Chapter 3 Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure

3.1 Introduction

3.2 CMC Appointment, Tenure, and Promotion Procedures

3.3 The Search and Appointment Process: Non-Tenure-Track Appointments

3.4 Appeals Arising from APT Issues

Appendix 3.1 Keck Science RPT Policies and Procedures

Appendix 3.2 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Physical Education & Athletic Department Policies on Appointments, Reappointments, & Promotion

Appendix 3.3 Policy on Background Checks

Appendix 3.4 Mentoring Policy for Junior Faculty

3.1 Introduction

The College has formulated the standards and procedures set forth in this chapter based on a number of sources, including the AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and 1970 interpretations, the College’s understanding of best practices, and the customs of the College.

3.1.1 Summary

Authorization for faculty positions is determined by the President. Appointments to the faculty are recommended by departments and the Dean of the Faculty. They are approved by the Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee and presented to the President. Full-time appointments, promotions, and tenure decisions require approval by the Board of Trustees.

3.1.2 Faculty Ranks

The ranks of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor refer to full-time tenured or tenure track faculty. The title of instructor is used for faculty appointments for individuals without a terminal degree. “Visiting” is appended to professorial or instructor titles when the appointment is temporary. The title of Lecturer or Senior Lecturer is used in special circumstances in which the appointment is not tenured or tenure track and a professorial or instructor title is not appropriate. Unusual cases will be addressed by the APT-EC and APT Committee. Emeriti status is automatically conferred on all tenured faculty members upon retirement. Its conferral on other retiring faculty members may also be recommended by a majority vote of the APT Committee. All ranks of faculty are guaranteed academic freedom.

3.2 CMC Appointment, Tenure, and Promotion Procedures

3.2.1 Introduction

The academic profession demands several loyalties of its members. They share a local attachment to an institution of higher education and a field attachment to an honorable profession. On the one hand, faculty members are responsible for the educational advancement of their students and for the well-being of the institution of which they are members. On the other hand, they are active participants in fields of inquiry. To give relative weights to these areas of professional activity-teaching and scholarship-is a practical impossibility. Activity in each area is necessary for the growth and advancement of the individual and of the College.

As a vital center of undergraduate education, the College seeks to evolve the model of teacher-scholars whose abilities and interests in teaching are maintained at a high level and whose scholarly activities are of genuine professional value to their discipline.

The College, for its part, has a similar dual function. Not only must it assume responsibility for the quality of the education it imparts, but it must also uphold the standards of the academic profession. It performs these functions while entering into a special relationship with its faculty by granting tenure. In most cases this relationship is severable only by the move of a faculty member to another position, by retirement, or by death. Since tenure is often granted early in a faculty member’s career, the College commits itself to providing employment over a long period of time. Given the uncertain nature of any faculty member’s future development, the College must be extremely careful before making a tenure commitment. Two alternatives to the thoughtful exercise of the tenure commitment and the maintenance of high standards are the tenure freeze and the tenure quota, neither of which is desirable.

Promotion to Full Professor is also an important decision, because that academic rank is the highest a faculty member may attain. Persons who hold the position of Full Professor should therefore exemplify the teacher-scholar model and show by the quality of their own work a capacity to judge the work of others.

Clearly the College must evolve the highest standards for its faculty and must apply these standards fairly and consistently.

Passed by unanimous vote of APT September 29, 1978
Approved by Faculty October 23, 1978
Amended December 8, 1986, February 10, 1987

3.2.2 Statement on Hiring and Promotion for any Position

The College is committed to, and maintains an expectation that any persons involved in the appointment/hiring/promotion process will follow a policy of equal employment opportunity for all applicants. Please refer to Section 10.10 for a complete description of the College’s equal employment opportunity policy .

3.2.3 Procedures for Tenured or Tenure-Track Appointments

3.2.3.1 Authorization of a Faculty Position

The President has the authority to approve all new faculty positions and the job descriptions for new positions. An opening in an existing faculty position must be re-approved. The President shall seek the recommendation of the Dean of the Faculty and the appropriate Department before authorizing a specific job description and position. (All references in this chapter to “department” or “departmental” include the Robert Day School of Economics and Finance.) The President and the relevant departmental chairs shall also discuss descriptions of, and authorizations for, new and newly-opened existing positions with the APT-EC in order to ensure consideration of college-wide interests and the College’s mission.

3.2.3.2 The Search & Appointment Process: Tenure & Tenure-Track Appointments

1. In instances where a member or members from outside the Department may add useful expertise to a departmental search committee, the Department is encouraged to add one or more outside members to the search committee. At the Department’s discretion, the external faculty may be voting or non-voting members of the search committee. Examples of such expertise include: familiarity with the field; familiarity with relevant non-departmental CMC programs; and familiarity with the CMC search process. If the Department wishes to add such a member or members, it shall do so in consultation with the Dean of the Faculty.
2. After reviewing application materials, the Search Committee recommends a list of candidates to the Department for further reviewing and interviewing by the Department and the Search Committee, and concurrently submits the list and supporting documentation to the Dean of the Faculty and the President for a preliminary review of the candidates’ fit with the job description. If the President or the Dean of the Faculty disapproves a candidate or candidates as not fitting the job description, the Dean shall explain the reasons in writing to the Search Committee and the Department. Normally, the Dean of the Faculty and the President participate in the campus interview process and forward their comments to the Search Committee and the Department in a timely fashion.
3. The Department recommends a candidate or ranked list of candidates to the Dean of the Faculty and the President for final approval. The departmental recommendation is normally based on the deliberation of all members of the Department and a subsequent vote by all tenured departmental members of equal or higher rank to the position being filled. Those Departments basing their recommendations upon groups other than the tenured faculty of equal or higher rank must establish and publish a written policy governing voting on candidates. If one or more candidates are not approved by the President or the Dean of the Faculty, the Dean of the Faculty shall explain the reasons in writing to the Department and the APT-EC.
4. Once the candidate or candidates are approved, the Dean of the Faculty then forwards the recommendation, along with any comments by the Dean of the Faculty and the President on the merits of the candidate(s), to the APT Committee.
5. Within 30 days of making an offer, the Department will forward to the Dean of the Faculty a Hiring Report. The Hiring Report will normally include a brief description of the search process (such as the composition of the search committee, the advertising method, the number of applicants, the names of those interviewed on campus, and the departmental decision-making process), a summary of the qualities of the successful candidate, an explanation for why the Department selected the candidate, a copy of the candidate’s curriculum vitae, and the candidate’s original letters of reference.
   1. ​​Entry-level positions: Upon receiving the departmental recommendation for appointment of a candidate for an entry-level tenure-track position (that is, an individual who does not have enough previous experience to warrant a tenure review by the third year or earlier), the APT-EC shall decide whether to recommend an appointment. The APT-EC shall base its recommendation on a review of the candidate’s curriculum vitae, other materials collected by the Search Committee and the Department, the departmental report, and any written comments from the Dean of the Faculty and the President. If the APT-EC recommends that the offer shall be made, the President shall convey its recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The APT-EC shall report all recommendations to the APT Committee.
   2. Non-entry-level positions that are not lateral tenure appointments: Upon receiving the departmental recommendation for appointment of a candidate to a non-entry-level, tenure or tenure-track position, the APT Committee shall recommend to the President whether the appointment should be made. The APT Committee shall base its recommendation on a review of the candidate’s curriculum vitae, other materials collected by the Search Committee and the Department, the departmental report, and any written comments from the Dean of the Faculty and the President. If the APT Committee recommends that the appointment shall be made, the President shall convey its recommendation to the Board of Trustees. (For lateral tenure appointments, see Section 3.2.3.3.)
6. Background checks. All candidates being considered for employment must agree to submit to a background check in accordance with the background check policy outlined in Appendix 3.3. 
7. All offers of employment are contingent upon the candidates’ ability to provide valid verification on their first day of employment that they are legally authorized to work in the United States pursuant to federal immigration laws.
8. The terms and conditions of new appointments should be stated in writing and be in the possession of both institution and candidate before the appointment is consummated.

3.2.3.3 Lateral Tenure Policy

When the College appoints a new faculty member at the Associate or Full Professor rank, it occasionally, in cases of special circumstances, may wish to award tenure concurrently, to scholars with truly distinguished academic records. Normally, such a person will have a tenure position at another college or university. Such an appointment calls for an APT Committee review. The Department Chair will notify the Dean of the Faculty that the Department is extending a campus visit to a candidate who may qualify for lateral tenure. During the candidate’s on-campus visit, the Dean will inform the candidate that they may be considered for lateral tenure and will outline for the candidate the CMC lateral tenure process.

