Scope

This policy (hereafter referred to as “Principles and Policies”) communicates the professional and institutional values, rank-advancement procedures, and evaluative metrics that guide the promotion and tenure processes for faculty and librarians at Indiana University Bloomington. Departments, schools, and all other units and offices on this campus shall be governed by the Principles and Policies in matters pertaining to the promotion and tenure of faculty members and librarians.  In any instance in which the Principles and Policies conflict with university-level policies on promotion and tenure, the university level policies shall be superordinate. This policy is not intended as a comprehensive or exhaustive catalogue of promotion and tenure procedures or practices, given the diversity of (inter)disciplinary cultures, programmatic resources, and assessment practices that characterize the Bloomington academic community. The Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs shall provide the interpretative guidance and support necessary for the implementation and operation of the Principles and Policies. Guidelines and other instruments of advice produced by the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs should be consulted for a fuller rendering of the administrative logistics and procedural details that inform the campus’s promotion and tenure processes. 

Authority to institute additional promotion and tenure procedures and practices not explicitly codified or expressed in this or other Bloomington or University policies or the procedural guidelines of the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs shall devolve to the IUB schools and departments (in that order). Such procedural adjustments and/or enacted “best practices” must be limited in scope and effect and demonstrably necessary to realize the stated principles and ends of this document. In all instances, the Bloomington Faculty Council and the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs shall ensure that such devolved authority is exercised transparently and judiciously by schools and departments, in accordance with the promotion and tenure criteria of Indiana University and in the interest of maintaining the integrity, consistency, and functionality of the campus promotion and tenure process. Proposed substantive changes to school and/or departmental procedures and practices shall be handled through the regular policy review process described below under “Documentation and Distribution of Departmental and School Policies.” 

Back to top

Policy Statement

The recruitment, advancement, and retention of an eminent and engaged faculty are among the most important obligations of an institution of higher learning. Accordingly, a primary mission of Indiana University Bloomington is to continually employ, cultivate, and reward faculty for superior accomplishments in various fields and realms of intellectual, artistic, and performative endeavor. To realize these goals, the University is committed to providing high-achieving faculty members and librarians with the incentive structures and career-advancement opportunities necessary to encourage continuous academic excellence. The principles and policies detailed in this document are intended to achieve these ends for the faculty, students, and other constituencies of Indiana University Bloomington, while concurrently securing the operation and interests of the University as an institution wholly invested in the propagation of a reputably credentialed, dynamically productive, and professionally responsible faculty. 

Similar to other mutual relationships, the conferral of tenure creates reciprocal rights and obligations on the part of both the University and individual faculty members and librarians. Successful candidates for promotion and tenure are granted the protection of academic freedom and job security. In return, the University requires that tenured personnel remain engaged in enterprises such as meaningful research and creative activity; quality instruction and pedagogical innovation; and noteworthy service to the institution and the larger profession over the entire arc of their academic careers. It is acknowledged that achievements in one of the three performance areas may temporarily eclipse advancement in the others during different phases of the professional life of a faculty member or librarian.¹ However, it is understood that tenure and promotion are predicated on the expectation that a faculty member or librarian consistently satisfies or exceeds standard criteria in all three applicable performance areas at any given time. 

At the foundation of the campus’s tenure and promotion system is a salient and abiding appreciation for the efficacy of rigorous and continuous peer review of faculty performance and professional conduct. Alongside the principles of collaborative academic citizenship, shared governance, and collegiality, Indiana University Bloomington fully embraces the prominent role of regular faculty scrutiny and evaluation of the work and contributions of other faculty members as hallmarks of professionalization and accountability. Proceeding from the premise that the faculty is the vital core and essential engine of the University and its various intellectual, instructional, and professional functions, this policy recognizes that tenure and promotion processes necessarily begin with and advance through vital stages of peer review that both protect the procedural rights and interests of individual candidates and safeguard the academic quality and foundational mission of Indiana University. In accordance with these principles of professional mutuality, this policy explicitly upholds the right of every candidate for tenure and promotion to be judged by peers in an informed and procedurally grounded manner based upon an impartial and good-faith assessment of the accumulated evidence of the candidate’s achievements and professional competence. 

