Personnel Policy and Procedures for Promotion, Tenure, and Third Year Review of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty
This document establishes the policy and procedures for promotion and tenure in the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development (“Steinhardt”), which are intended to reflect the School's unique culture and characteristics. These School guidelines conform to the core principles and procedures set forth in the New York University Promotion and Tenure Guidelines and the NYU Faculty Handbook. If any part of this document is inconsistent with NYU policies, the NYU policies then in effect will control. As with all NYU and Steinhardt policies, this document is subject to change, and the policies in effect at the time of an action will apply to that action.
The decision to grant promotion or tenure is one that is of central importance to an institution of higher education, where the quality of education is dependent upon the strength and quality of the individuals appointed as members of the faculty. A high standard of excellence and effectiveness in research and teaching is a prerequisite for tenure at Steinhardt, as is the expectation that faculty will contribute to the intellectual life of the department, School, and University.
The process of evaluating a candidate for tenure or promotion is an inquiry that seeks to answer one primary question: is the candidate for tenure or promotion among the strongest in her or his field, compared with other individuals at similar points in their careers? For candidates seeking promotion to Full Professor, there is an added expectation that the candidate must have achieved a significant milestone of scholarly production, prominence, and impact beyond the body of work for which tenure was awarded.
Each candidate’s tenure and promotion review is unique. As such, there are no absolute criteria governing or guaranteeing final review outcomes. Indeed, it is neither desirable nor possible to define an abstract and universal standard of measurement for tenure and promotion. However, we strive to ensure a process governed by clear, objective, and equitable standards and procedures. Each case must be examined in detail by making explicit comparisons, by delineating special strengths, and by acknowledging limits or weaknesses. All these factors are carefully discussed and weighed to reach a recommendation on tenure and/or promotion.
The duty of tenured faculty to give advice on promotion and tenure decisions is among their highest responsibilities. To give weak advice to the Dean assuming that difficult decisions will be made at later stages, subverts the principle of peer review, faculty governance, and departmental responsibility. Similarly, department recommendations whose advocacy attempts to gloss over imperfections in a candidate’s record are more likely to arouse suspicion than admiration. It is far more helpful to the candidate for departmental reviews to present a balanced assessment of a candidate's strengths and weaknesses. If the Dean's Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee (TPC) deems that a department committee has failed to provide such an assessment, it may return a candidate’s file to the department to address identified deficiencies.
It is essential that the tenured faculty members who participate in the promotion and tenure process uphold high standards of responsibility and ethical behavior. Responsibility includes the obligation to give careful attention to the materials of a tenure case and to share the results of that deliberation with eligible department colleagues. Ethical behavior includes a clear obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings, since confidentiality makes honest and open discussion possible.
The School and University have established deadlines that should be strictly adhered to by departments for the collection and submission of materials for review. These deadlines are promulgated by the Steinhardt Office of Faculty Affairs, in accordance with University deadlines, and are provided annually to the academic departments. See this page for all mandatory and non-mandatory calendars.
Promotion and Tenure Reviewers
Departments establish one overlapping Review, Promotion, and Tenure Committee (RPT) that is tasked with assessing and proposing recommendations relating to tenure/tenure-track and continuing contract faculty (CCF) reappointment, promotion, and tenure review. Each Steinhardt department is responsible for establishing guidelines and procedures for the Department RPT, including how the Committee is to be constituted (e.g., appointed by the Department Chair or elected by department faculty), term lengths for members, etc. This information should be readily available to all full-time faculty. Departments are required to submit RPT guidelines and membership to the Office of Faculty Affairs for review and approval.
Only tenured RPT members may review tenure/tenure-track actions. The RPT for tenure/tenure-track actions shall include at least three members all of whom are of the appropriate rank to conduct the tenure and/or promotion review. Only faculty members at or above the rank being requested in the promotion may serve on the respective promotion committees (e.g., actions for promotion to full professor should be reviewed by a committee of full professors). If a department does not have at least three appropriate faculty members, an ad hoc committee will be appointed by the Dean in consultation with the Department Chair, with membership augmented by tenured faculty of appropriate rank from other departments and/or other NYU Schools. Department Chairs do not serve as members of the Department Personnel Committee. If the department Chair is the candidate for promotion, the Dean will appoint an ad hoc committee that includes the Department RPT members and an equal number of tenured full professors from other Steinhardt departments or NYU Schools.