If the Department decides to move forward with a faculty appointment and tenure review process, the Department Search Committee will be the committee responsible for assembling all relevant materials for tenure review, including teaching evaluations, letters from students, scholarship, and external and internal reviews of scholarship. The departmental evaluation will be made in the context of CMC’s commitment to its mission and to the liberal arts. The departmental evaluation will also explain what distinguishes the candidate’s case from the more common case of a candidate appointed at the same rank without an award of concurrent tenure. The Search Committee will submit these materials and its report to the relevant group of tenured members of the home department for recommendation. The Department will forward its recommendation and materials to the APT-EC. Once the department and candidate have agreed to proceed, the Dean will promptly appoint an ad hoc review committee of three tenured members of the faculty, depending on the rank at issue, whose primary appointments are outside of the Department conducting the search. This ad hoc review committee will interview the candidate, by telephone or videoconference if necessary, particularly eliciting information about the candidate’s teaching and the nature of the candidate’s research subfield. 

The ad hoc review committee will promptly submit to the APT Committee a report evaluating the soundness of the departmental evaluation, using the same criteria that the field investigation subcommittees use in the tenure review of a CMC faculty member. On the basis of this report, the APT Committee may direct the department to provide additional information. The APT Committee will then make a recommendation to the President.

In September of each academic year, the Dean of the Faculty shall report to the APT Committee the following information on searches and appointments at the ranks of Associate Professor and Full Professor during the preceding academic year: (a) the number of instances in which departments did not initiate procedures for possible concurrent tenure reviews of candidates for appointment, (b) the number of instances in which departments initiated procedures for possible concurrent tenure reviews of candidates for appointment, (c) the number of instances in which departments finally recommended concurrent tenure, (d) a summary of review committee assessments of the departmental reports, (e) the number of instances in which the APT Committee finally recommended concurrent tenure, and (f) among all the candidates recommended by the APT Committee for appointment at the Associate and Full Professor level, a summary of the criteria distinguishing candidates recommended by the APT Committee for concurrent tenure from those not recommended for concurrent tenure. These reports shall be kept on file for guidance in future years.

Approved by APT November 3, 2000
Approved by the Faculty December 14, 2000
Revised and Approved by the APT December 12, 2008

3.2.3.4 Endowed Professorships

The President determines whether to appoint an existing faculty member or to recruit an outside candidate. The President will consult with the involved department and the Dean of the Faculty prior to final determination.

If an existing faculty member is to be appointed, the President will request a formal recommendation from the involved department, from the Dean of the Faculty, and from the APT Committee. The President will take the recommendations of the APT Committee to the Board of Trustees.

If an outside candidate is to be recruited for a named professorship, the President will formally appoint the search committee after consultation with the involved department and the Dean of the Faculty. Generally, the search committee will be not fewer than three nor more than five people. The search committee will normally be chaired by a faculty member from the involved department and include the Dean of the Faculty. Where appropriate, the search committee may include a faculty representative from outside the involved department. The regular affirmative action and APT procedures will be followed.

3.2.3.5 Hires of Faculty Full-Time Assigned to Intercollegiate Departments

For the purpose of full-time intercollegiate departmental faculty that involve CMC, the College will accord the intercollegiate department the same rights and privileges as a CMC department. All procedures as outlined in Chapter 3 on Appointment, Promotion and Tenure will be followed throughout the career of that faculty member. For any hire, the ICD must have tenure standards and these standards must be approved by APT prior to the hire.

At each step in the career of an intercollegiate department faculty member (appointment, reappointment, tenure, promotion, post-tenure review), one member of APT in a related discipline will be assigned to the intercollegiate department committee to assist with these processes. The Dean may appoint additional CMC faculty members to provide counsel and support as needed.

Approved by the Faculty November 3, 2017

3.2.3.6 Target of Opportunity Hiring Policy

As a part of a comprehensive strategy to enrich the depth and breadth of the faculty, including to increase faculty diversity, the College may at rare times wish to proceed with the recruitment of outstanding faculty who become known to the College outside of the normal hiring cycle and process. This represents a substantial investment in the faculty and will enable the College to expand curricular offerings consistent with the College’s mission, to strengthen teaching pedagogies within departments and programs, and to achieve strategic priorities. 

3.2.3.6.1 Standard process

The overwhelming majority of faculty hires occur as a result of national searches that have been authorized by the President and the Dean as per the procedures described in Section 3.2.3.1 infra. Deviations from this policy will be granted by the Dean of the Faculty and the President only extremely rarely and will need thorough justification.

In exceptional circumstances, an appointment may be extended to a faculty member outside of the normal hiring cycle. The following provides the process for this type of appointment to ensure consistency and fairness.

The target of opportunity policy is not intended to be used in conjunction with regular searches: if a candidate for a target of opportunity hire were discovered during a national search process, the presumption would be that this candidate would be the one selected through the search process and an alternative process would thus be unnecessary.

3.2.3.6.2 Procedures

1. The department chair will have an informal conversation with the Dean of Faculty discussing the merits of the candidate and the potential significance of their contribution to the department and the College’s priorities.
2. After discussing the merits of hiring the candidate, particularly with regard to their potential for contributions to teaching, scholarship, and service, and upon determination by the Dean of the Faculty that there is sufficient prima facie support to potentially proceed with a target of opportunity hire, the department or program chair forwards a written proposal from the department to the Dean of Faculty. The proposal must include the following:
   1. An assessment of the professional accomplishments and the teaching and scholarly contributions of the candidate;
   2. The candidate’s curriculum vitae;
   3. An explanation of how the candidate’s presence on the faculty will likely have an exceptional impact on fulfilling the strategic goals of the College. These goals may include, but are not limited to, diversifying the faculty, expanding curricular offerings, engaging unique areas of research and/ or teaching pedagogies, and offering opportunities for spousal hiring;
   4. A statement of the strength of the department’s or program’s support of the candidate, including the vote count in favor of pursuing the candidate.
3. The Dean of Faculty will forward the proposal to the Executive Committee of the Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee (APT/EC). The APT/EC will recommend to the Dean whether or not to initiate the Target of Opportunity Hire process. The Dean of Faculty will act expeditiously in responding to Target of Opportunity proposals.
4. If the proposal is approved by the Dean of Faculty and the President, the Dean will appoint a recruitment committee, which will at a minimum include the department chair, at least two additional members of the department, and a member of APT in an adjacent area of the proposed hire, appointed by APT/EC. If the candidate is expected to contribute courses toward an interdisciplinary or intercollegiate program, one or more members of that program will be identified to be part of the recruitment committee as well, conforming with our regular hiring policies. The recruitment committee shall solicit further evidence of the candidate’s success as a teacher and as a scholar (e.g. letters of recommendation and teaching evaluations), and shall invite the candidate for an on-campus interview if possible and a job talk. The interview will follow the typical search procedure, including meetings with the recruitment committee, members of the department, faculty from related disciplines and programs (if appropriate), students, the Dean of Faculty, and the President if possible.
5. Following this visit, the recruitment committee will make a recommendation to the department, and the department will vote and make a recommendation to the Dean of Faculty regarding the appointment of the candidate. The Dean will follow the regular appointment procedures.
6. If tenure is a consideration, an expedited lateral tenure policy can be followed. Under that procedure, the APT will make its deliberations based on interviews with the candidate’s references, as well as a thorough review of the entire available record, including teaching evaluations, scholarly products, talks, and so on. A special APT meeting will be convened for the purpose as soon as possible.

Approved by the Faculty January 26, 2018

3.2.3.7 Privileges

Upon receiving a regular appointment at Claremont McKenna College (an appointment other than a part-time or temporary appointment), a faculty member becomes a full member of a department and is granted the full rights and privileges within the department that are associated with the member’s rank and tenure status. If another department wishes to grant privileges to the faculty member, it may do so at its discretion, subject to the President’s approval. With the mutual agreement of the faculty member and the original department, a faculty member holding such a position in another department may retain full membership in the department to which the member was originally appointed. A change in the locus of the member’s primary departmental appointment requires action by the APT Committee and the Board of Trustees.

3.2.3.8 Courtesy Appointments

Pursuant to a vote by the department, a recommendation to appoint a new or an existing member of the faculty to a courtesy appointment can be initiated by a department wishing to offer it. Recommendations should include background that justifies the courtesy appointment. The recommendation is submitted to the Dean of the Faculty and to the APT-EC for approval. The appointment form must be signed by the chair of the primary department of the courtesy department. The chair of the home department will receive a copy of the appointment. 

A courtesy appointment is made at the same rank as the faculty member’s primary appointment. The title of a faculty member who has been appointed to a courtesy appointment should read [Primary rank] of [Subject] and affiliate of the department of [Subject].

There is usually no commitment of funds, space or other support involved in a courtesy appointment, and the faculty member has no voting privileges in the courtesy department. A courtesy appointment may be for the duration of the current professorial appointment or for a shorter period of time. For tenured faculty, a minimum of three years is a reasonable guideline. For faculty members holding a term appointment, the typical length of time would be for the duration of the individual’s current appointment; the courtesy appointment may not extend beyond the end date of the faculty member’s primary appointment.