Additionally, this policy affirms that every faculty member and librarian is entitled to a tenure and promotion process that is fair, transparent, and consistent with official policies and sanctioned practices. Such candidates are also due an appeals process that is clearly delineated, equitable, and timely. While multiple checks and balances are incorporated into the tenure and promotion system to ensure thorough and judicious evaluations of individual candidacies, they are not intended to unduly delay or complicate decisions regarding employment or advancement at the University. 

Given the broad array of programs, departments, and schools across the Bloomington campus, this policy recognizes that such units should be allowed to create standards for promotion and tenure that are informed by disciplinary expertise and specialized training, as well as more expansive understandings of research, scholarship, creative activity, and pedagogy that take into account the value of collaborative, cross-unit, and interdisciplinary approaches to the creation and dissemination of knowledge. While it is expected that the tenure and promotion policies of individual departments and schools will conform to the principles and procedures set forth in this document, it is understood that local units will have jurisdiction over establishing evaluative criteria to judge the achievements of faculty members and librarians in the applicable performance areas.

As individual units contemplate, craft, and apply promotion and tenure standards, they should remain mindful of the increasingly interdisciplinary and integrated terrains of intellectual inquiry and pedagogical practice upon which Indiana University operates. It is assumed that disciplinary, specialized, and field-specific expertise and achievement will continue to inform and influence expectations and decisions at all levels of the promotion and tenure process. Nonetheless, programs, departments, and schools are encouraged to recognize and reward high-impact research/creative activity, teaching, and service that transcend and transform conventional disciplinary and unit boundaries—especially when such enterprises create new knowledge, artistic/performative expressions, and/or methodologies and experimentation. 

Finally, this policy acknowledges the ongoing and rapid transformation of the means of transmitting knowledge, publishing research, and exhibiting creative activity in the digital age. It also recognizes that scholarly productions, creative/performative works, and teaching practices can be enhanced by the medium through which they are articulated and disseminated. Such realities of the digital era require a more flexible understanding of how researchers, teachers, artists, and performers interact with and deploy new media to realize scholarly and pedagogical goals, as well as to reach various audiences. All campus units involved in promotion and tenure decisions should update their criteria for evaluating scholarship, creative activities, teaching styles, and service engagements that incorporate new media. 

Back to top

Policy Summary

This policy explains the promotion and tenure process for faculty and librarians at Indiana University Bloomington. It includes the evaluation categories and guidelines for negative decisions and appeals.

Back to top

Procedures

A. Documentation and Distribution of Departmental and School Policies

1. Every unit (school or department) shall generate a formal statement that specifies the mission of the unit and the unit's perception of the relative importance of research/creative activity, teaching, and service in receiving a favorable endorsement for promotion and tenure. Specific provisions for variations in the ranking of importance should be made for individuals who have formal unit approval of a mission that differs from the general unit's mission. Suchprovisions should include a statement of the circumstances under which variations from these perceptions may be expected. The types of material accepted by the unit as evidence of research/creative activity, teaching, and service, including a statement concerning the unit's views of the relative strength of each type of evidence, shall be included in the unit document. The head/chair of each department or the dean of each school—in cooperation with a faculty committee from that department or school—shall describe in writing the procedures used in that department or school to implement the Principles and Policies. These documents must be current and public. Therefore, the unit document must be reviewed by the unit as a whole no less frequently than once every five years.
2. A copy of the relevant departmental or school document(s) must be provided to each faculty member at the time of their initial appointment and at the time of any subsequent application for promotion. Upon completing each five-year review, a copy—in both paper form and digital format—of any new or revised document shall be forwarded to the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs and, in the case of departments, to the school dean for review and comment. Furthermore, the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs shall ensure that the descriptions of each school’s procedures and criteria used in implementing the campus andUniversity policies for promotion and tenure decisions are available on the website of the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs.
3. In the offer letter sent at the time of initial hiring of a new faculty member, the appropriate unit head or department chairperson shall briefly describe the kinds of professional duties expected of faculty members at Indiana University Bloomington and shall state how the criteria for promotion and tenure are likely to apply in the individual faculty member's case.This letter shall have been approved by the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs prior to being sent.
4. For matters of tenure, each faculty member shall be allowed to have their case evaluated under either the unit expectations and criteria in existence at the time of their initial appointment or the expectations and criteria in effect at the time the dossier is forwarded for consideration for tenure. Both tenure and promotion reviews will be conducted by the unit (department or school) defined as the current tenure home of the candidate, with voting eligibility and other procedures determined by the policies of that unit.
5. All documents explaining or interpreting promotion and tenure criteria, including letters to referees, are to be regularly reviewed and approved by the faculty of the unit (department or school) in the same manner as the mission and criteria statement itself. Copies of all such texts are to be sent to all faculty in the unit and to the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs. 

