produce list of external reviewers with input from candidate (see
APT 4.4.3 and External Reviewers section of this guide, below)
By June 1: Departments contact external reviewers and receive their agreement to serve
By August 1: Departments send the candidate's packet of materials to the external reviewers with
November 1 deadline for receiving external reviewers' reports.
First week of November: candidate materials due to departmental committees
November - December: Departmental committees convene to review candidate materials and external
reviewer reports. Departments will prepare the departmental committee recommendation.
December-mid-January: The department chair reviews the materials in the dossier, including the
departmental recommendation.
By January 15: Departments submit all candidate materials to the CAHSS dean's office.

page 7
4.4 CANDIDATE MATERIALS (Compiled by the department and organized in an appropriately sized
dossier or submitted electronically as appropriate.)
Note that within the parameters below, departments and fields vary on specifics such as the expected
number of external reviewers, evidence used in teaching evaluation, evidence used for scholarship
and creative work, length and content of candidate’s statements, etc. Committees should follow the
department's by-laws and/or tenure and promotion guidelines. The below are minimum components;
departments can require additional materials, and candidates can provide any additional materials
they believe are pertinent for the review. Sections 4.3 and 4.4.3 of the University guidelines provide
guidance on type and formats of evidence and solicitation of information.

To make an accurate evaluation and recommendation for each candidate, the department is responsible
for providing the College committee with specific information regarding the expectations for the
candidate, including the proportions of time devoted to teaching, service, and research/creative works.
This information should be included in the departmental committee report and/or the chair's report.
The College committee may choose to solicit additional clarifications from the department's promotion
committee or chair when considering a case.

4.4.1 Department Chair's Statement

• Provides the chair’s perspective on the candidate’s performance, based on knowledge as chair and
the materials in the dossier, including the departmental committee review. It addresses the
candidate's teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, and service in relation to the criteria for
promotion or reappointment in the departmental by-laws or promotion, tenure, and reappointment
documents, the College Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment Policies, and the APT. It is a
separate recommendation from that of the departmental tenure, promotion and/or reappointment
committee.
• Explains the candidate’s assigned teaching load, including information on non-standard course
structures, expectations for non-course mentoring or instruction, and the like.
• Explains any other aspect of the responsibilities assigned the candidate during the period of
evaluation that would be useful for contextualizing the candidate’s contribution and performance.
• Addresses both strengths and weaknesses in the candidate’s case, providing information on the
rationale for the recommendation in relation to the standards of departmental, College, and
University promotion, tenure, and reappointment for the position, rank, and series.
• Explains how the candidate's teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, and service fit into the
department's program, the candidate's field of study or creative work, and the expectations for the
candidate’s position.
• Indicates how the external reviewers (if required) constitute adequate representation of the
candidate's field and provide appropriate review for promotion or reappointment.
• Describes the stature and nature of the candidate's publication outlets and/or sites of public
creative activity. The letter should also include a discussion of conventions in the field concerning

page 8
 issues such as co-authorship, publication and performance outlets, if such activity is relevant for the
candidate’s evaluation. This section may be omitted if no scholarship or creative work is expected
for the position; alternatively, if scholarship and creative work is present though not required, this
information may be included to document contributions beyond what is required or interactions
with other areas of evaluation.
• Addresses the candidate's level of distinction and promise for continued professional growth in all
three areas of evaluation.
• Summarizes the rationale for the recommendation.