Approved by the Faculty November 22, 2019

3.2.4 Standards for Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure

Tenure and promotion are determined by the value of the faculty member’s activities in the three areas of teaching, scholarship and research, and service to the College. Service, in the sense of sharing in the administrative responsibilities of institutional life, is an integral but lesser part of the teacher-scholar’s relationship to the College. Lack of service can, however, play an important role in the denial of promotion and tenure. Reappointment and tenure decisions are made on the basis of merit within the framework of the College’s present and anticipated future staffing needs. Although a candidate may have an exemplary record, reappointment or tenure may be denied or not considered if the staffing needs of the College do not warrant continuation of the position occupied by the candidate.

3.2.4.1 Reappointment

Reappointment is normally the first of three major faculty advancement decisions. It is a serious decision to “be made with the standards for tenure in mind,” but it differs from the tenure decision in that promise, as well as performance, may be invoked. A candidate who shows strong promise as a teacher and a scholar may be granted a full three-year reappointment. Where serious reservations are exposed about a candidate’s performance or promise in teaching or scholarship, the candidate should be offered at most a terminal one-year contract. In some cases, where opinion is mixed, or the evidence of teaching and scholarship too incomplete, the candidate may be offered a two-year probationary contract. In no case should reappointment be considered tantamount to tenure.

3.2.4.2 Promotion/Tenure

Tenure normally occurs upon promotion to the rank of Associate Professor unless otherwise determined by the procedures contained herein or by contractual provisions. Only by meeting high standards of teaching and scholarship does a candidate qualify for promotion and/or tenure at the College. Candidates must be skilled in communicating their knowledge to students and in contributing to their students’ intellectual growth. Such skill is normally assessed by informed faculty judgment based on course syllabi, student evaluations, student interviews, grade distributions, and alumni comments. In their scholarship, candidates must have demonstrated a mastery of an area of knowledge by making contributions of obvious professional value to their discipline. Such contributions may take various forms. The most common is research reflected in scholarly writing that appears in professional journals and books, but other forms may be appropriate to particular fields. The crucial element is the value of the contribution. Within a college emphasizing public affairs, lecturing, speaking, or writing for the general public receives consideration.

3.2.4.3 Promotion to Full Professor

Promotion to Full Professor should not be automatic. Before promotion to Full Professor occurs, clear signs should exist that a candidate’s teaching effectiveness and scholarly activities are growing, not slackening, and that the candidate’s other contributions to the College have continued at a high level.

Passed by unanimous vote of APT September 29, 1978
Approved by the Faculty, October 23, 1978

3.2.5 Process for Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure

3.2.5.1 Mentoring for Junior Faculty

CMC has a policy to aid junior faculty as they acclimate to CMC and as they prepare for reappointment and tenure processes. That policy includes the following elements:

1. Two-day orientation for new faculty.
2. Annual departmental review and meeting with the Dean of the Faculty (see below).
3. Third-year reappointment review (see below).
4. Periodic general sessions to provide junior faculty with more general advice on career strategies and tenure standards; held at least once annually.
5. Assignment of a senior faculty member as a mentor for a junior faculty member, if that junior faculty member agrees that having a formal mentor is appropriate. This decision will be made near the beginning of the junior faculty member’s second semester at CMC.
6. Conveyance of departmental tenure standards by senior faculty to the Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee, and annual discussion of those standards by the departmental chair with the junior faculty member.

The mentoring policy in its entirety is included as Appendix 3.4.

3.2.5.2 Annual Departmental Review

A departmental review process will be used for all untenured faculty on tenure tracks.

This process begins with an annual report by the untenured faculty member on activities during the preceding year. This is the same report that all faculty members submit as part of their annual performance review. The report will be submitted to the Dean of the Faculty and will cover three areas: teaching, scholarship and research, and service. The report becomes a part of the faculty member’s personnel file.

The Dean of the Faculty makes the report available to the chair of the faculty member’s department and, within a month of the report’s submission, meets with the chair to discuss the report.

The Dean of the Faculty and the department chair then meet with the faculty member to discuss the faculty member’s report in light of the departmental discussion.

3.2.5.3 Reappointment

Because non-terminal appointment in a tenure-track position normally indicates satisfactory progress toward tenure, the reappointment decision should be made with the standards of tenure in mind.

Reappointment decisions will normally occur in the final year of a candidate’s contract. In preparation for the reappointment decision the Dean of the Faculty shall request:

a. A statement from the candidate on the candidate’s activities relevant to the reappointment decision, and

b. A full report and recommendation from the candidate’s department, which is normally based on a survey of all tenured members of equal or higher rank in the department. (Where necessary in individual cases, because of existing contract conditions, the timing of the reappointment decision may be modified.)

1. The Dean shall transmit the candidate’s report and the departmental report and recommendation to the APT Committee and any other relevant information in the Dean of the Faculty’s office or which the APT Committee may obtain. (All written information except confidential letters from referees shall be made available to the candidate for the candidate’s written comment.)
2. Following a recommendation by the APT Committee, the Dean shall inform the candidate as soon as possible and shall discuss the reasons with the candidate.

Approved by APT-EC March 31, 1992
Approved by APT April 23, 1992

3.2.5.4 Information on Tenure and Promotion Procedures and Schedule

The Dean of the Faculty gives all new and untenured faculty on tenure tracks, and all tenured faculty who have not reached the rank of Full Professor, information on the procedure and general schedule governing tenure and promotion decisions. Each individual is also given a timetable of the expected sequence of events in the review process, including the approximate dates when the Dean of the Faculty and the APT will commence review and the APT Committee will meet to make the recommendation on tenure and/or promotion to the Board of Trustees, via the President.

For candidates not previously tenured elsewhere, decisions in regard to tenure and promotion to Associate Professor normally shall be made in the third year of the second three-year contract. Contracts offered to such individuals may include a reduction in the probationary period prior to a tenure decision to account for time served at another institution.

Candidates previously tenured elsewhere normally will be considered for tenure no later than one year before their contract ends.

Consideration for promotion to Full Professor normally will occur during the seventh year in rank as a tenured Associate Professor.

All candidates for tenure and/or promotion are informed of the initiation of the review process before it begins and in time for them to compile and submit any necessary information and materials.

3.2.5.5 Review Procedures

The Dean of the Faculty begins the process by notifying candidates that they are eligible for consideration, asking if the candidates desire to be considered, and if so, requesting that the candidates submit a statement of their achievements in teaching, scholarship and research, and service, with supporting materials. A candidate’s personal statement and curriculum vitae should follow guidelines available in the Dean of the Faculty’s office. A candidate may request an earlier date of consideration, or a later date of consideration. A request for early consideration should also include a statement of achievements. (Sabbaticals and other leaves are normally included in years of service if they clearly contribute to the faculty member’s professional advancement and are in the interests of the College.)

Requests for consideration for promotion, tenure, or reappointment are normally submitted on or about July 1. These requests will be accompanied by the candidate’s statement and supporting materials. Any anticipated delay from the circumstances of an individual case must be resolved in advance by consultation between the Dean of the Faculty, the APT Committee and/or APT-EC, and the candidate’s department.

Amended by APT February 10, 2006

As part of the candidate’s tenure and promotion case, the Department will provide five arm’s length reviews of the candidate’s scholarship, and could provide up to three additional arm’s-length or non-arm’s length reviews. Normally, letters should be solicited by mid-July, and evaluators should be asked to submit their reviews in no more than one month of the receipt of the materials. The candidate shall suggest four names of potential referees. The candidate should also have the opportunity to advise the chair of names of individuals who might not be suitable referees. The Department may still seek to solicit letters in spite of the candidate’s objection, but the candidate’s objection to an evaluator must be noted in the departmental report. The department’s list of potential referees should be drawn up after the receipt of this information from the candidate for tenure or promotion. It is the College’s policy to protect the confidentiality of referees during the tenure process.

Amended by APT December 9, 2008

At least three of the total letters received must be from evaluators selected by the Department. Ideal outside evaluators are objective, credible, and highly respected in their field. To the degree possible, evaluators should be Full Professors. The five arm’s length letters must come from evaluators who have no personal relationships with the candidate and are free from bias, including bias due to personal or professional relationships with the candidate. The department report should explain each evaluator’s credentials, and, in any instance where a professional relationship exists or has existed between the evaluator and the candidate, the department report must describe that relationship. If the APT Committee or APT-EC concludes that specific letters could be viewed as insufficiently objective, it may ask the department or the FIS to obtain additional letters.
Adopted by APT April 7, 2006

The letters sent by the department to outside reviewers soliciting evaluations of the candidate’s scholarship shall:

• Indicate whether the candidate is seeking tenure and/or promotion to either Associate Professor or Full Professor; ask the reviewer not whether the candidate would be promoted or granted tenure at the reviewer’s institution but rather ask for an evaluation of the quality of the candidate’s work and its significance, a comparison of the candidate to others at a similar stage in their careers, and a judgment concerning what the candidate can be expected to do in the future;
• Include the candidate’s curriculum vitae, personal statement on scholarship, and scholarly materials agreed upon by the candidate and the department;
• Request from the reviewer a curriculum vitae and ask that the letter of evaluation briefly explain any relationship the reviewer may have with the candidate;
• Indicate that the department would be pleased to provide, if the reviewer so wishes, other materials listed on the vitae but not included with the letter;
• NOT include a list of the candidate’s other evaluators;
• Be reviewed and approved by the APT-EC before they are sent. (A model letter, to which departments may add relevant information, is available from the Dean of the Faculty’s office.)

