Williams College Employee Handbook
Faculty Handbook . | . Administrative Staff Handbook . | . Support Staff Handbook
Reconsideration and Appeal of Academic Faculty Reappointment and Promotion Decisions
Notice of non-reappointment at the end of a specified term of probationary appointment is not to be confused with termination for cause (on which, see Termination for Cause and Guidelines for a Formal Hearing on Dismissal or Suspension). In case of termination for cause the College can rightly be required to justify its decision. In the case of non-reappointment no such burden of proof exists, and the College is to be "accorded the widest latitude consistent with academic freedom, equal opportunity, and the standards of fairness" in discharging its responsibility "to recruit and retain the best qualified faculty within its goals and means."1
Of necessity, the judgments affecting reappointment decisions are in some degree comparative and prospective. It is clearly not possible to specify in advance the full range of considerations that may be relevant to particular cases (see Faculty Appointments). Nor is it always in the interest of the individual concerned to have the reasons for a decision not to reappoint specified in writing after the event.2 The College recognizes, nonetheless, that despite every effort to reach its reappointment decisions equitably and judiciously, cases of improper consideration,3 or of failure to accord adequate consideration 4 may conceivably occur. For such extraordinary cases, therefore, it has established the following special review procedures.
1 AAUP "Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments," Policy Documents Reports, 2006 ed., p. 18.
2 Ibid., pp. 18-19.
3 "Improper consideration" will refer henceforth to considerations violative of either (a) academic freedom or (b) College policies stipulating that appointments, reappointments, and promotion be made without discrimination "on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, national or ethnic origin, race, color, religion or creed, age, or disability," or "other factors unrelated to the educational objectives of the College" (see Faculty Appointments; the definition of "improper consideration" is modeled on the AAUP's "Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure," Regulations 10, Policy Documents and Reports, 2006 ed., p. 28). The phrase "other factors unrelated to the educational objectives of the College" is not, of course, intended to exclude from consideration either illegal behavior or behavior adversely affecting the discharge of professional duties. It is, rather, to reaffirm the exclusion from consideration of personal styles of life or dispositions (e.g., sexual orientation) not eventuating in such behavior.
4 When the AAUP uses the expression "adequate consideration" in its "Statement on Procedural Standards" (p. 20), it defines it in such a way as to underline the centrality of procedural matters: "It is easier to state what the standard 'adequate consideration' does not mean than to specify in detail what it does. It does not mean that the review committee should substitute its own judgment for that of members of the department on the merits of whether the candidate should be reappointed or given tenure.... The term 'adequate consideration' refers essentially to procedural rather than substantive issues: Was the decision conscientiously arrived at? Was all available evidence bearing on the relevant performance of the candidate sought out and considered? Was there adequate deliberation by the department over the import of the evidence in the light of the relevant standards? Were irrelevant and improper standards excluded from consideration? Was the decision a bona fide exercise of professional academic judgment? These are the kinds of questions suggested by the standard 'adequate consideration.'"
Request for Reconsideration
A decision not to reappoint is normally communicated orally to the faculty member by the department chair or the Dean of the Faculty. That notification is in every case confirmed in writing by the Dean of the Faculty. Upon receipt of the written notification, the faculty member may request of the Dean of the Faculty an informal discussion of the reasons that contributed to the decision not to reappoint. The faculty member may also, after this discussion, request a written statement of these reasons. Before a written statement is issued, however, an officer of the College shall advise the faculty member of the possibly adverse consequences of being given such a statement.5 The statement should be issued within two weeks of its request, with a copy sent to the department chair.
5 AAUP, 2006 ed., pp. 18-19.
Following discussion with the Dean of the Faculty, should the faculty member believe that improper consideration (as defined in footnote 3 above) contributed to the decision not to reappoint, or that the decision was based on inadequate consideration (as defined in footnote 4 above) under the relevant standards of the College, the faculty member may ask the Dean of the Faculty for reconsideration of the decision. The request for reconsideration must be made in writing no later than two months following the written notification of non-reappointment. That request will indicate the factors the faculty member believes warrant such a reconsideration. The decision whether or not to reconsider must be communicated to the faculty member by the Dean of the Faculty within six weeks of the receipt of the request.