4.4.2 Departmental Tenure, Promotion and/or Reappointment Committee Statement

• Is completed prior to the chair’s evaluation and statement and is placed in the dossier just before
the other materials. It is included in the dossier reviewed by the chair, College committee, dean, and
provost.
• Describes the committee’s evaluation of the candidate's teaching, research/scholarship/creative
activity, and service in relation to the criteria for promotion or reappointment in the departmental
by-laws or promotion, tenure, and reappointment documents, the College Tenure, Promotion, and
Reappointment Policies, and the APT. It should reflect any differences of analysis of the evidence
present in the committee but typically does not identify the opinion or analysis of specific
committee members.
• Addresses both strengths and weaknesses in the candidate’s case, providing information on the
rationale for the recommendation in relation to the standards of departmental, College, and
University promotion, tenure, and reappointment for the position, rank, and series.
• Explains how the candidate's teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, and service fit into the
department's program, the candidate's field of study or creative work, and the expectations for the
candidate’s current position.
• Indicates how the external reviewers (if required) constitute adequate representation of the
candidate's field and provide appropriate review for promotion or reappointment.
• Explains their evaluation of how the candidate’s teaching, scholarship and/or creative work, and
service fit into departmental expectations for promotion and/or reappointment.
• Describes the stature and nature of the candidate's publication outlets and/or sites of public
creative activity. The letter should also include a discussion of conventions in the field concerning
such issues as co-authorship, publication and performance outlets, etc., if such activity is relevant
for the candidate’s evaluation. This section may be omitted if no scholarship or creative work is
expected for the position; alternatively, if scholarship and creative work is present though not
required, this information may be included to document contributions beyond what is required or
interactions with other areas of evaluation.
• Addresses the candidate's level of distinction and promise for continued professional growth in all
three areas of evaluation.
• Summarizes the rationale for the recommendation.
• Committee votes are confidential and signed (4.4.4).

page 9
• All members of the departmental committee must sign the letter, indicating their agreement with
the contents of the letter.

4.4.3 Candidate's Statement

• Addresses the candidate's accomplishments, as well as her/his views and philosophy of teaching,
research/scholarship/creative activity, and service.
• Explains how the candidate's teaching and research/scholarship/creative activity fit into the
department's program and into the candidate's field of study.
• Projects how the candidate's teaching and research/scholarship/creative activity will develop in the
next few years.

4.4.4 Candidate's Curriculum Vitae

• Personal information: Full name, University address
• Education and training, with degrees and dates
• Professional employment, with most recent position listed first
• Professional association/society memberships
• Publications, including books, monographs, refereed professional journal articles, refereed book
chapters, non-refereed professional journal articles, non-refereed book chapters, and book reviews
listed in a standard bibliographic format; all references should distinguish among materials that are
"published," "accepted for publication" (include projected date of publication), and "submitted for
publication"; all jointly-published material should distinguish between primary and secondary
authorship
• Performing arts and art contributions: exhibitions, productions, recitals, performances, etc.; all
references should distinguish among invited, competitive, juried and non-juried, single-artist and
multi-artist contributions
• Professional conference participation and lectures: papers presented, panel participation (chairing,
commenting, organizing), roundtable participation, poster sessions, lectures, etc.
• Professional contributions: editorial board membership, manuscript reviewing, jury participation,
grant reviewing, etc.
• Research grants: external funding and University of Denver funding
• Miscellaneous: service, awards, honors
• Committee service: departmental, College, and University committee and other service, listing types
and dates

4.4.5 External Reviewers

In this section of the dossier, place external reviewers’ information and candidate’s paper distribution
tables in front and the sample letter (sent to the external reviewers) and all external reviewer evaluation
letters behind.

Sample Letter Sent to External Reviewers

• Relevant questions could include:

page 10
 o "How would you compare the candidate's work and professional reputation to those of
others in the field at a similar stage in their careers?"
o "Where on the scale of mediocre to outstanding do you place the candidate's work?"
o "What is your view of the recognition achieved by the candidate thus far, and what is your
view of the candidate's future potential?"
• External reviewers should be made aware of the nature of the department in which the candidate
resides (e.g., doctoral program or not; graduate program or not).
• Letters should include the candidate's assigned teaching load and student mentoring or supervision
expectations (assigned load excludes voluntary overload, interterm, and summer teaching) in the
department, indicating we are on the quarter system.
• Letters should ask the external reviewers to state their relationship to the candidate (e.g.,
professional colleague, but does not know personally; dissertation advisor; co-author, etc.).