When the Dean of the Faculty receives the candidate’s statement and supporting materials, the Dean presents them to the APT-EC for a preliminary review (but no preliminary recommendation) in order to determine if the department should be requested to consider particular issues in its report. The APT-EC may also take into account other available information in making such a request. The Dean then requests a report from the department. The departmental report shall include not only a recommendation on tenure and/or promotion, but also a well-developed description and evaluation of the supporting factual evidence and of the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.

The department is expected normally to complete and submit its report to the APT-EC by October 15. In cases when the tenure process starts significantly later than July 1, completion of the departmental report will be expected within ten weeks of the submission of the candidate’s materials to the Dean of the Faculty. Departments that fail to meet the deadline shall normally be judged to thereby have established their lack of interest in the results. The APT-EC should proceed to establish an FIS which shall assume the charge of the departmental review process, including the power to recommend.

Approved by APT May 17, 1979
Amended by APT December 12, 2008

The departmental report shall generally assess the candidate’s qualifications for promotion and/or tenure, and must address the specific issues and questions posed by the APT-EC. Where feasible, the department report shall also provide a reasonable representation of both majority and minority views in the department. (A model departmental report template is available from the Dean of the Faculty’s office.) In particular, the report shall include in the following order:

1. A summary of the Department’s recommendation and assessment, including the Department’s vote, who was present for the vote, and who served on the review committee(s), including who was primarily responsible for each section of the report.
2. A brief overview of the candidate’s history, including when the candidate arrived at CMC, what the candidate’s appointment was upon arrival, a biographical review, relevant information from prior CMC evaluations, and a statement assessing whether the candidate has met the academic need specified in the original search request and job description.
3. A detailed assessment of the candidate’s teaching based on a study of the candidate’s course syllabi, grade distributions, an examination of student course evaluations, and interviews with a range of students (preferably a minimum of 12-15 students) who have taken the candidate’s courses. The Dean of the Faculty’s office has on file the standard interview instrument that the department is to utilize, with the understanding that it can be modified to meet the department’s particular needs. Assessment of course evaluations should include a tabular comparison of the candidate’s numerical scores with departmental and College averages controlled for core classes and electives across at least the following questions: instructor effectiveness, instructor recommended, learned a great deal, and course intellectually and academically challenging. The Department shall include information about all courses taught by the candidate at CMC. Comments should be solicited from alumni who are former students of the candidate. Each faculty member preparing for tenure consideration may be observed in the classroom by departmental colleagues. The Department will regulate the precise number and the timing of these observations according to its best judgment.
   Approved by APT May 9, 1996
   Amended by the Faculty November 16, 2015
4. A substantive discussion of the candidate’s scholarship that (a) describes in jargon-free language the candidate’s research, (b) assesses its quality through a careful analysis of its argument and significance (as opposed to mere reference to the reputation of the journals and presses in which it has appeared), (c) evaluates the candidate’s past scholarly productivity and future research agenda and scholarly potential, (d) summarizes the evaluations (as well as the names, scholarly credentials and relationship, if any, to the candidate) of at least five outside reviewers on the candidate’s scholarship. Individual comments from reviewers must not be attributed, and names and identifying characteristics of reviewers must be redacted from the departmental report when it is provided to the candidate. This summary must include both positive and negative points raised by the reviewers. If there are significant differences among reviewers, the report should note which of the evaluators are from the Department’s list and which from the candidate’s list, as well as which are arm’s length and which (if any) are not. The full original letters should be submitted to the Dean of the Faculty’s office along with the report.
   If it is a tenure case, the research section should be written with reference to the Department’s published standards for tenure, and a copy of those standards should be included as an appendix to the report.
5. A report of the candidate’s service to the department, the College, the Claremont Colleges, the candidate’s academic discipline, and the broader society. The APT Committee intends that these aspects of “service” will be considered in evaluating the teaching and scholarship of faculty members at CMC. This means sharing in the traditional administrative responsibilities of the College, including:

Service to Students through involvement in independent studies, thesis supervision, counseling, formal and informal extracurricular activities, and broad contribution to students’ intellectual growth.

Service to One’s Profession, such as holding office in a professional association and participation in conferences.

Service to the Outside Community, where related to one’s scholarly pursuits.

The report should compare the candidate’s level of service with the departmental norm and should take into account which service opportunities have been available.

Approved by APT April 24, 1979
Approved by the Faculty May 7, 1979
Guidelines for Department Report approved by APT December 12, 2008

3.2.5.6 Field Investigation Subcommittee (FIS)

When the departmental report has been completed and submitted to the Dean of the Faculty and the candidate agrees that the review process should continue, the Dean appoints a Field Investigation Subcommittee. However, in the case of candidates for early promotion and/or tenure, the APT-EC may decide to discontinue consideration of the case on the basis of its review of the candidate’s record following the submission of the departmental report, with the right of appeal by the candidate to the APT Committee.

This FIS is to investigate fully and to describe and evaluate the candidate’s performance in each of the areas of teaching, scholarship and research, and service. The role of the FIS is to ensure the integrity of the tenure and/or review process by reaching its own judgment about the quality of the candidate.

1. The Dean of the Faculty appoints the FIS which normally consists of three faculty members from outside the candidate’s department. In extraordinary cases, when the Dean determines it is necessary for adequate review of the candidate’s scholarship and research, one additional member may be appointed from the candidate’s department or from the candidate’s discipline in one of the other Claremont Colleges.
2. Two of the members of the FIS shall be tenured Full Professors and one shall be a tenured Associate Professor.
3. The candidate is encouraged to nominate at least three CMC faculty members (either tenured Associate Professors or tenured Full Professors), outside the candidate’s department, who are particularly well qualified to evaluate the candidate’s teaching, scholarship and research, and/or service.
4. The Dean selects at least one of these nominees for membership on the candidate’s FIS. The tenured Associate Professor and any non-CMC member of the FIS should be invited to attend the APT Committee meeting on the candidate but are excused from the meeting after having an opportunity to answer questions about the report.
   
   The FIS is instructed to prepare a written report for the APT Committee. The FIS report includes detailed descriptions and evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship and research, and service, with attention to both strengths and weaknesses. The report makes no recommendation for or against tenure or promotion, but it should include an assessment of whether the departmental report was sufficiently comprehensive under the categories of teaching, scholarship and research, and service, and accurately conveyed the information gathered by the department in each of these categories.
   
   The FIS shall familiarize itself with the Standards for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure (Section 3.2.4) and it may ask the APT-EC for necessary clarifications regarding applicable evaluative standards. The APT-EC may request the FIS to consider particular matters which may figure in the APT Committee’s recommendation on the candidate. The APT Committee may return a report to the FIS for a more complete consideration of particular issues.
   
   The FIS shall develop information from the following sources:
   1. ​An interview with the candidate, the Department chair, and other faculty such as departmental colleagues, other CMC faculty, and faculty in the candidate’s own field from the other Claremont Colleges (the other faculty chosen at the discretion of the FIS);
   2. A review of the candidate’s publications and manuscripts;
   3. An examination of student course evaluations;
   4. Interviews with a range of students who have taken the candidate’s courses, unless deemed unnecessary by the APT-EC;
   5. Examination of all materials in the Dean of the Faculty’s office (the candidate’s annual reports, the candidate’s statement, the department’s report on tenure and/or promotion, course evaluations, course syllabi, and grading statistics, and the candidate’s personnel file); and
   6. An examination of written appraisals from external evaluators, which will normally include at least five arm’s-length evaluations.
5. A model template for the FIS report is available in the Dean of the Faculty’s office. When the final FIS report is available, the Dean of the Faculty gives a copy to the candidate for any written comments the candidate desires the APT Committee or APT-EC to consider in connection with it. When its final written report has been submitted, the chair of the FIS may meet with the APT-EC or the APT to discuss the report.
6. The Dean of the Faculty shall provide the candidate’s curriculum vitae, personal statements, and written responses to reports, the departmental report, and the FIS report, to members of the APT Committee prior to the meeting at which the decision is to be made.

