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.