External Reviewer Evaluations

• External reviewers are required for evaluation of tenure and research series faculty.
• If the responsibilities of a candidate in the teaching, clinical, or “of practice” series includes more
than 10% research/scholarship/creative work, at least three letters from outside reviewers are
required, in keeping with the minimum requirement of the University APT guidelines. When sending
requests for evaluations to outside reviewers, the request must include an explicit statement that
these positions are not tenure-line appointments and provide specific information about the
candidate’s job description. If a candidate’s case is based on 10% or less of
research/scholarship/creative work, outside reviewers’ letters are not required or expected.
• As external evaluation of a research professor may be based more on grant funding than faculty in
other series, the number of external letters required will be determined by the candidate’s
department, with a minimum of three letters from outside reviewers.
• For tenure series faculty, contacting 10 potential external reviewers is a good number with which to
start; CAHSS recommends that at least six external reviews be included in the tenure and promotion
or promotion material presented to the College committee and the dean. The University guidelines
require at least three.
• Guidelines for selecting external reviewers (review APT 4.3.3):
o The departmental promotion committee shall ask the candidate to submit in writing names
of persons to be contacted.
o The departmental promotion committee should generate a list that includes both
candidate-provided names and names they generate separately. They may ask for
recommendations from the chair and/or other faculty or experts. The final determination of
the list is the departmental committee’s decision.
o The departmental review committee is responsible for the generation of a list that provides
a meaningful evaluation of the candidate.
o Candidates may or may not be personally acquainted with the external reviewers; the
dissertation advisor of the candidate is an acceptable reviewer but must be identified as
such; co-authors should also be identified.

page 11
 o The committee should ensure an adequate representation of external reviewers not
personally closely associated with the candidate, e.g., dissertation advisors, co-authors. An
external reviewer must be recognized as a significant figure in the candidate's field and one
whose appraisal would be of value in the University's deliberations.
o CAHSS departmental committees typically expect reviewers to be of the academic rank
equal to or higher than the level for which the candidate is being evaluated. Departments
may, but are not required to, make this a restriction on external reviewers. In all cases, the
rationale for the choice of reviewer must be clear.
o This list shall be made available to the candidate prior to solicitation of information.
o The candidate shall have the right to comment and add to the list.
o Any information provided to the departmental committee by the candidate regarding the
list or reviewers on the list, including information used to justify changing the list, must be
included in the dossier.
o The committee has the right, but not the obligation, to limit the candidate's suggestions to
no more than one-half of the final list of possible reviewers.
o The departmental promotion committee or the administrative head of the academic unit is
obligated to make written requests for evaluation of the candidate’s scholarly/creative
abilities from each of the persons on the final list. No letters are requested by the candidate.
o If the committee deems that not enough reviewers from the original list have agreed to
participate, the departmental committee may use the same process above to generate a
supplementary list.
o In no case should the candidate be informed as to the number or identity of those from the
list who provided letters.
o Material sent to the external reviewers may include published and unpublished material
submitted by the candidate; not all such material, however, must be sent to every external
reviewer. For example, if the candidate has very different areas of contribution, reviewers
may be given materials relevant to their expertise.
o Faxed and e-mailed external reviews should ultimately be accompanied by a personally
signed and dated letter if at all possible.
o Telephoned evaluations are not acceptable.
o The departmental committee must provide the CV and a brief biographical statement of
each external reviewer, including a judgment of stature in the field and a partial list of
publications. The CVs of the external reviewers should be submitted to the College
committee electronically (i.e., email the CVs to the dean’s executive assistant for posting on
the portfolio site for committee access, not in the dossier). The dossier should include a
brief biographical statement about each external reviewer, including a description of stature
in the field and relevance to the candidate. Each reviewer should be identified as selected
by the candidate, the department committee, or both.

4.4.6 Evidence Concerning Teaching

Evidence concerning teaching is drawn from multiple sections of the dossier. It includes teaching
evaluations and other evidence from the list below and suggested in the APT. The dossier must include

page 12
all materials required by the department’s by-laws or tenure, promotion, and reappointment guidelines,
and candidates and all individuals reviewing the materials should pay particular attention to the
guidelines, expectations, and norms articulated in the departmental guidelines. Additional information
may be requested by the department or provided by the candidate.