B. The Tenure-Probationary Period

1. A tenure-track employee appointed to the faculty or as a librarian for full-time service shall be eligible for tenure after a probationary period.
2. At the time of the initial appointment, a probationary period shall be stated. During the probationary period, appointments are usually for a period of one to three years. The total probationary period—or “tenure clock”—typically does not exceed seven years, though leaves and other approved suspensions of duties may extend the probationary period.
3. All tenure candidates may choose to be reviewed before the end of the probationary period. However, each candidate is allowed only one tenure review thatreaches the level of an executive recommendation to the Board of Trustees (except when a grievance results in the Provost’s recommendation for another review).
4. Since the acquisition of tenure represents a major change in the status of a faculty member or librarian, the employee to whom tenure is being granted shall be so informed of their status in writing.
5. Attaining tenure automatically entails promotion to the associate rank for professors and librarians, with the exception of those who have previously acquired this rank.
6. While ultimately contingent upon performance in rank, faculty members and librarians in tenure-track positions are normally expected to be reappointed continuously up to the tenure review.
7. Departments and schools are expected to provide opportunities, resources, guidance, and mentoring to tenure-track faculty members and librarians in order to help them succeed in achieving a record in the applicable performance areas sufficient for tenure.
8. A faculty member or librarian who has not received a notice of recommendation for non-reappointment may request consideration of the tenure decision at any time after the initial appointment. However, if the tenure decision is negative, the faculty member's or librarian’s appointment shall terminate at the end of the academic year following the year in which the negative tenure decision was made.
9. A faculty member or librarian who applies for early tenure should be forewarned that a candidate for tenure should expect only one full review. A faculty member or librarian who requests early tenure shall be immediately notified of any negative recommendation concerning their request prior to a final decision by the President. A faculty member or librarian may withdraw their request for early tenure at any time prior to a final decision by the President.
10. In some cases, a department or school may decide that the performance of a faculty member or librarian indicates that a positive tenure decision will be unlikely, and they may choose not to reappoint the candidate for additional probationary years beyond the end of the present contract. This non-reappointment decision should follow from the unit’s policies and practices for reviews of tenure-probationary employees and include a vote by eligible tenured faculty.
11. The Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs shall be immediately notified of all non-reappointment decisions by departments or schools.
12. Tenure-probationary employees may appeal non-reappointment decisions in accordance with the process outlined in BL-ACA-E17.

C. Promotion from Associate to Full Professor

1. Faculty members in the associate rank may apply for promotion at any time. The application process is similar to that governing promotion from assistant to associate rank.
2. A positive decision results in advancement to full rank (with tenure).
3. A negative decision means that full rank is not achieved; however, associate status and tenure are maintained.
4. An associate professor may apply for full rank multiple times during the course of employment, though such repeated attempts without concomitant meaningful advancements in qualifications are discouraged.
5. Any faculty member or librarian may submit to the dean of the appropriate school or to the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs a recommendation for the promotion of anyfaculty member or librarian, including themselves. These recommendations shall be properly documented. It is expected that all such recommendations will be considered in accordance with both the promotion process established by this document and the related procedures of the candidate’s home unit.

D. Promotion and Tenure of Librarians

In addition to being characterized by distinctive performance areas, the promotion and tenure processes for librarians diverge in various ways from those of faculty members. These differences affect the preparation of applications, the administrative routing of dossiers, proficiency standards, and the evaluative categories associated with the rank advancement of librarians. For the specific requirements of promotion and tenure for librarians, please refer to BL-ACA-E4.