The Department RPT makes recommendations to the Department Chair, who then completes an independent review and makes her/his own recommendations to the Dean. If the Department Chair is a Continuing Contract Faculty (CCF) member, the Department RPT recommendation is forwarded via Interfolio directly to the Dean’s TPC with the rest of the docket.
The Dean's TPC carefully and thoroughly reviews each candidate’s tenure and/or promotion docket, including the Department RPT and department Chair letters, and prepares a recommendation for the Dean addressing the areas of scholarship, teaching, and service. The Dean’s TPC is constituted in the following manner:
- The Dean’s TPC is a permanent committee of the School.
- The Dean’s TPC consists of 9 members, plus up to two alternates. The Committee is made up of seven tenured full professors, two CCF full professors, and up to two tenured full professors who serve as alternates. The alternate steps in for a tenured committee member who is unable to fully participate on the Committee (e.g., someone who is on sabbatical for a semester). Committee members are appointed by the Dean in consultation with the Steinhardt Faculty Council and department Chairs. The tenured professors on the Committee must represent the three major areas within the School (culture, education and human development). CCF professors participate on the Dean’s TPC only for CCF promotion actions.
- Members of the Dean’s TPC serve staggered, three-year terms.
- The Dean’s TPC Chair/Co-Chairs are elected from among the second- and third-year tenured members or appointed by the Dean. The Chair/Co-Chairs serves for a one-year term and may be renewed.
- The Dean or her/his designee from among the school’s senior academic leadership participates in the Dean’s TPC as an ex officio, non-voting member.
Upon receiving the Dean’s TPC report, the Dean conducts an independent review of the candidate’s docket taking into consideration the recommendations of the Department Personnel Committee, department Chair, and Dean’s TPC. The Dean submits a written recommendation, along with the complete docket, to the Provost for the Provost’s review and final decision.
In the case of a Joint Appointment, the primary department, as specified in the executed Joint Appointment agreement, will be responsible for the review, and the composition of the Department RPT in the primary department should be augmented to include members from the secondary department. For Associated Appointments, members of the secondary department may be included on the Department Personnel committee, or if that is not feasible, input from that department’s Chair may be solicited; however, this is optional. If the Chair of the secondary department provides a letter of evaluation for the case, that letter may be written by the Chair or director of the secondary unit after formal consultation with departmental or program members. For Affiliated appointments, there is no requirement for the secondary department to be included on the Department Personnel committee. Cross appointment guidelines are posted on the NYU website.
Written reviews of the candidate’s creative/scholarly activities and impact on the field must be obtained from five to ten external reviewers. A strong docket will have seven to ten letters. External reviewers should be tenured full professors. For promotion to Associate Professor, a small subset (typically only 1-2 out of 10 letters) may be from exceptional scholars at Associate Professor rank, with approval from the Dean’s office. All external reviewers must be highly qualified and recognized in their respective scholarly field(s) and must currently occupy a position at a comparable institution to NYU. External reviewers may not have a close personal or professional relationship with the candidate. Examples of a close relationship include, but are not limited to, co-author with the candidate; advisor or mentor to the candidate, served on the candidate’s dissertation/thesis committee; or Co-PI or collaborator on grants or other projects.
If the department inadvertently solicits an opinion from someone it later learns is close to the candidate, the letter cannot be used as an external reviewer letter. Candidates may not suggest external reviewers, to include or exclude, to the department Chair or Department Personnel Committee. However, the department may choose to include additional letters from outside evaluators who have been suggested by the candidate or who have a close relationship with the candidate as personal reference letters.