• Teaching should be evaluated in the following broad domains: Quantity (including course load,
student mentoring, off-load or overload teaching, etc.), Content (e.g., is the syllabus fitting for the
course and students, are the learning objectives appropriate, are they particularly difficult classes to
teach?), Pedagogy (e.g., does the candidate encourage active learning and/or mastery of
information; have high expectations for students; support diversity and inclusive excellence?), and
Professionalism (e.g., being in class and engaged, appropriate speed of feedback).
• Committees must keep in mind biases and errors in each type of evaluation of teaching, including
known biases disadvantaging individuals with currently and historically marginalized identities.
Therefore, consideration and contextualization of information relating to such factors as candidate
gender identity or presentation, race/ethnicity, culture and national origin, background, as well as
course content is critical in evaluation of teaching. All individuals reviewing these materials should
look for a convergence of assessment of teaching across multiple sources of information in each
domain. The basic description of evidence for teaching is given in the University guidelines. In
addition to the possibilities and requirements in the University guidelines, for CAHSS the evidence of
effective teaching presented in each candidate’s dossier must include:
1. Candidate reflections on teaching in annual reports and promotion and reappointment
materials.
2. Information on efforts to improve teaching and of growth and development (e.g., through
professional development, revisions of syllabi)
3. Complete listing of courses taught each year, with course numbers, titles, and quarter in
which taught. For candidates for promotion to full professor, only courses taught since
attaining the rank of associate professor are necessary
4. Sample syllabi (when applicable)
5. Assignments designed by the candidate
6. All comments, data, and related course-level information from student feedback during the
period under evaluation. Since 2011, these raw data are contained in the annual reports.
7. Numerical summaries of student evaluations can be used to consider the candidate’s ratings
in various courses. Evaluation of quantitative and qualitative student feedback should be
contextualized to consider possible effects of faculty identity, course content, course level
and purpose, student goals, and the like.
8. If departments solicit student, alumni, or colleague letters or if any such letters are received,
all letters in their entirety should be submitted. Requests for such letters should come from
the department committee, not the candidate. If these are requested, a description of the
process for requesting these letters needs to be included in the committee letter (e.g., are
they students nominated by the candidate only, or candidate and committee; were all
departmental colleagues asked for input?).
9. All other information required by the department’s guidelines.

page 13
4.4.7 Annual performance reports and chair's evaluations
The candidate's annual performance reports, including all comments and data from student evaluations
during the period under evaluation, the annual self-reflection, and the chair's annual written evaluations

4.4.8 Pre-tenure / third-year contract renewal review - departmental report

4.4.9 Supporting materials

• A copy of the departmental approved tenure, promotion, and reappointment decision-making
process (sometimes included in departmental by-laws; fine to include all/both).
• List of contents of the supporting materials (published and unpublished research, course syllabi,
slides of art work, music scores, concert or gallery programs, published reviews of the candidate's
work, etc.) sent to the dean's office and available for the perusal of the College committee and the
dean. When possible, electronic copies should be provided for the dean’s office to post for College
committee review. In the cases in which electronic copies or links are not possible (e.g., books,
programs), there should be only one such collection of material provided to the dean’s office in a
box.

5. COLLEGE LEVEL REVIEW

Teaching, clinical, and “of practice” faculty in all departments submit materials to the College Teaching,
Clinical, and Of Practice Committee. Tenure and research series faculty will generally submit their
materials for review by the divisional committee matching the divisional placement of their home
department (i.e., Arts and Humanities or Social Sciences). However, at the request of the candidate and
with approval of the department chair, candidates in the tenure or research series may choose to have
their materials reviewed by the other divisional committee. If this request is made and approved by the
chair, the departmental representative to the “home” divisional committee will participate as a full
member of the alternative divisional committee during the review of the candidate. If the candidate
requests review by the alternate committee and the chair does not approve this request, the candidate
may appeal this decision to the dean, who will review the rationale of the candidate and the chair and
then decide.