E. Promotion and Tenure Committees

1. At the school level, all members of deans' promotion and/or tenure advisory committees shall be issued, at the beginning of each academic year they serve, the relevant campus and University statements of criteria on which they are to judge the dossiers they review.
2. At the campus level, the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs shall have the responsibility of appointing advisory committees for both tenure and promotion. These campus-wide committees shall consider all cases and give advice to the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs.
3. In the case of the Tenure Advisory Committee, the Bloomington Faculty Council has indicated the composition of the committee and the types of cases to be referred to it (see Bl-ACA-E20). As a matter of administrative practice, the Promotions Advisory Committee is constituted accordingto the same procedures. 
4. The membership of all committees concerned with promotion and tenure shall be made a matter of public record at the time of their appointment.

 F. Voting Procedures

1. Untenured faculty members are ineligible to vote on the awarding of tenure in promotion and tenure review committees or unit meetings.
2. As a general practice, faculty members who do not hold the rank being applied for or higher do not vote on the award of that rank in review committees or unit meetings.
3. Except for reconsideration of prior decisions, each faculty member and administrator who participates in the promotion and tenure process votes only once in any particular case.
4. Faculty members are ineligible to vote on promotion or tenure in review committees or unit meetings if they have not been materially engaged with the dossier and related deliberations of the case.
5. All votes should be cast by secret ballot; no proxy voting is allowed.
6. Candidates will be informed promptly of vote tallies and decisions at the department and school levels.

G. Application for Promotion and Tenure 

1. Promotion and tenure at the University require positive action. Rank advancement is never acquired by default.
2. The first step in the preparation of applications for reappointment, tenure, or promotion consideration is to invite candidates to submit relevant materials. In all cases the candidate will have been advised of the upcoming review.
3. For application materials submitted in electronic format, the candidate is responsible for providing the required materials in a manner that facilitates the process of digital storage, organization, and distribution.
4. Electronic dossiers will be stored on secure University servers for at least the duration of the application process. If, for any reason, a dossier is submitted with physical components, the candidate and the department chair or dean (in non-departmentalized schools) should work cooperatively to compile and organize these materials. Such items shall reside in the possession of an administrator at each level of the process.
5. The compilers of a dossier should keep in mind that the objective evidence in the dossier is meant to assist in the making of an explicit case for promotion or tenure, going beyond the mere assertion that the candidate has made satisfactory progress. Moreover, the performance area(s) upon which the tenure/promotion case will be evaluated must be declared before the compilation of the dossier and clearly announced in the candidate’s statement and in correspondence soliciting external reviews.
6. Candidates and sponsoring units must compile dossiers in accordance with a checklist provided by the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs. Upon completion of the dossier, this checklist should be signed by both the candidate and the department chair or dean (in non-departmentalized schools).
7. The completed dossier provides the evidence upon which the tenure decision is to be made. If additional information is sought or received during the review of the dossier at any level, the candidate and all previous committees and reviewers must be notified and given the opportunity to respond to the additional information. The information and the responses shall then become part of the dossier.
8. At any time in the review process, candidates may request access to all dossier materials, including external review letters. Faculty members and administrators who participate in the promotion and tenure process have full access to all materials in the candidate’s dossier, as well as assessments at all previous levels of review.
9. Promotion and tenure dossiers should contain at least six external review letters from qualified and credentialed individuals who are not employed by Indiana University Bloomington. Half of these referees should be derived from a list submitted by the candidate, and the other half should be drawn from a list prepared by the department or school. At the discretion of the unit head, more letters can be requested when explicitly deemed necessary. External reviewers should not have a significant relationship—commercial, personal, familial, or otherwise—with the candidate, which generally precludes the solicitation of thesis advisors, postdoctoral mentors, co-authors, former colleagues, and former classmates. In any event, any such relationship must be clearly disclosed by the reviewer or the candidate. Ideally, reviewers should hold at least the rank that the candidate is applying for, or its equivalent, and be well-recognized and established members of their field(s) employed at peer institutions. Highly qualified individuals at non-peerinstitutions or relevant non-academic organizations may occasionally be considered as potential reviewers if suitable justification is provided. 

H. Evaluation Categories

A candidate’s proficiency in the performance areas of Research/Creative Activity and Service is rated in accordance with four categories: Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory. In assessing competence in Teaching, the categories are: Excellent, Very Good, Effective, and Ineffective.