FIS Instructions approved by APT, November 7, 2008

3.2.5.7 APT Meeting

The chair of the department or the chair’s designee will present the departmental report and its recommendation to the APT Committee. In cases where the chair or designee is not a member of the APT Committee, the chair may present the report and answer questions, but must leave the meeting before a vote is taken.

The chair of the FIS will present the FIS report. In cases where the chair or designee is not a member of the APT Committee, the chair may present the report and answer questions, but must leave the meeting before a vote is taken. On matters of appointment, reappointment, and promotion, the deliberations of the APT Committee may include initial discussions with the chair of the candidate’s FIS Committee, with the chair of the department and/or the chair of the departmental review committee, and, when the APT-EC deems it appropriate, with additional members of the candidate’s department, the CMC faculty and administration, and/or other faculty members of the Claremont Colleges. In particular, in the event of a significant split in the recommendation from the department, the APT-EC shall invite representatives from both sides of such a split vote into these initial discussions. Such participants in initial discussions who are not members of the APT Committee shall leave the meeting prior to final discussion and vote by the APT Committee.

Recommendations in all promotion and lateral tenure cases involving Full Professors will be made by the Full Professors on the APT Committee together with the Dean and the President. A quorum for consideration of promotion and lateral tenure cases at the rank of Full Professor will be 3/4 of the Full Professors serving on the APT Committee. All other matters dealing with reappointment of tenure-track faculty, tenure, promotion to Associate Professor, lateral tenure of Associate Professor cases, and sabbaticals will be taken up by the entire APT Committee. A quorum in all such cases is 3/4ths of all of the members of the Committee.

Members of the APT Committees are expected to take seriously their responsibilities, including making every effort to attend all meetings, conscientiously reading APT materials and maintaining confidentiality.

Recommendations for tenure and promotion must be approved by the Board of Trustees.

3.2.5.8 Disclosure to the Candidate

Except for names and reports of individual referees, the candidate has access to all written materials used by the APT Committee and the FIS in preparing their reports and in making their decision.

At each stage in the process the candidate is given an opportunity to make a written response, making special note of information that may escape the attention of the committee in question and of any special sources of information that should be consulted.

In addition, the Dean of the Faculty communicates the APT Committee recommendation to the candidate immediately after it is known and discusses the reasons for the APT Committee’s decision with the candidate.

In the case of a negative recommendation on a candidate for promotion, the Dean also indicates the next likely time period when promotion will be considered.

3.2.5.9 Reconsideration of Candidates for Promotion

In the event a Field Investigation Subcommittee is appointed and promotion is subsequently denied, the candidate may request the APT Committee to commence another review within the next one or two years. However, the candidate is not automatically entitled to full review, including appointment of an FIS, at intervals closer than three years. (More frequent full consideration, including appointment of an FIS, is at the discretion of the APT-EC, with right of appeal by the candidate to the APT Committee.)

Passed by unanimous vote of APT September 29, 1978
Approved by Faculty October 23, 1978
Revised May 5, 2000

3.2.6 Post-Tenure Review Policy

post-tenure-review-schedule3.2.6.1 Review Schedule

3.2.6.1.1 Review of Tenured Associate Professors​

This review is intended to give tenured Associate Professors a sense of how well they are progressing toward the goal of promotion to the rank of Full Professor. The review will consider contributions in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service since tenure and will identify steps the College might take to facilitate the development of candidates in these areas. Such a review should be thought of as evaluative, but also as an opportunity to support and enhance each Associate Professor’s teaching, scholarship, and service. While the College affirms faculty members’ right and obligation to pursue scholarship of their own choosing, the purpose of this review is to provide crucial feedback and guidance to candidates regarding promotion to Full Professor and to discuss the support needed for continuing faculty development.

3.2.6.1.2 Review Procedure for Associate Professors

The first review will normally take place in the fourth year after tenure. If the Associate Professor has not come up for promotion to Full Professor ten years after tenure, a second post-tenure review will be triggered. Subsequent reviews will be conducted every eight years and will follow the procedure for Full Professors. Any review for promotion, whether successful or unsuccessful, will reset the post-tenure review clock, the next review occurring eight years later and following the procedure for Full Professors. In consultation with their department chairs, candidates may ask the Dean of the Faculty (DOF) to move up or delay a review by one year if it is likely to make the review more effective (for example, in the case of parental leave). Similarly, the candidate must ask the Dean of the Faculty to waive the upcoming PTR if the candidate intends to come up for promotion to Full Professor in the following year. Associate Professors serving as department chair may delay their post-tenure review until after they have completed their term as chair.

During the year of a review, along with the annual activities report for that year, tenured Associate Professors will submit a report to the department chair and to the Dean of the Faculty. The report should cover teaching, scholarship, and service activities for the years since tenure as well as plans for future professional activity. This personal statement should be both retrospective and prospective. The prospective component is intended to provide faculty members with an opportunity to describe their own plans for development. Normally this statement will not exceed three pages. The department chair will meet with the Full Professors in the department to discuss each candidate’s CV and personal statement. If the department chair is not a Full Professor, the DOF will appoint a Full Professor from the candidate’s department to serve in lieu of the department chair for the purposes of this review. The DOF or DOF designee and the department chair or department designee will then meet with the candidate to discuss the candidate’s progress in light of the department’s assessment. This meeting should occur no more than two months after the submission of the candidate’s report. Within a month after the review meeting, the DOF will summarize its main points in a follow-up letter to the candidate.

3.2.6.1.3 Review of Full Professors

Full Professors continue to receive performance feedback even after promotion. Their teaching is evaluated anonymously by every student who takes their classes; their articles, chapters, and books are reviewed by peers in their field; and each year Full Professors must submit to the Dean’s office an annual report summarizing their achievements in teaching, scholarship, and service during the past year. In addition, Full Professors will normally undergo a post-tenure review every eight years after their promotion to Full Professor. 

3.2.6.2 Review Procedure for Full Professors

1. The Dean of the Faculty (DOF) will notify all candidates for Post-Tenure Review (hereafter, candidates) in writing by May 1 that they are subject to review during the subsequent academic year. This notification will include a list of materials that candidates must provide to the DOF. Materials should be submitted to the DOF along with the annual activities report for that year. These materials are listed below:​
   • A brief Personal Statement that is both retrospective and prospective. The College affirms faculty members’ right and obligation to pursue scholarship of their own choosing. The prospective component is therefore intended for faculty members to express their own plans for development. The statement should summarize accomplishments in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service since the candidate’s last review. In addition, the statement should sketch out plans and priorities for the next several years in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Normally this statement will not exceed three pages. The statement may include a discussion of work in progress and future research directions, including long-term projects. The teaching section should include discussion of courses and teaching innovations. The service section should include discussion of current and preferred service activities.
   • An updated CV.
2. The DOF will gather the following additional information:
   • The report from the candidate’s promotion to Full Professor or the most recent review.
   • All teaching evaluations since the most recent review.
   • The candidate’s last sabbatical request and sabbatical report.
3. The DOF will form an ad hoc Review Committee consisting of the DOF or the (DOF’s designee) and a Full Professor selected by the candidate in consultation with the Dean. The ad hoc Review Committee will review the candidate’s statement, CV, and the materials provided by the DOF’s office and meet with the candidate. The committee will then write a draft report indicating whether the candidate is performing at a “satisfactory” level or “needs improvement” in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. The report may recommend faculty development in one or more areas and may discuss institutional resources that could be made available to help achieve the goals of the candidate. Normally the draft report will be completed by March 1. A copy of this draft report will go to the candidate.
4. After receiving the draft report and all documents provided by the Dean of the Faculty, the candidate will have the option to meet with the review committee to discuss the report. This meeting normally would occur by April 1. At this meeting, the candidate may provide the committee with material relevant to the evaluation, including a written response to the draft report. If relevant, the candidate may respond with alternative recommendations for faculty development and allocation of institutional resources. The committee will write a final report, normally by May 1. Within three weeks of receiving the final report, the candidate may submit a written response. All submitted materials, the final report and the candidate’s response, if any, will constitute the Record of Review (ROR).
5. The candidate shall have the right to appeal the judgment of the Review Committee by appeal to the President, who shall appoint a new faculty committee to assist the President in making a final determination regarding performance.

3.2.6.3 Record of Review (ROR)

The ROR becomes a part of a faculty member’s permanent record. The ROR may be considered when making the following decisions: Salary increases and bonuses, mutually agreed upon teaching loads, administrative assignments, enhancement of IFAs, grants or release time for faculty development, teaching assignments, department-administered grants, enhanced sabbatical requests, and faculty research grants.

3.2.6.4 Policy Evaluation

The post-tenure review policy will be evaluated every five years. The evaluation will consider the policy’s effectiveness in relation to the objectives outlined in the Preamble. The DOF has responsibility for initiating the evaluation. The evaluation will be conducted by the Administration Committee and is to be reviewed and approved by the faculty.