External letters are solicited by the department Chair, who generates a list of potential external reviewers in consultation with experts in the department, Steinhardt School, NYU or beyond. These reviews will be included in the materials reviewed by the department, Chair, and Dean’s TPC. In addition, the Dean may independently request additional reviews from external scholars. If received before the Dean’s TPC meets about the docket, such letters will be included in the materials reviewed by the Dean’s TPC. If the Dean’s letters are obtained after review by the Dean’s TPC, such letters will be included in the Dean’s review and docket submitted to the Provost.
The docket should include a list of all those invited to submit reviews, noting whether the reviews were solicited by the department Chair and at what point in the process, and noting who declined to serve and for what reason. The External Reviewer Table should be used for this purpose.
Procedures for Promotion and Tenure
University policy requires that assistant and associate professors in tenure-track positions serve a probationary term of up to seven or five years respectively if they do not have credit for previous service in a tenure-earning position at an institution with tenure policies similar to those in effect at New York University. Under this policy, tenure and promotion review is undertaken no later than year six as an assistant professor or year four as an associate professor. (However, the practice at Steinhardt is for all new Associate Professors to be reviewed for tenure at the time of hire). This timing makes possible a year's notice of termination to those not awarded tenure status.
The Steinhardt Office of Faculty Affairs annually provides each department with a list of its candidates for whom tenure and promotions reviews are required. Promotion and tenure candidates are encouraged to make an appointment with the Dean or Dean’s Faculty Affairs delegate to discuss process questions and to receive feedback on initial drafts of the candidates’ personal statement, CV, and other docket materials.
The department must begin the process of mandatory tenure review and submit a recommendation and docket in all mandatory review cases, whether positive or negative. If, however, the candidate gives formal notice of resignation by November 15 in the year of mandatory review with resignation effective August 31 of the final year of probation, the department need not make a submission. In this instance, the Chair must forward a letter to the Dean, along with the candidate’s resignation letter, stating explicitly that the resignation was freely tendered without duress by November 15. The timeline for faculty with January 1st hire dates will be March 15 and December 31, accordingly.
Except in cases in which faculty have credit for previous service at another institution, proposals for early promotion and tenure are considered extraordinary actions. Indeed, it is not normally in the best interest of a candidate or of the institution to propose candidates for promotion and/or tenure ahead of schedule unless the case is very well justified. The department Chair and candidate should consult with the Dean’s Faculty Affairs delegate prior to the preparation of an early case. The best reason for proposing early consideration is a record of extraordinary accomplishment that can be readily distinguished from on-cycle strong cases. The department Chair, and Department RPT, if appropriate per department policy and procedure, must specifically address this issue when proposing an accelerated review. However, even with affirmative recommendations, the Dean will not recommend early tenure unless the case is extraordinary and compelling, particularly in relation to the already high expectations for candidates reviewed under the usual schedule.
After consulting with the Department Personnel Committee, and, if needed, field experts at Steinhardt and NYU, the department Chair submits a list of potential external reviewers to the Dean’s Faculty Affairs delegate for approval. Once approved, the department Chair sends a written request to potential external reviewers to serve in this capacity (a template of which can be found here). External experts who agree to serve as reviewers are given access to the candidate’s CV, personal statement, and sample scholarly works with directions about essential information to include in the review through Interfolio. Department Chairs should ask external reviewers to assess and comment on:
- Their relationship with the candidate
- Nature, significance, and impact of candidate’s contributions to the field
- Candidate’s scholarship and impact on the field as compared to the top 3-5 scholars at similar rank in candidate’s field
- Candidate’s chances for tenure and promotion at the external reviewer’s institution
- Recommendation for tenure and/or promotion
The department Chair may need to request additional information from the external reviewer if it is not clearly provided in the external review letter.
External review letters received after the due date should be included in the Department RPT deliberations only if the full committee is available for the review. If the letter arrives sufficiently late that it cannot be reviewed by the full Department RPT, the letter will be excluded from the Candidate’s docket for the Chair’s review, as well as the review and vote by eligible department members (outside of the Department RPT). However, the late letter will be included in the Dean’s TPC review. If the letter arrives after the Dean’s TPC review, it will be included in the Dean’s review or the Provost’s review depending on the timing.
