Appendix E: Schools' Appointment, Promotion, Tenure, and Other Procedures

In This Appendix
Divinity School
Fuqua School of Business
Nicholas School of the Environment
Pratt School of Engineering
Sanford School of Public Policy
School of Law
School of Medicine—Basic Sciences
School of Medicine—Clinical
School of Nursing
Trinity College of Arts and Sciences

The following appendix supports Chapter 3 and the current university policy on appointment, tenure and promotion as well as other procedures that require provost approval.
 

Divinity School

The Faculty of The Divinity School works within the understanding of academic freedom, academic tenure, and certain matters of due process appertaining thereto, as found in the historic agreements between the president and Faculty of the University, summarized in Appendix D of the Duke University Faculty Handbook and further delineated in section III.F.2 of the Divinity School Bylaws and reproduced below. Policies and procedures pertaining to the appointment, review, reappointment, tenure, and promotion of Divinity School Faculty are further delineated in section V.A-B of the Divinity School’s Bylaws, Policies and Procedures and reproduced below.

Academic Freedom and Tenure (Section III.F.2 of the Divinity School Bylaws)

1. The Faculty of The Divinity School works within the understanding of academic freedom, academic tenure, and certain matters of due process appertaining thereto, as found in the historic agreements between the president and Faculty of the University, summarized in Appendix D of the Faculty Handbook and further delineated in III.F.2 below.

2. Academic freedom includes the freedom and responsibility

a.  “To teach and to discuss in their classes any aspect of a topic pertinent to the understanding of the subject matter of the course which they are teaching.

b.   “To carry on research and publish the results subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties.

c. “To act and to speak in their capacity as a citizen without institutional censorship or discipline.” (Faculty Handbook, App. D.I)

Procedures

A. Procedures for Appointment of New Faculty. (Section V.A-B of the Divinity School’s Bylaws, Policies and Procedures)

1. Faculty appointments (see Faculty Handbook)

All tenured regular rank faculty appointments in The Divinity School are made from the initial recommendation of the dean (with the advice of the Faculty) by the Board of Trustees of the University or the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees upon the recommendation of the provost, with the approval of the president. Tenure-track and non- tenure appointments do not require Board approval.

a. Faculty appointments may be made either with or without tenure. Appointments without tenure may be made either in a tenure-track or a nontenure-track. The terms of that appointment shall be made clear to the faculty member at the time of appointment.

b. Tenure track positions

i. These positions, when at the unmodified ranks of Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor, are normally filled by faculty with the Ph.D.

ii. The initial appointment to a tenure-track position without tenure in a regular rank is normally for a term of four years.

c. Non-tenure track positions

i. A regular rank (non-tenure track) position may be filled by a candidate without the Ph.D. at the rank of lecturer. When such an appointment is made as lecturer, the faculty member will not begin to accrue time toward tenure until the degree is awarded and they have been given a title in a professorial rank.

ii. Faculty who do not hold tenure-track positions will be given modified titles; see list in III.A.3.(b) & 4 above.

iii. Non-tenure track term appointments at the regular ranks of lecturer and modified- title Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor, and promotions of regular rank faculty not involving tenure shall be made by the provost based on appropriate recommendations by the dean in accordance with internal School procedures; see V.B.1.(b) below. Additional review by an advisory committee to the Provost is not required.

2. Search process for initial faculty appointments (see Faculty Handbook).

a. Initial appointments are overseen by the Committee on Faculty which makes recommendations to the Faculty about academic priorities, approves searches and descriptions for positions, typically appoints a subcommittee to undertake initial screening of applicants and nominees.

b. The Committee on Faculty interviews all candidates (as do other individuals and groups among the faculty and students). The committee receives recommendations from the search committee, the division, and others involved in the search process.

c. The Committee on Faculty then makes a recommendation to the Faculty concerning the appointment(s).

d. The regular faculty, having also interviewed the candidate(s) and received the Committee on Faculty’s recommendation, then deliberates, and those who hold regular faculty appointments vote. Initial appointments require the internal review process outlined below (V.B.2.[c]), written secret balloting by the eligible members of the Faculty, action by the dean in the case, and, if a positive vote, the dean’s transmission of the decisions (of the dean and the Faculty) to the provost.

e. Absentee ballots, when accompanied by a substantive statement that is read at the meeting, are accepted and recorded separately.

 B. Procedures for Review and Evaluation of Continuing Faculty

Regular and systematic evaluations shall be made of the scholarship, teaching, and service (to The Divinity School and the University) of all faculty members. The schedule for evaluations varies according to the type of appointment and status of the faculty member under review. The schedule of reviews and the membership of the review committees will be recommended to the Faculty by the Committee on Faculty.