Arts and Humanities Departments submit 11 dossiers

Social Science Departments submit 10 dossiers
College Teaching, Clinical, and Of Practice committee submit 10 dossiers

5.1 PARTICIPANTS
If the representatives selected by the departments do not meet the compositional guidelines below, or
if there are concerns about the composition of the committee (e.g., an absence of full professors, or a
severe imbalance of representation in some way), the dean will work with departments to adjust

page 14
composition. If after working with the departments, the committee cannot achieve the preferred
representation, the dean may approve a committee that deviates from this composition.

Arts and Humanities Divisional Committee for tenure and research series: One tenure series member
each from art & art history, English and literary arts, history, languages & literatures, music, philosophy,
religious studies, and theatre. The committee should include, if possible, one (and never more than
one) untenured, tenure series person.

Social Sciences Divisional Committee for tenure and research series: One tenure series member each
from anthropology, communication studies, economics, media, film, & journalism studies, political
science, psychology, and sociology & criminology. The committee should include, if possible, one (and
never more than one) untenured, tenure series person.

College Teaching, Clinical, and Of Practice Committee:

• One faculty member from each unit represented in the Arts and Humanities or Social Science tenure
and promotion committees that has a teaching, clinical, or “of practice” faculty member. If a unit
has 35% or more of the total teaching, clinical, and professor of practice positions in the College, it is
entitled (but not required) to have a second representative on the committee.
• A minimum representation of 33% from the teaching, clinical, and professor of practice series; these
representatives should hold a rank of associate or full, except that one (and only one) member of
the committee should, if possible, be a teaching assistant professor
• A minimum representation of 33% from the tenured faculty (rank of associate or full).

5.2 TIMING
October 15: The CAHSS dean’s office receives from the department all candidate materials for faculty in
the teaching, clinical, and of practice series.
December 1: College committee for faculty in the teaching, clinical, and of practice series submits
recommendations to the dean.
January 15: The CAHSS dean’s office receives from the department all candidate materials for tenure
and research series faculty.
February 20: College committees for tenure and research series submit recommendations to the dean.

5.3 STANDARDS OF REVIEW

• The appropriate College committees will evaluate promotion, tenure, and reappointment cases
from departments. The committee will evaluate the candidate by relying upon the evidence
presented in the dossier. Activities and products listed on the CV can be evaluated by the
committee, even if the full product is not submitted as part of the packet. For example, if a
candidate lists a blog in her or his CV or statement, the committee may read this blog as part of its
evaluation. However, activities not listed on the CV or statement (e.g., social media or a personal
blog) or references not formally part of the process (e.g., colleagues who know the candidate or the
field but are not listed external reviewers) are not to be included in the evaluation. If the dossier is

page 15
 incomplete given standards presented in the guidelines, the committee may return the dossier to
the department so the department may complete it.
• The College committee shall make an independent evaluation and recommendation regarding
tenure, promotion, and/or reappointment based on the candidate's dossier and accompanying
letters from the chair and the departmental committee. The College committee determines if the
chair and department committee recommendations are supported by the evidence presented in the
dossier. Foremost consideration is given to the expertise and conscientious judgment of the
candidate's department colleagues.

• The University and College value all the work that a faculty member has done and all work can be
considered in evaluating reputation, contributions, and the like, regardless of whether the work was
completed at DU or during the period of focused evaluation. The committee will especially value
work done while at DU and during the period of evaluation for promotion (e.g., evaluation for
promotion to full professor will focus on accomplishments and growth since promotion to associate
professor).
• The College committee may choose to solicit clarifications from the departmental chair or
committee when considering a case. Clarifications might include inquiring about conventions
concerning co-authorship, the status of different kinds of scholarship and creativity in the field, or
expectations about research/creativity productivity given the teaching load in the department. The
committee may request written clarification concerning the dossier or the recommendation
regarding tenure, or any of the associated materials, from the department's chair. See APT section
4.4.3.
• If there are significant omissions of information in the dossier or if there are potentially important
errors in information collection, the College committee may request that the departmental
committee and chair re-review corrected information so that the College committee has the benefit
of a fully informed recommendation by the department. Such requests must be approved by the
dean in consultation with the provost and should be exceedingly rare.