Amended by the Faculty March 30 and December 7, 2017

3.3 The Search and Appointment Process: Non-Tenure-Track Appointments

Non-tenure-track appointments may range from one-course, single semester appointments to full-time, longer-term appointments. The search process will vary according to the specific provisions of an appointment.

3.3.1 Non-Tenure Track Academic Personnel Policy

This policy applies to full-time non-tenure track faculty only, excluding temporary personnel employed by the Keck Science Department and members of the Athletics Department, whose policies appear in the Faculty Handbook.

I. Titles

The College may use a broad range of titles for full-time, non-tenure track faculty, to achieve an appropriate match between titles and varying backgrounds and levels of experience. In addition to the titles of Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, and Visiting Professor, the following titles could be assigned to non-tenure track faculty: Lecturer or Senior Lecturer. These titles allow faculty to be promoted after a period of service and recognize that faculty are not in fact visiting from another institution, but long-term members of the community.

In addition, the College may use the title of Professor of the Practice and Artist/Writer in Residence to designate experienced professionals selected to add to existing faculty expertise.

Appointment to these ranks is to carry out teaching assignments in a department. On a case-by-case basis, responsibilities may include advising and serving as a reader of a senior thesis, as well as other responsibilities, to be mutually agreed upon and included in the teacher’s contract.

Tenure cannot be awarded at these ranks.

The College may use the titles of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor for non-tenure track faculty members with appropriate academic credentials in exceptional circumstances with the approval of the APT.

II. Appointment

Non-tenure track academic personnel are normally appointed initially for a period of one year, including appointments at the more senior ranks. Subsequent reappointments may be for two to five years. Reappointments should normally occur early during the spring semester for the following academic year. One-year appointments require approval by the APT-EC and multi-year appointments require approval by the APT.

Appointments may be renewable or may have a defined end date.

These positions are term appointments eligible for renewal based on quality of performance, continuing need for their services within a program or department, and available funding.

Each appointment should include a clear contractual statement of expectations and assignments, including in-class teaching and such other responsibilities as course preparation, student advisement, and service, where relevant, as well as an explanation of evaluation.

III. Annual Evaluation

Non-tenure track academic personnel will be evaluated annually, in a timely fashion after the first semester. Deans and chairs will evaluate these faculty based on student teaching evaluations and other measures deemed appropriate, which are related to the specific educational goals of their department, with a more extensive review by department chairs after three years. This third-year review may include interviews with students and/or class visits. The review is submitted to the Dean of the Faculty.

IV. Promotion

Usually after an initial six years of full-time employment at the College, non-tenure track personnel are eligible for promotion according to guidelines determined by individual programs and departments and approved by the Dean of the Faculty. Requirements for promotion may be limited to successful teaching of courses, and may include additional responsibilities as agreed upon between the teacher and the chair of the relevant program.

Promotion in rank is not a requirement for continuing employment. Instead, promotion recognizes exceptional merit in the assigned role. An approved promotion is recognized by a change in title, extension of the appointment contract, and a base salary adjustment. Any promotion must be approved by the APT-EC.

V. Inclusion

Full-time non tenure-track faculty are incorporated into the life of the department to the fullest extent possible. In addition to mentoring, they may be included in the pictures of departmental websites, have regular offices, mailboxes, access to departmental communications, telephone and computer access, orientation of new faculty, library access, after-hours access to buildings, and access to departmental staff.

In the second year of employment, as appropriate, non-tenure track personnel who are full-time may be eligible for the following additional benefits and responsibilities:

1. Application for annual funding to support participation in one national conference in a relevant discipline, or an equivalent amount for professional development, normally up to $1500/year.
2. Application to campus grant opportunities.
3. Involvement in department and faculty meetings as non-voting members.

Approved by the faculty May 9, 2013

3.3.2 Non-Tenure-Track Appointments of A Year or Less, Both Part-Time and Full-Time

Departments shall devise internal procedures in consultation with the Dean of the Faculty.

The departmental recommendation, accompanied by a brief description of the search procedure, a curriculum vitae, and documentation of the candidate’s academic credentials, shall go to the APT-EC for its recommendation.

If the APT-EC recommends that the offer shall be made, the President shall convey the recommendation to the Board of Trustees. All recommendations of the APT-EC shall be reported to the APT Committee.

Approved by the faculty May 9, 2013

3.3.3 Non-Tenure-Track Appointments of More Than One Year But No Longer Than Three Years, Both Part-Time and Full-Time

Procedures for these appointments shall be the procedures stated above, except that the department shall also provide at least three letters of recommendation and a brief report explaining the reasons for selecting the candidate.

Approved by the faculty May 9, 2013

3.3.4 Non-Tenure-Track Rolling Contracts for Athletics Faculty

Recognizing the dual nature of coaching, sharing both teaching and administrative duties, athletics faculty may be employed on the basis of three-year rolling contracts. For more details, see the CMC Staff Handbook .

3.3.5 Background Checks

As a condition of employment, all candidates will be required to submit to a background check pursuant to the College’s background check policy (See Appendix 3.3). In addition, candidates must demonstrate that they are legally authorized to work in the United States.

3.3.6 Terms and Conditions

The terms and conditions of every appointment should be stated in writing and be in the possession of both institution and candidate before the appointment is consummated.

3.3.7 De Facto Tenure

Claremont McKenna College does not recognize de facto tenure.

3.4 Appeals Arising from APT Issues

3.4.1 General Procedures

1. When APT Appeals May Be Used; Grounds

The APT Appeals Procedure allows a member of the faculty who has been the subject of a decision by the APT Committee to appeal the decision on the grounds of:

Alleged violation of academic freedom or academic due process;

Alleged violation of the right to full and fair consideration;

Alleged violation of state or federal law (including discrimination); or

Alleged violation of APT procedures set forth in the Faculty Handbook.

It is not the purpose of an Appeal Panel to substitute its judgment for that of the APT Committee, but rather, to establish whether any of the foregoing alleged violations have occurred and make recommendations appropriate to its findings.

2. When to File an Appeal; Time Limits

Prompt filing of an appeal is strongly urged, because it is often difficult to trace the facts of an incident long after it has occurred. The appeal procedure should be initiated as soon as possible after the decision at issue. The time limits set forth in these procedures are approximate. The President, the Dean of the Faculty or the Dean’s designee may allow additional time for any of the steps noted. 

3. Appealing a Decision of the APT Committee

Appeals arising out of APT decisions shall be submitted in writing directly to the Dean of the Faculty, who will appoint an Appeal Panel according to the procedures described below under Specific Procedures. If after reviewing all written documents, at least one member of the Panel is satisfied that the appeal warrants investigation, a fact-finding hearing shall be held. The Appeal Panel may attempt settlement of the appeal at any time prior to hearing of written findings. The Appeal Panel shall issue written findings and recommendations to the President of the College.

4. Standard of Review, Full and Fair Consideration

When the alleged violation involves the right to full and fair consideration, consideration shall be deemed full and fair if the decision has been pursued in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Faculty Handbook; if the relevant facts and proper criteria were brought to bear on the decision; and if given the relevant facts, proper criteria, and procedures a reasonable person in the position of the decision maker might have made the same original decision.

5. Informal Settlement

The appeal may be settled at any time prior to the entry of findings and a decision by the Appeal Panel.

3.4.2 Specific Procedures

1. Process of Formal Resolution of APT Appeal

A Faculty member claiming an appeal (the appellant) will submit to the Dean of the Faculty within two weeks of notification of the APT decision a written complaint specifying the nature of the appeal, referring to the grounds set forth in these procedures or elsewhere in the Faculty Handbook, including specific reasons why the decision is being challenged.

2. Appeal Panel

Upon receiving a request for appeal the Dean of the Faculty shall appoint an Appeal Panel following these rules:

Three members should be tenured Full Professors.

1. No member shall be from the appellant’s department.
2. No member shall be on the APT-EC or APT Committee.
3.  No member shall be a regular participant in or member of an academic program analogous to a department in which the appellant is regularly involved.
4. No member shall have been directly involved in the controversy or decision leading to the appeal. Having been asked questions or participated in discussions in the course of regular APT Committee decisions shall not by itself be deemed direct involvement, unless the potential member’s participation at the APT discussion was such as to preclude the potential member’s unbiased deliberation as a member of the Appeal Panel.
   