External review letters are confidential and made available only to members of the Department RPT, select departmental administrative staff, eligible department faculty members, the department Chair (if eligible), the Dean’s TPC, and select members of the Steinhardt Dean’s Office of Faculty Affairs, the NYU Office of Academic Appointments, and the Provost's Office. For both ethical and legal reasons, neither the writers nor the content of the letters should be communicated to the candidate or anyone else beyond the above list, not even in summary form. In all communications, letter writers should be assured that their letters will be held in such confidence that, unless the law requires it, they will be seen only by approved personnel as stated above.
Department RPT recommendations are part of the decision-making process in every action pertaining to faculty promotion and tenure. The Department RPT conducts a detailed review of the candidate's docket and presents a summary of the discussion to the department Chair and faculty who are eligible to vote on the action. Formal committee votes are conducted by closed secret ballot.
A reasonable effort must be made to enable eligible faculty on leave to receive all relevant materials and to participate in the discussions and vote. When faculty members are unable to attend the meeting because of a leave or other absence, they shall be invited to make their views known to the other eligible members through written or electronic communication, but their votes must be recorded separately to distinguish these votes from those made with the benefit of the open discussion of the case.
The deliberations of the Department RPT and the eligible department faculty conclude with a closed ballot vote on the recommendation. Department faculty members at or above the rank being requested in the promotion may vote on the action. All tenured faculty may vote for or against tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor. Only tenured full professors may vote for or against promotion to the rank of full professor.
Departmental voting for or against tenure and rank for new lateral hires and new hires with tenure and promotion review is exactly the same process as for internal candidates. As such, the Department RPT conducts a detailed review of the candidate's docket and presents a summary to the department Chair and faculty who are eligible to vote on the action. Eligible faculty members are those at or above the rank being requested for the new hire faculty candidate. All tenured faculty may vote for or against tenure at the rank of associate professor. Only tenured full professor may vote for or against tenure at the rank of full professor for new hire faculty candidates.
As an aside, it is important to note that voting on tenure at rank is a separate process from voting to offer a position to a lateral hire – currently an associate or full professor with tenure at another institution. For lateral hires, a positive department faculty vote to offer a position must precede a review for tenure and rank. Full-time tenure/tenure-track faculty and CCF of all ranks are eligible to vote to hire a new candidate. The vote to hire is based on recruitment/application materials, not a tenure and promotion docket.
The Department RPT is responsible for assembling the relevant materials in Interfolio, reviewing them in detail, and preparing a written, signed letter submitted via Interfolio to the department Chair with a recommendation in favor or against the promotion and/or tenure of the candidate, including the numerical count of the Committee and department faculty vote. If the candidate is the department Chair, the Chair of the Department RPT should submit the report directly to Steinhardt Office of Faculty Affairs.
The evaluation by the Department RPT should include:
- Synopsis statement regarding the candidate’s area of expertise (brief description/ definition of the candidate’s field(s)), candidate’s national reputation and impact on the field, committee recommendation (short paragraph)
- Criteria for evaluation
- Evidence considered
- Discussion of candidate’s scholarship and impact on the field
- Discussion of candidate’s teaching, advisement, and mentorship
- Discussion of service to department, School, University, and the candidate’s field
- A fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate
- Minimal use of quotes from the external review letters
- Recommendation for tenure and/or promotion, with vote of the Department RPT
- Rationale for the recommendation, addressing the three criteria areas of scholarship, teaching, and service
The evaluation by the Department RPT must not be an advocacy document; it must strive to provide a fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate. It must indicate, with reasons, the basis for the committee’s recommendation, including an analysis of the impact of the candidate's scholarly work in the field, which may include, but is not limited to: citation analysis; comparative analysis of comparable peers; reviews of performances, exhibitions or creative works; review of clinical practice expertise or recognition; reviews of academic book and journal articles; readers' reviews of unpublished books; external review letters; citations in public media as well as citation index; internet metrics, etc., where appropriate.