If a reconsideration is granted, the deliberations should be concluded and communicated to the faculty member by the Dean of the Faculty within three months of the request for reconsideration.
Appeal Procedures
Should a reconsideration not be granted or should the reconsideration result in a confirmation of the decision not to reappoint, the faculty member may, within one month of being so informed by the Dean of the Faculty, petition in writing the Chair of the Steering Committee to initiate a review of the non-reappointment decision. Prior to submitting the petition, a faculty member who has not already done so must (as indicated above) request and receive from the Dean of the Faculty a written statement of the reasons that contributed to that decision. The petition must specify the respect(s) in which the petitioner believes consideration to have been inadequate or improper. It must also state that the petitioner agrees to the presentation for consideration by a review committee of such evidence as the College has gathered in arriving at its decision (it being understood that the review committee, in order to discharge its responsibilities, must have access to whatever information the College weighed in reaching that decision).
Upon receipt of the petition, the Chair of the Steering Committee, in consultation with the other members of the Steering Committee, will appoint a review committee consisting of five members chosen from the Steering Committee and the Faculty Review Panel in such a way that at least one and at most two are non-tenured members of the faculty and at least one is a member of the Steering Committee. No member of the Steering Committee or Faculty Review Panel who has participated in making the decision being appealed or who is a member of the petitioner's department shall serve on the review committee. Similarly, should the chair of the Steering Committee have participated in that decision or be a member of the petitioner's department, his or her function for the particular case shall be discharged by a member of the Steering Committee not so involved, that member to be designated by the remaining members. Should these or other constraints make it impossible for the Steering Committee to appoint a full review committee, it may draw members from previous Steering Committees or Faculty Review Panels.
The review committee will proceed with an investigation informally and in private, resolving by majority vote if necessary any issues relating to procedural matters or to its ultimate findings, and completing its investigation within a period of two months following the receipt of the petition of the faculty member. In pursuing its investigation, the review committee will not substitute its own judgment on the substantive merits of the case for the judgment of those who made the original decision.6 Nor will it concern itself with the possibility that others might have arrived at a different judgment. Its responsibility is only to investigate: i) the process by which the original judgment was reached and ii) the charge that improper consideration (as defined above) or inadequate consideration was involved in that process.
6 Ibid., p. 20
Should the CAP or the review committee be unable to meet a given deadline, the petitioner will be formally notified of the reason for the delay.
Upon completion of the review committee's investigation, the following procedures will come into play:
Should the review committee determine that the petitioner has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of improper consideration (as defined in footnote 4 above), it will report this fact in writing to the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee, in consultation with the petitioner and the President of the College, will appoint a hearing committee to conduct a formal investigation of the case. The burden of proof will continue to rest with the petitioner.
The hearing committee will consist of three members drawn from the Steering Committee or, in the case that fewer than three members of the Steering Committee are eligible, from the Faculty Review Panel. Any member of the Steering Committee or the Faculty Review Panel potentially affected by bias or interest may be deemed ineligible at the member's own initiative. Either of the two parties to the case may also request that a proposed member of the hearing committee be deemed ineligible because of potential bias or interest. In addition, each party may without stated cause exclude a maximum of one person otherwise eligible for the hearing committee. Should these or other constraints make it impossible to convene a full hearing committee, the Steering Committee may draw hearing committee members from previous Steering Committees or Faculty Review Panels.
The formal investigation by the hearing committee will proceed in accordance with the guidelines for a formal hearing, as described in Guidelines for a Formal Hearing in Cases of Alleged Improper Consideration.
In all other cases the review committee will report its findings in writing, with or without recommendations concerning further procedures, both to the President and to the petitioner. Should the committee believe that adequate consideration was not given to evidence bearing on the relevant performance of the petitioner, it will indicate the respect(s) in which it believes the consideration to have been inadequate or irregular and will request the President to initiate reconsideration of the decision by the department concerned and by the CAP.
The procedures outlined above exhaust the provisions for appeal within the governing structure of the College. Upon completion of either procedure, no further appeal may be initiated within the College.
Faculty Handbook . | . Administrative Staff Handbook . | . Support Staff Handbook