   Examples of direct involvement include, but are not limited to:
   • membership on the related FIS;
   • refereeing of related materials;
   • testifying orally or in writing on the grievant’s credentials;
   • attainments, or activities, and giving counsel or assistance to the appellant, to the appellant’s department, or to any other entity in the controversy or decision leading to the appeal.
5. No more than one member shall come from any one academic department.
6. If a question about a potential member’s suitability arises, the Dean of the Faculty may consult with the APT-EC or the APT Committee, but the fact of any consultation by the Dean with these committees or other groups or individuals shall be made part of the record.
7. In the case of appeals concerning tenure decisions, the three APT Committee members of the Appeal Panel selected by the Dean shall choose a tenured Associate Professor to be the fourth member of the panel. In making this selection the three APT Committee members will observe the foregoing rules where applicable.
8. The appellant may challenge members for cause.
   1. If one or more of the three APT Committee members are challenged, the Dean shall decide the merit of the challenge and either replace the challenged member(s) or give the appellant a statement of reasons for not replacing the member(s).
   2. If the tenured Associate Professor is challenged, the three Appeal Panel members shall replace the challenged member or provide the appellant a statement of reasons.

3. Process

1. The Dean of the Faculty will transmit the written complaint to an Appeal Panel along with all documents related to the APT decision within three working days after the panel is formed according to the rules specified below under “Appeal Panel.”
2. If, after reviewing all documents submitted, at least one member of the Appeal Panel agrees that the appeal warrants investigation, the Appeal Panel shall grant a hearing to the appellant within seven working days. If deemed necessary, the Appeal panel will interview the appellant, APT members, and/or other members of the CMC community. It may also contact outside reviewers.
3. The appellant may attend the hearing with a representative.
   1. Legal counsel will not be permitted at the hearing, except in the case in which any party to the appeal faces pending or potential criminal charges, the appeal is based on an alleged violation of state or federal law, or the appeal involves a claim of unlawful harassment or discrimination.
   2. In these cases legal counsel will be permitted in an advisory role only, and will not be allowed to participate directly in the hearing.
4. The appellant will be permitted to make statements to the Appeal Panel and the Appeal Panel may require statements by other persons. The appellant will have a reasonable opportunity to question such persons.
5. A record (preferably tape recording) of the hearing will be made. All statements and documents that become part of the hearing record are to be treated as confidential by all parties to the process except as provided by law.
6. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to provide clear and convincing evidence in support of the grounds put forth in the appellant’s written complaint.
7. The hearing and deliberation of the Panel shall be closed.
8. The Appeal Panel will attempt to complete its work within two weeks by delivering a written report of its findings, including recommendations, to the President of the College, the APT Committee and the appellant.
9. An appellant may appeal a decision of the Appeal Panel to the President, who may decide to hear the appeal. If the President does hear the appeal, the President shall provide a final written resolution of the appeal to the Appeal Panel, the appellant and the APT Committee.

Approved by the Faculty, December 7, 1995

Appendix 3.1 Keck Science RPT Policies and Procedures

The full text of the Keck Science RPT Policies and Procedures can be found in Chapter 2 of the Keck Science Faculty Handbook  .

Appendix 3.2 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Physical Education & Athletic Department Policies on Appointments, Reappointments, & Promotion

Policies on Appointments, Reappointments, and Promotion

This document establishes guidelines and general procedures by which faculty members of the Physical Education-Athletic Department of Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, and Scripps College on non-tenure-track positions are appointed, reappointed, promoted or terminated. They are designed to provide equitable and open consideration for all candidates while ensuring the vitality and independence of the three cooperating colleges. The policies stated in the Claremont McKenna College Faculty Handbook apply to all benefits and procedures not enumerated by these procedures.

A. Initial Appointments

1. Initial appointments are made by the President of the lead College, who acts on the recommendation of the Appointment Committee.
2. The Appointment Committee, which reports directly to the President of the lead College, consists of: (a) the Director of Athletics (chair); (b) the Deans of Students from the three colleges; and (c) three departmental representatives.
   • When an initial appointment is to be made, the following procedures will go into effect.
   • Upon receiving written instructions from the President of the lead College to begin an affirmative action search, the Athletic Director consults with the President to determine the job description, the qualifications desired, the range of compensation, and the affirmative action procedures that must be followed by the lead College.
3. The Appointment Committee reviews the credentials of candidates seeking the position, identifies those to be interviewed and arranges for campus interviews. The appointment recommendation of the committee is forwarded to the President of the lead College by the Director of Athletics.
4. All initial appointments shall be non-tenure-track and normally for a three-year term. The appointment will include voting privileges at one of the three colleges.
5. A master’s degree is preferred upon entry and is normally required for the rank of Associate Professor. The guideline for entry appointment is as follows:
   1. Instructor: 0 - 3 years of college coach-teaching experience.
   2. Assistant Professor: 4 - 9 years of college coach-teaching experience.
   3. Associate Professor: 10 or more years of college coach-teaching experience.
   4. Full Professor: Not offered initially unless special circumstances justify an exception.

B. ​Reappointments

1. Reappointments are made by the President of the lead College, who acts on the recommendation of the Physical Education/Athletics Reappointment and Promotion Committee in consultation with the Presidents of the other colleges.
2. The Reappointment and Promotion Committee, which reports directly to the President of the lead College, consists of: (a) the Dean of the Faculty of the lead College (Chair); (b) one representative each from the APT Committees of Claremont McKenna College and Scripps College, and one representative from the RPT Committee of Harvey Mudd College; (c) the Faculty Athletic Representatives from the three colleges; and (d) the Director of Athletics as a non-voting member.
3. When a reappointment is to be considered, the following procedures will go into effect.
   1. The Athletic Director gathers the information needed to evaluate the candidates. The information shall include:
      1. Annual reports or statements by the candidates.
      2. Written evaluations from on-campus colleagues (for example, from Deans of Students, Faculty, Admissions Office, Personnel, etc.).
      3. Written evaluations from student participants in activities taught and/or coached by the candidate (for example, from athletic team personnel, physical education class participants, student intramural directors, etc.).
      4. Letters of recommendation from peers outside the departments (for example, from coaches, athletic administrators, etc.). The candidate will be consulted in the selection of the outside peers.
   2. The information gathered by the Athletic Director is presented to the Department’s Personnel Action Committee, consisting of the Director of Athletics and all members of the department who are on a three-year rolling contract. A three-year rolling contract is one that is extended each year for one additional year. Thus, the person is always in the “first year” of a three-year contract unless the contract is terminated.
      
      This Committee summarizes the data and prepares its recommendation. This recommendation, after it has been reviewed by the candidate in consultation with the Director of Athletics, is then forwarded by the Director of Athletics to the Reappointment and Promotion Committee.
       
   3. The candidate may submit additional material directly to the Reappointment and Promotion Committee if the candidate chooses.
   4. In deciding whether to accept, modify, or reject the recommendation it has received, the Reappointment and Promotion Committee may interview the candidate and/or appoint a subcommittee to gather additional information. The Committee’s recommendation is forwarded to the President of the lead College by that college’s Dean of the Faculty. After consultation with the other Presidents, the lead College President communicates a decision to the candidate.
4. Normally reappointments are for a three-year term, until such time as the candidate may be promoted to the rank of Associate Professor. At that juncture, the candidate will normally receive a three-year rolling contract.
5. Rolling contracts may be terminated by the President acting on the recommendation of the Reappointment and Promotion Committee. Such action is initiated by the Director of Athletics. Prior to initiating the procedures which may lead to termination of the rolling contract, the Director of Athletics shall notify the faculty member in writing of the perceived deficiencies and allow reasonable time for improvement. Reasonable time will normally be one year.
6. A faculty member may be suspended or dismissed for financial exigency or moral turpitude. In such cases the College shall follow the procedures and definitions as established by the American Association of University Professors.

C. Promotions

Promotion through the ranks shall be based not only upon established performance criteria but also on experience within the department. The following is the normal time schedule:

1. Assistant Professor: Eligibility for promotion will occur upon completion of the initial three-year contract as instructor.
2. Associate Professor: Eligibility for promotion will occur upon the completion of six years at the rank of Assistant Professor.
3. Full Professor: Eligibility for promotion will occur upon the completion of six years at the rank of Associate Professor.

Physical Education Evaluation Criteria

The Joint Physical Education/Athletics Program seeks to evolve the model of teacher-coachs whose ability and interest in teaching are maintained at a high level and whose coaching activity is of genuine professional value to their discipline. Service, in the sense of sharing in the responsibilities of institutional life, is an extremely important part of the teacher-coach’s relationship to the Colleges. Activity in each area is necessary for the growth and advancement of the individual and of the Colleges; however, faculty members’ positions will be evaluated individually on the actual time their job demands in a given area.

A candidate for reappointment should have demonstrated proficiency in coaching an intercollegiate sport and, when relevant, in the teaching of physical education classes. The candidate’s proficiency should be evaluated by procedures comparable to those used for other departments of the Colleges. The candidate’s scholarly activity, while it may include publications, should not necessarily be evaluated solely in those terms; for example, participation in teaching and coaching clinics, offices held in organizations governing athletics and professional organizations, and pursuit of additional course work pertinent to the field should be regarded as equally important evidence of professional accomplishment.

The candidate’s service to the department and to the College as a whole, as well as the candidate’s performance of administrative and supervisory duties, are vital to the successful operation of a physical education program.