Upon receiving the materials, the department Chair conducts an independent review of the docket materials and submits a recommendation to the Dean. The evaluation by the department Chair includes, but is not limited to:
- Department RPT membership and their method of selection
- Evaluations of the candidate’s scholarship, teaching, and service including impact on the department, School, NYU, and field, as well as outside NYU at the city, state, national, and/or international level
- Candidate’s strengths and weaknesses
- If the Institution of an external reviewer is not obviously of the same stature as NYU, an explanation/justification for why that external reviewer and institution were selected is required
- Synopsis of eligible faculty discussion and vote
- Recommendation for tenure and/or promotion with rationale
As with the Department Personnel Committee, the Chair’s report should not be an advocacy document; it must strive to provide a fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate, clearly indicating the basis for the departmental recommendation. The Chair’s review should draw conclusions and should not simply quote from the external review letters or the Department RPT letter.
Upon receiving the Chair’s report, the docket is sent via Interfolio to the Dean’s TPC, which reviews the candidate’s docket materials to determine if the application is in line with department, School, NYU, and external scholars at the same rank. Criteria are department and field specific, and take into account scholarship, teaching, and service. The Dean's TPC may request additional information from the department Chair and/or the candidate, as well as invite the department Chair, the Chair of the Department RPT or other people with relevant expertise to attend a meeting. The Dean’s TPC provides a written, signed recommendation via Interfolio to the Dean regarding whether the candidate should be granted tenure and/or promotion. The recommendation should include:
- Candidate’s standing and impact on the field
- Scholarship relative to similar department, Steinhardt, NYU, and national faculty at the same rank
- Quality of teaching
- Service to department, School, NYU, and the candidate’s profession
- Assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the application
- Synopsis of TPC discussion and vote, including the numerical count of the vote.
- Recommendation for tenure and/or promotion
As with the Department RPT and the Chair’s recommendations, the Dean’s TPC letter should not be an advocacy document; it must strive to provide a fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate, clearly indicating the basis for the TPC recommendation.
Upon receiving the recommendation from the TPC via Interfolio, the Dean evaluates the candidate’s complete docket. The Dean may independently solicit additional information and/or external reviews and/or letters of evaluation, and these additional reviews will be treated as confidential. If this is done while the Dean’s TPC is still meeting, the Dean will share these letters with the TPC.
The Dean writes a recommendation of the candidate to be included in the completed docket. In the event the Dean's recommendation is contrary to that of the department, the Dean will provide the department Chair (or the Chair of the Department RPT if the department chair is ineligible) with the reasons. The Department will then have 14 days in which to provide further information or counter-argument before the Dean's final recommendation is sent to the Provost. The Dean submits the completed candidate docket via Interfolio to the Provost.
The Provost evaluates each tenure and promotion docket and recommendation submitted by the Dean. The Provost may solicit additional information and/or letters of evaluation, and may appoint an ad-hoc advisory committee composed of tenured faculty to seek further counsel. In cases in which the Provost's pending decision is contrary to the recommendation of the Dean, the Provost will provide the Dean with the reasons and give the Dean an opportunity to provide further information or counter-argument before the Provost's final decision.
Following the Provost’s decision, the Provost’s Office sends a notification of the decision to the candidate and the Dean. The Dean sends notification of the decision to the department Chair. The department Chair may then meet with the candidate to discuss the final decision if she/he so chooses or if the candidate requests. That meeting, and all discussions of the case, must preserve the confidentiality of the materials and the process.
Promotion, Non-Mandatory and Without Corresponding Tenure Review
In matters of promotion within the Steinhardt School, consideration of a candidate may be initiated by the Department Personnel Committee, department Chair, candidate, Dean’s delegate, or the Dean. The candidate must approve any promotion action for the case to go forward. The department Chair and candidate should consult with the Dean or Dean’s Faculty Affairs delegate prior to the preparation of a promotion case. The Dean and Dean’s Faculty Affairs delegate will review the requests, discuss recommended timing for promotion, and offer feedback on the strength of the case. Promotion candidates are encouraged to make an appointment with the Dean or Dean’s Faculty Affairs delegate in the years prior to requesting promotion to discuss expectations for productivity and to receive feedback on progress.