5.4 COLLEGE PROCEDURE

A committee member who has a conflict of interest must recuse her or himself from all committee
deliberations and voting concerning the candidate. Recusal means not being present at or participating
in the discussion or the vote concerning a candidate. A committee member who is recused no longer has
access to any of the candidate’s submitted materials, or any information about the discussion or vote of
the candidate. A conflict of interest includes having a close personal relationship (for example, spouse,
domestic partner or parent) with the candidate. For other close relationships (close friendship, business
relationship, extensive collaboration), the committee member should consult with the dean concerning
participation. A committee member who cannot make a decision based upon the evidence for any other
reason shall also recuse her or himself. The committee member need not disclose the reason for the
recusal.

Discussion of the candidate, based upon the evidence presented in the dossier

page 16
• At the start of the discussion, each committee member indicates his or her relationship
(professional and personal) to the candidate.
• The discussion should address both strengths and weaknesses in the candidate’s case, providing
information on the rationale for the recommendation in relation to the standards of departmental,
College, and University promotion, tenure, and reappointment.
• All discussions are based upon the evidence presented in the candidate's dossier and any
appropriate clarifications thereof.
• Each committee member must be present for every discussion, except in the case of a recusal.
• All committee discussion is completely confidential and may not be discussed with anyone outside
the College committee at any time during or after the deliberations. Committee members may not
discuss their position or vote with the candidate or anyone else at any time during or after the
review cycle.
• Committee members may take notes prior to and during the deliberations; after recommendations
and votes have been made, all notes are to be submitted to the dean for shredding.
• The dean may also participate in the discussion as a resource to the committee but may not attempt
to influence the committee's recommendation.
• Only the dean may discuss with the candidate the substantive evaluation of the candidate by the
committee. The dean may do so at his/her discretion.

Voting
• All committee members vote using a secret and written ballot, in accordance with section 4.4.4 of
the University guidelines.
• The dean does not vote.
• The dean tabulates the votes and announces the outcome to the committee.

Committee Recommendation
• A draft of the committee's letter of recommendation is produced by the assigned committee
member(s) and circulated to the committee; changes are made until a final version is decided upon
by the committee. The committee report documents the membership on the committee, the
committee vote count (but not who voted how), the issues addressed by the committee, and the
rationale for the recommendation.
• All members must sign the final report. Signing the report does not indicate agreement with the
committee recommendation, but instead is an indication that the report accurately and adequately
describes the committee deliberations and reasoning. In rare cases, a minority report may be
submitted if the committee cannot agree on a report that is accurate and complete.
• Individually signed forms attesting to the committee members' votes must be submitted to the dean
separate from the letter.
• The letter is added to the candidate's dossier.

Dean's Recommendation
• The dean completes his/her evaluation of the candidate's dossier and subsequently writes a letter of
recommendation to the provost.

page 17
• Provides the dean’s perspective on the candidate’s performance, based on knowledge as dean and
the materials in the dossier and appropriate clarifications thereof, including recommendations from
the chair and prior committees. It addresses the candidate's teaching, research/scholarship/creative
activity, and service in relation to the criteria for promotion or reappointment in the departmental
by-laws or promotion, tenure, and reappointment documents, the College Tenure, Promotion, and
Reappointment Policies, and the APT.
• The letter is added to the candidate's dossier.

All candidate materials are forwarded to the provost's office by the CAHSS dean's office.

Candidate Notification of College or Divisional Committee and Dean Recommendations

Upon the College committee and the dean completing their evaluations and recommendations of the
candidate, the dean will contact the candidate and the candidate's chair and disclose the
recommendations of both. All committee discussion is completely confidential; only the dean may
discuss with the candidate the substantive evaluation of the candidate by the committee. The dean may
do so at his or her discretion. No member of the committee may discuss her or his position or vote with
the candidate.

page 18