Reappointment is determined by the value of the person’s activities in the areas of coaching, teaching, and service.

Appendix 3.3 Policy on Background Checks

Purpose

Claremont McKenna College (“CMC”) has a long-standing commitment to support its academic and research endeavors by hiring qualified faculty who deliver academic excellence and who provide a safe and secure environment for all of CMC’s students, faculty, staff and visitors. CMC therefore has enacted a policy requiring the completion of application forms and background checks for all candidates who have received a conditional offer of employment.

Policy

As a condition of appointment to a faculty position, Claremont McKenna College requires that all candidates who have received a conditional offer of employment complete an application form (if they have not already done so) and consent to a background check. The application form and background check will adhere to the following basic principles:

The scope of the application form and background check is limited to information that CMC has determined is potentially relevant for the respective faculty position.

The background check will not include:

• A credit report or a search of bankruptcy court records
• A search of family court records
• Drug or alcohol testing
• Fingerprinting
• Civil court records

The background check will include:

• A verification of educational credentials and history
• A verification of employment history
• A criminal background check, including:  
  • Federal, state, and county criminal records for relevant jurisdictions within the past seven (7) years
  • Relevant sex offender registries
  • Outstanding writs and warrants (not arrests)
• Social Security traces (to verify identification)

The candidate has the right to receive notice of the background check and has a right to receive a copy of the background check report. The candidate also has the right to dispute the accuracy and/or completeness of the report with the agency that conducts the report. These rights are further explained in the “Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,” which is provided with the background check disclosure and consent form.

CMC may deny the appointment based on information in the application or the background check report if it has a legitimate and non-discriminatory business purpose for doing so.

CMC will endeavor to maintain confidentiality with respect to the information included in the background check report.

Faculty Application Form and Background Check Implementation Procedures

Effective Date: July 1, 2005

At the first campus visit, each candidate will be asked to fill out an application form (if they have not already done so). The application form will request that the candidate describe their educational background, employment history, and any additional relevant training or professional development (or to confirm that this information is described in an attached curriculum vitae or similar document). The application form will also require the applicant to disclose whether they have ever been convicted of a criminal offense (subject to certain exclusions required by law) and, if so, to describe the nature and circumstances of that offense.

The Dean of the Faculty will review the application forms and will determine whether there is a legitimate and non-discriminatory business purpose to remove the candidate from further consideration. The disclosure of a criminal offense on the application is not an automatic disqualification for a faculty position. The nature of the offense, the date of the offense, the surrounding circumstances, and the relevance of the offense to the position will be considered.

Also at the time of the first campus visit, the candidate will be asked to sign a consent and disclosure form that will authorize the College to conduct the background check. The consent and disclosure form will include a summary of the applicant’s rights under both California and federal law. The candidate will be advised that a background check will be conducted only in the event that an offer is extended.

Human Resources will hold all signed consent and disclosure forms on file until one candidate has accepted the offer and has been cleared through the background check process. At that time, all other background check authorization forms will be shredded.

When an offer is extended, the Dean of the Faculty will inform the candidate that the offer is conditional upon the results of the background check.

If an offer is extended to a candidate who does not make a campus visit, Human Resources will provide the candidate with an application form and a consent and disclosure form to be signed and faxed back to Human Resources.

Once an offer is extended, the Dean of the Faculty will inform Human Resources to begin the background check.

Candidates have the right to obtain a copy of the background check report.

The background check report will be initially provided to Human Resources. If the background check report discloses any discrepancy with the information in the application form, Human Resources will forward the background check report to the Dean of the Faculty.

The Dean of the Faculty will review the background check report and will determine whether there is a legitimate and non-discriminatory business purpose for withdrawing the offer. If the Dean of the Faculty decides to withdraw the offer, the Dean of the Faculty will notify the candidate and the relevant department chair. If the Dean of the Faculty does not withdraw the offer, the background check report will be maintained under seal in the candidate’s personnel file.

Revised September 9, 2005; March 3, 2008

Appendix 3.4 Mentoring Policy for Junior Faculty

Mentoring of junior faculty is an important aspect of strengthening the faculty of Claremont McKenna College. Senior faculty have an obligation to mentor junior faculty as part of their service to the College. This mentoring plan defines the functions of mentoring, and outlines the actions that the College will undertake for all tenure‑track junior faculty. Junior faculty are defined as faculty members who have not yet earned tenure.

Functions of Mentoring

Mentoring of junior faculty members has six major functions:

1. Clarifying the standards and requirements for achieving success in teaching, scholarship and service, and hence in receiving tenure and promotions;
2. Keeping junior faculty apprised of their progress in these areas;
3. Helping junior faculty decide how to enhance their progress in these areas; (e.g., by providing advice on teaching techniques, where to place publications, how to network with professional colleagues, etc.)
4. Clarifying how the processes of the College work;
5. Advising junior faculty if adjustment difficulties arise;
6. Act as an intermediary or representative for the junior faculty member if that junior faculty member is concerned about actions or burdens imposed by the department or administration.

Elements of the Mentoring Plan

The Claremont McKenna College mentoring plan consists of the following elements:

1. New faculty will engage in a two‑day orientation session at the beginning of their first year at CMC, in which standards, requirements, process, etc. are clarified, and various approaches for balancing the demands on faculty time are presented.
2. Junior faculty will be evaluated annually, beginning with an assessment involving all senior members of the department. This assessment will be conveyed orally to the Dean of the Faculty during the first two years; subsequently it will be in written form. The Dean of the Faculty will then meet with the junior faculty member and the department chair to discuss the best strategies for the junior faculty member to contribute to the College and thereby to achieve tenure (e.g., how to improve teaching; which journals or book publishers ought to be sought as outlets for publications, etc.). The Dean will write a brief summary of the meeting; the junior faculty member and the department chair will examine the summary for accuracy.
3. During the third year, a particularly rigorous evaluation will be conducted, both to determine whether the contract should be renewed and to provide a detailed assessment of the junior faculty member’s progress and how it can be enhanced. Generally, except for faculty who have significant experience in teaching at other institutions, this third‑year evaluation coincides with the decision on contract renewal. The evaluation is therefore considered by the Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee, which may also provide guidance on how individuals can maximize their potential at CMC.
4. Periodic general sessions for junior faculty will be organized to provide junior faculty with more general advice on career strategies, tenure standards, etc. These sessions will reinforce and update the perspectives they received during the initial orientation sessions. At least one such session will be held annually for all junior faculty.
5. A formal mentor will be assigned to each junior faculty member, if that faculty member agrees that having a formal mentor is appropriate. This decision will be made near the beginning of the second semester of the junior faculty member’s employment at CMC, so that that individual has had enough time to choose a compatible mentor. The junior faculty member may also change mentors, if the new choice is amenable. In deciding on what information to convey to the mentor, the junior faculty member must understand that the mentor will also be serving another role, in the capacity of a senior member of the department, in deciding on the promotion and tenure of the junior faculty member.
6. The senior faculty of each department will articulate what the CMC standards of promotion and tenure mean in terms of the relevant discipline or disciplines represented in that department. The chair will convey these criteria to the APT-EC, and the APT-EC will discuss these criteria with the chair and other senior members of the Department. The chair, perhaps along with other senior faculty members; will hold an annual meeting with the junior faculty to discuss these criteria and standards.

Approved by the Faculty April 23, 2002

Administrative Memorandum on the College’s Mentoring Plan

This administrative memorandum is intended to clarify the College’s Mentoring Plan, adopted by the Faculty and Board of Trustees in the Spring semester of 2002.

The College’s Mentoring Plan incorporates many elements of CMC’s regular procedures for introducing new faculty to the College, for evaluating them annually, for providing a rigorous third-year contract-renewal review, and for formulating and communicating departmental standards for tenure and promotion. In this respect, the mentoring of Junior Faculty does not supersede any institutional policy as found in the Faculty Handbook, procedures for tenure and promotion as found in the Faculty Handbook, or tenure and promotion standards as developed by each department of the College.

The College’s Mentoring Policy includes the assignment of “[a] formal mentor to each junior faculty member, if that faculty member agrees.” Such a formal mentor is to carry out only a part of the College’s mentoring plan. In particular, the role of the mentor is articulated in items (3), (5) and (6) of the Functions of Mentoring that are listed in the Mentoring plan. However, providing assistance to a Junior Faculty member in the areas of (3), (5) and (6) need not be restricted to the mentor alone.

Items (1), (2) and (4) of the Functions of Mentoring that bear on standards, progress evaluations and College processes are the domain of the Junior Faculty member’s Department (including its written standards), Department Chair, the Appointments, Promotion and Tenure Committee (and its Executive Committee), and the Dean of the Faculty. The mentor should assist the Junior Faculty member by referring questions about items (1), (2) and (4) to the appropriate party.

Dean of the Faculty October 26, 2006