The procedures for non-mandatory full professor applications are the same as for mandatory assistant to associate professor with tenure review, with the following stipulations:
- The candidate must have achieved a significant milestone or marker beyond the work considered at the point of awarding tenure. The expectation is the new work marks significant new scholarly research or artistic achievement since the conferring of tenure and promotion.
- The docket must clearly indicate which work distinguishes the candidate’s achievements since the last review for promotion.
- Department RPT and department Chair letters should clearly comment on scholarly/creative productivity during the time period following tenure in the request for promotion to full professor.
- Department RPT members must be tenured full professors.
- Only tenured full professors in the department are eligible to vote.
New Appointments with Tenure
In the case of new hire appointments to tenured positions, either lateral hires or tenure and promotion with hire, the process is the same and is as rigorous and complete as it is for internal candidates. For the selection of external reviewers, some may have been sought as part of the search process, but all external review letters included in the candidate’s docket must answer all of the relevant questions of the tenure review process as outlined herein. The department may also include letters from Search Committee referees as supplemental materials (reference letters) to the docket. The docket for new appointments with tenure follow the same guidelines and include the same documents as internal promotion and tenure cases.
Third Year Review
Tenure-track assistant professors undergo a review in their third year of probationary service at NYU. For the Third Year Review, candidates must submit evidence of scholarly productivity, teaching excellence, and service commitment. The Third Year Review assesses faculty members’ progress towards tenure, taking into account that Steinhardt and NYU set rigorous standards requiring high scholarly accomplishment. The results of the Third Year Review determine whether the assistant professor will be reappointed and provided with appropriate advice for strengthening their prospects for tenure or whether they are given notice of termination.
The Third Year Review process begins with the Office of Faculty Affairs notifying candidates and department Chairs of faculty who are coming up for Third Year Review. Third Year Review candidates are encouraged to make an appointment with the Dean’s Faculty Affairs delegate to discuss process questions and to receive feedback about initial drafts of the candidates’ personal statement, CV, and other docket materials. Candidates who decline to meet with the Dean’s Faculty Affairs delegate are expected to decline in writing, and will be reviewed without the benefit of that prior consultation.
Department Chairs solicit 3-5 external reviews through the same process as solicitation of reviews for promotion and tenure cases. Although Steinhardt believes that it is in the best interest of the TYR candidate to receive external input at this stage in their career, Departments may request a waiver from the Dean to exclude external reviews from a Third Year Review docket. In this case, the Department must give its TYR candidates the option to have external reviews included in the docket. If the TYR candidate does not want external reviewers, the candidate should indicate this in writing to the Office of Faculty Affairs. If a candidate does want external review letters, the department would then seek out reviewers and include the letters in the candidate's docket. The waiver must be approved by the Dean or Dean’s Faculty Affairs delegate at the beginning of the review cycle and before requests for external review letters are sent.
- It is the Department’s responsibility to manage the candidate’s docket. All docket materials and letters are submitted through Interfolio.
- The Department RPT submits its findings and recommendations to the department Chair who then submits the committee report and recommendations and her/his own recommendations to the Dean and Dean’s Faculty Affairs delegate.
- Third Year Review dockets are not shared with the department faculty; they are not submitted to the Dean’s TPC, nor to the Provost.
- The Dean determines whether the candidate should be reappointed or be given notice of termination. The Dean notifies the candidate and the department Chair of the results, and for successful candidates, provides a written summary report with recommendations for meeting tenure requirements.
- The Chair is required to discuss the findings of the review with the candidate. That meeting, and all discussions of the case, must preserve the confidentiality of the materials and the process.
- Successful Third Year Review faculty are eligible for an NYU Goddard Junior Faculty Fellowship, which provides award monies for activities that further the Fellows’ research and scholarship interests. Guidelines for the Goddard Fellowship, which is administered by the Office of the Provost, are available on the Office of Faculty Affairs website.