I. Tenure, Promotion, and Performance Areas

Campus policy offers four paths a candidate may select for tenure and promotion or for promotion to full professor. Candidates may present a case based on excellence in research/creative activity, excellence in teaching, or excellence in service. In exceptional circumstances, the candidate may pursue the fourth path by presenting a case of overall excellence based on a balance of contributions across all three areas (described below as the “balanced case”). Regardless of the basis of the case, tenure decisions are forward-looking: candidates are expected to provide evidence that they are well on their way to becoming an intellectual (scientific, artistic) leader in their chosen field.

Candidates for promotion to full professor are expected to provide evidence that they have, in fact, achieved a position of intellectual leadership in a field. Granting tenure and/or promotion is a recognition that the faculty member will continue to achieve truly significant professional work in future years – original, innovative, influential, and consequential. 

Candidates for tenure and/or promotion who opt to demonstrate evidence to support a rating of Excellent in one performance area must also provide evidence of a rating of at least Satisfactory/Effective in the other two areas of evaluation. Candidates are required to choose a single performance area on which to predicate an application for tenure or promotion (although this decision does not rule out the possibility that performance in one or both of the other areas will also be rated as Very Good or Excellent). Prior to executive review, the dossier materials (including external letters) should be evaluated on the basis of the case chosen by the candidate. Candidates for tenure and/or promotion who opt for the balanced case must present evidence of balanced strengths in overall performance that is of comparable benefit to the University as excellent performance in a single evaluation area. Such candidates must demonstrate evidence to support a rating of at least Very Good in all three performance areas. As in instances where a candidate has selected a single performance area for tenure or promotion purposes, prior to executive review, in balanced cases, dossier materials (including external letters) should be evaluated on this basis. Once a candidate has selected the type of case upon which tenure and/or promotion will be predicated, the candidate must provide evidence of having met the minimum criteria in each of the three performance areas in accordance with that choice.

An effective dossier will provide multiple, independent measures collectively indicating sustained contributions and demonstrating impact of appropriate depth and breadth. Key considerations in each of the performance areas are the quality of each contribution and the quantity of contributions as a whole, as well as the demonstrable benefit of those contributions to the welfare of a candidate’s home unit, the university, the candidate’s academic field(s), and communities beyond. Regardless of the basis for promotion, the extension and impact of a candidate’s contributions across all three performance areas is expected to increase over the course of a career, such that expectations for promotion to full professor are greater than the forward-looking decision related to the grant of tenure. Likewise, a candidate who wishes to demonstrate achievement that meets the criteria for a particular rating will have also met the criteria for each lower rating in that performance area (i.e., a demonstration of excellent requires, by its nature, a demonstration of the criteria meeting very good and satisfactory/effective).

1. Research or Creative Activity

For tenure, a candidate’s research/creative activity meets the standard of excellent if the faculty member is demonstrably well on the way toward achieving a national and/or international reputation for excellence in research or creative work in the candidate’s field, or across fields and disciplines. In addition, a comprehensive plan of future research of high merit should be evident. The candidate should provide evidence of original contributions to the chosen field(s) as well as consistent evidence of achievement and recognition from multiple independent sources of evaluation. Quality of production is considered more important than mere quantity. 

Significant evidence of scholarly merit may be either a single work or project of considerable importance or a series of smaller studies or projects that collectively make a contribution of equal magnitude. The candidate should provide evidence of a continuing program of studies, investigations, or creative works. For promotion to full professor, a rating of excellent on the basis of research/creative activity requires that a candidate has achieved a position of national and/or international leadership and prominence in the field(s), with a documented and robust record of achievement and distinction. Again, quantity of research, scholarship, and creative output is less pertinent than quality and impact, though it is expected that research/creative accomplishments since achieving the rank of associate professor will be exemplary enough in character and breadth to justify promotion at a university of top rank. A rating of very good indicates evidence of high-quality contributions to the field or across fields and disciplines, even if those contributions have not resulted in the same progress toward establishing a national and/or international reputation that is required for a rating of excellent. 

For example, the candidate may have produced a set of high-quality contributions that are not yet numerous enough to support that reputation. The candidate should provide multiple sources of evidence of the impact and recognition of this work, although at a somewhat lower expectation than necessary for a rating of excellent. These criteria for a rating of very good in research/creative activity apply to candidates for tenure and promotion as well as cases for promotion to full professor. A rating of satisfactory indicates a candidate’s sustained activity over the time in rank, which has led to the creation of scholarly or creative output that is positively evaluated within that candidate’s field(s). These criteria for a rating of satisfactory in research/creative activity apply to candidates for tenure and promotion as well as cases for promotion to full professor. A candidate who does not meet the criteria for a rating of satisfactory in research should receive a rating of unsatisfactory.