In order to preserve a meaningful process of peer review for promotion, tenure, and third year review, it is vital to obtain candid analysis and opinion from qualified scholars. Therefore, it is the general policy of Steinhardt and New York University to treat as confidential all evaluations of University faculty, making only such limited exceptions as are necessary to permit informed review of promotion, tenure, and third year review decisions by the appropriate decision makers and review panels within the University and School. However, a candidate may be informed about the status of the docket with respect to its stage in the review process.
Once a docket for non-mandatory promotion or tenure review is submitted by a candidate, the process of review must be completed as appropriate by the Department RPT, the Department Chair, the Dean’s TPC, and the Dean. Once initiated, the candidate cannot withdraw from the process of non-mandatory promotion and tenure review, other than at the discretion of the Dean or Provost.
The Steinhardt School for Culture, Education, and Human Development follows the grievance guidelines established by NYU in the NYU Faculty Handbook and Steinhardt Bylaws which establish who is permitted to grieve, what can be grieved, the grounds upon which grievances are to be judged, and the procedures for doing so.
Faculty Grievances are classified into two main types:
- those connected with reappointment or promotion
- those concerned with other matters, such as duties, salaries, perquisites, and working conditions
As per university guidelines, with respect to grievances related to tenure and promotion, outcomes of the review process or decisions reached through the review process can be grieved only to the extent
that they involve violation of University-protected rights of faculty members. Thus, all grievances must allege either:
- the procedures used to reach the decision were improper or the case received inadequate consideration
- the decision violated the academic freedom of the faculty member in question, in which case the burden of proof falls to the grievant.
Attempts should be made to settle the grievance informally at a level below the Dean, or by the Dean. If unsuccessful, the faculty member may appeal to the Dean to convoke the Steinhardt Faculty Grievance Committee, which hears grievances in order to advise the Dean. The Dean shall convoke the Steinhardt Faculty Grievance Committee within 15 working days of receiving the faculty member’s appeal. The Steinhardt Faculty Grievance Committee does not judge the professional merits of the case, but considers whether the procedures to reach the decision were improper, the case received inadequate consideration, or the decision violated the academic freedom of the candidate, in which case the burden of proof is on the candidate.
The Steinhardt Faculty Grievance Committee is composed of three tenured members chosen from the Steinhardt Faculty Grievance Advisory Panel, whose members are elected by the faculty at-large and overall represent each of the three areas of NYU Steinhardt (Education & Applied Psychology; Health; Arts & Communications). Deans, Department Chairs, or any faculty member whose primary assignment is administrative are not eligible to serve on the Grievance Committee.
Following the review of the Steinhardt Faculty Grievance Committee, in the event the decision is not to promote or support tenure, an appeal can be made to the Provost. Appeals should follow the procedures enumerated in the Faculty Handbook and can be made only on the following grounds:
- that the procedures used to reach the decision were improper or that the case received inadequate consideration or
- that the decisions violated the academic freedom of the person in question, in which case the burden of proof is on the faculty member.
A faculty member intending to make such an appeal shall indicate such intention in writing to the Provost, specifying all grounds for and materials in support of the appeal within 15 days after receiving written notification of the Dean’s decision. An exception to this may be made only with the consent of the grievant, the Dean, and the Provost.
General Disciplinary Regulations
All faculty members have an obligation to comply with the rules and regulations of the University and its schools, colleges, and departments. These rules protect the rights and freedoms of all members of the academic community. In particular, the faculty member is obligated to comply with the standards of academic freedom as outlined in the Faculty Handbook.
Disciplinary action may follow when the faculty member engages in other conduct unbecoming a member of the faculty, such as violation of the NYU Rules for the Maintenance of Public Order, any action which interferes with the regular operations of the University or the rights of others, any serious violation of the law, or any other conduct prejudicial to the teaching, research, or welfare of the University as set forth in the Faculty Handbook.
Any and all inquiries, questions, clarifications, and deliberation regarding interpretations of these policies should be directed to Office of Faculty Affairs at email@example.com.