2. Teaching

In cases of consideration for tenure, a candidate’s teaching meets the standard of excellent when the candidate demonstrates excellence in classroom teaching and when the candidate’s educational impact extends beyond the campus. The faculty member should also be demonstrably well on the way toward achieving a national and/or international reputation for broad educational impact. Indicators of excellence and impact could include direct evidence of exemplary student learning; mentoring and advising that results in high quality achievements by students and advisees; development of instructional/curricular materials that are used or referenced by instructors in the candidate’s field; pedagogical publications (e.g., textbooks and/or scholarship of teaching and learning) and presentations; teaching-related participation in national or international conferences; regular participation in workshops in innovative teaching practices; and student and/or peer recognition of excellent pedagogical practices and impact (e.g., peer reviews of teaching, teaching awards, teaching titles, and/or formal evaluations of teaching). While a rating of excellent does not require that the candidate demonstrate excellence through each item in the foregoing list, the overall body of evidence must demonstrate outstanding classroom instruction, as well as leadership, innovation, and achievement beyond the campus. 

For promotion to full professor based on teaching, a candidate’s achievements should entail exceptional pedagogical, curricular, and instructional innovations while in rank as an associate professor. In addition to the indicators of broad instructional impact listed above, indicators of exceptional achievement could also include invitations to serve on panels, or to deliver keynotes or other professional presentations on teaching and pedagogy; and demonstrated ability to direct the studies of advanced graduate and/or undergraduate students. Moreover, the faculty member seeking promotion to full professor based on excellence in teaching should have a national and/or international reputation as a leader in the practice and study of teaching.

For both tenure and promotion to full professor, a rating of excellent should be awarded if and only if the candidate has also met the criteria for ratings of both very good and effective. For both tenure and promotion to full professor, a rating of very good in teaching requires that the candidate demonstrate excellence in classroom instruction and provide evidence of sustained contributions and impact beyond the candidate’s classroom through, for instance, some or all of the modes of evidence listed above. To support a rating of effective in teaching a candidate must provide evidence of quality instruction in the candidate’s own classes and commitment to mentoring students. Such evidence should demonstrate that students benefit from the candidate’s instructional style, methods, and feedback, and that the candidate is responsive to student needs and advancement. Effective teaching also requires that candidates make informed, well-reasoned decisions about all aspects of their courses, as well as continually work to better understand and improve them. These criteria for a rating of effective in teaching apply to candidates for tenure and promotion as well as cases for promotion to full professor. A candidate who does not meet the criteria for a rating of effective in teaching should receive a rating of ineffective. 

3. Service

Service consists of useful contributions to an academic unit, the campus, the university (that are relevant to the broad academic mission of the university), and public, private, professional, and civic organizations and institutions. For tenure, to achieve a rating of excellent in service requires a candidate to demonstrate evidence they are well on their way to achieving a position of leadership at the highest levels that is nationally or internationally recognized and makes a material contribution to the advancement of organizational structure, knowledge, or culture. Service to the university, no matter how significant, does not by itself demonstrate excellence. The service must have relevance beyond the university, be sustained and influential, and be demonstrated by objective criteria, such as receiving a significant award, recognition, distinction or holding a senior and/or influential key leadership position.

The evaluation of the service should be in terms of the effectiveness with which the service is performed and its relation to the general welfare of the university or the discipline. Given the limited time in rank prior to a tenure review and the standard of leadership and impact described in this paragraph, a grant of tenure based on a rating of excellent in service is expected to be extraordinarily rare. Candidates seeking promotion to full professor on the basis of a rating of excellent in service must provide evidence of national and/or international visibility and stature resulting from service activities (leadership or significant work on campus can be sufficient only if it is the basis from which the broader national or international impact and stature is gained). Such distinguished contributions could be administrative and institutional in nature or demonstrated through superlative work in a (inter)disciplinary endeavor, governmental organization, or some other entity or cause with national and/or international reach and relevance.

For both tenure and promotion to full professor, a rating of excellent will be awarded if and only if the candidate has also met the criteria for ratings of both very good and satisfactory. For both tenure and promotion to full professor, very good service may be demonstrated through sustained leadership roles that have a positive impact on the university, the discipline, or public, private, professional, or civic organizations and institutions. Demonstrating very good service requires a showing of accomplishments in more than one service context and should involve impact beyond the candidate’s home unit. Satisfactory service is achieved if a candidate’s activities meet the general expectation that all faculty perform meaningful service continuously throughout their careers, including during the tenure- probationary period. That is, a candidate for tenure or promotion must achieve individual research and teaching goals while also contributing equitably within the candidate’s unit and, as appropriate, the discipline. Demonstrating satisfactory service requires evidence that a candidate has made a positive and meaningful contribution to the service activities undertaken. For promotion to full professor, satisfactory service also entails having expanded one’s contribution to the effective operations of one’s unit, one’s school, the university, and the discipline over time. A candidate who does not meet the criteria for a rating of satisfactory in service should receive a rating of unsatisfactory. 

J. Negative Decisions and Appeals Processes

1. Once the dossier is prepared, the unit will decide upon its recommendation based on the evidence in the dossier. If the decision is negative, the faculty member should be informed so that they may request that the dossier be forwarded even though the unit has not made a positive recommendation.
2.  The faculty member or librarian shall be notified as soon as possible of any decision by a department, school, program, division, or library unit not to recommend reappointment or tenure, and the individual shall be notified within stated deadlines of a decision by the University not to reappoint them.
3. At the time that a faculty member or librarian is notified of a negative recommendation on reappointment or tenure, he or she shall be provided with a link to ACA-22  and BL-ACA-16 to ensure that he or she is fully informed of their rights.
4. Faculty members who choose to appeal a negative reappointment decision may do so in accordance with the process described in ACA-22. The Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs shall determine reasonable due dates for such appeals and the submission of related materials.

K. Joint Appointments and Inter-Campus Commitments

1. In instances of joint or multiple appointments, the head of the home (tenure-granting) unit shall consult with the other relevant unit head(s) to clarify the faculty member’s responsibilities in the units involved, as well as specific requirements of the appointment(s) as they relate to promotion and tenure.
2. The faculty member’s responsibilities should be documented in a letter/MOU that shall have been approved by the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs prior to being sent to the faculty member.
3. In cases of faculty members with professional commitments that involve multiple campuses, relevant units and offices should specify in writing the job responsibilities and the promotion and tenure expectations pertaining to such appointments. Faculty members who teach or are engaged in activities on more than one campus should have their loads adjusted to reflect their assignments.
4. In accordance with Indiana University policy, the tenure home of each faculty member is specific to the campus unit in which he or she is serving at the time that tenure is attained.
5. As a general rule, only Bloomington-appointed faculty are eligible to vote on promotion and tenure cases involving faculty members seeking promotion and tenure in an IUB unit.
6. In any case in which the position of a faculty member with tenure has been eliminated or has been removed from the jurisdiction of the University, the University will make every reasonable effort to place the faculty member in a comparable position elsewhere in the University or in another institution.

 L. Tenure Status for Non-Citizens

Only individuals who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents are eligible for appointment to tenured positions. Appointments to positions with tenure that are offered to non-U.S. citizens or permanent residents will be temporarily converted to tenure-probationary appointments until permanent residence in the U.S. has been obtained. At that time, the appointment will be converted back to the tenured position as originally offered. 

 M. Authorization to Change Faculty Ranks

The Bloomington Faculty Council must approve changes in the description of faculty positions as defined, or the institution of new ranks that would alter the definition of faculty. 

 N. Review of Campus Policy

1. This promotion and tenure policy shall be reviewed every five years, or within a timeframe no longer than the default probationary period of a tenure-track assistant professor (currently seven years).
2. The president of the Bloomington Faculty Council will charge an existing or ad hoc committee with conducting the review. At that time, all amendments, resolutions, and revisions that were approved by the Bloomington Faculty Council during the interim years and that are still considered relevant, appropriate, and necessary will be incorporated into the body and text of a new, revised promotion and tenure document, along with any other warranted changes made at the time of the review. 

Each faculty member or librarian will have the option of being considered for tenure under any newly implemented campus policy or under the policy in operation at the time of their initial hiring. 

Back to top

History

Approved: BFC 01/30/24

Back to top