1. Review of faculty on term contract

a. Non-regular rank faculty

i. Persons on one-year appointments will be reviewed annually by the dean. Where there have been ongoing appointments, there will be a review once every three years by a three-person faculty panel who will report to the dean, who will convey the findings and decisions about the person to the Faculty.

ii. Persons with adjunct appointments will be evaluated once every three years by the Curriculum Committee, which reports to the dean; the findings and the dean’s decisions are reported to the Faculty.

b. Regular rank nontenure-track faculty

Persons on nontenure-track term appointments of more than one year shall be evaluated in the year prior to the final year of their term, if they are being considered for reappointment. 

The review process includes the following steps:

i. The Committee on Faculty originates recommendations for reappointments and for promotions of full-time faculty in regular, nontenure-track ranks.

ii. The dean, in consultation with the Committee on Faculty, nominates a review committee consisting of at least three faculty members. Members of this committee must hold a position higher than Assistant Professor and must also be of equivalent or higher rank than that to which the nominee is to be reappointed or promoted.

iii. The review committee assembles a dossier containing the candidate’s CV and other relevant materials.  Outside review will typically be part of first reappointment review and reviews for promotion. The Committee on Faculty determines whether outside review is appropriate in other cases of reappointment or promotion.

iv. Evaluation of candidates for reappointment and promotion focuses on the three components of scholarship, teaching, and service. In all three components, attention is directed not just to productivity but to evidence of intentional and continuous development. In light of the variety of nontenure-track appointments, the scholarship encouraged and affirmed will include: “scholarship of discovery,” “scholarship of teaching,” “scholarship of application,” and “scholarship of integration” (cf. Ernest Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered, 1990). In all cases, the scholarly products should be subject to peer review and publicly disseminated.

v. For reappointment or promotion to the rank of Assistant Professor, candidates must demonstrate good performance in all three components.  Reappointment or promotion to the rank of Associate Professor assumes demonstrated continuous high- quality performance in at least one component and good performance in the remainder. Reappointment or promotion to the rank of Professor will be reserved for those demonstrating continuous high-quality performance in at least two components and good performance in the remainder. Length of service alone should not produce an expectation for promotion.

vi. The review committee prepares a written report assessing the candidate in light of the criteria and benchmarks for reappointment and promotion, which is delivered to the dean and through the dean to the Faculty.

vii. The Faculty discusses in confidence the report of the review committee and votes on it by secret ballot at a meeting attended by more than half of the eligible voters. Eligibility for voting is determined by the same criteria used to determine eligibility on the review committee.

viii. The dean decides whether to proceed with the reappointment or promotion and forwards a recommendation to the Provost, who, upon favorable evaluation, takes it to the Board of Trustees for approval. If the dean’s decision differs from the Faculty’s recommendation, they explain their reasons to the Faculty and sends a letter to the candidate informing them of the decision. In the case of unfavorable Faculty decision, the dean also sends a letter to the candidate informing them of the decision. Within two weeks of receiving this letter, the candidate may appeal the unfavorable Faculty decision to the dean.

ix. Initial appointments are reviewed for either reappointment or promotion within four years or less. Subsequent reviews are done at least every five years. In special cases, the dean may approve a request from the Committee on Faculty for an interval as long as ten years for a faculty member who has undergone at least one review for reappointment at the level of Professor. Reviews for appointment, the first review after appointment, and promotion should be detailed; reviews for subsequent reappointment may be less detailed.

c. Regular rank tenure-track faculty (see Faculty Handbook, 3/2).

i. Annual review

Annual reviews of non-tenured regular rank faculty will be conducted by the dean for the purpose of providing direction and advice to the faculty member regarding progress at Duke. In general, the advice of senior faculty in The Divinity School will be solicited for this review.

ii. Contract renewal

Renewal of the initial appointment for a second term which may extend through the end of the probationary period will be made only on the basis of a careful School review and of approval by the dean and provost. The purpose of this comprehensive review is to develop a judgment as to the faculty member’s probable suitability for tenure at Duke. Once approval has been granted for the second term appointment, the faculty member becomes eligible to apply for a junior faculty leave.

2. Review for continuation, termination, promotion, and tenure of tenure-track faculty

a. Participation

The tenured members of the Faculty render decisions concerning all matters of continuation, termination, promotion, and tenure.

i. All tenured faculty consider cases having to do with continuation, termination, tenure, and appointment to Assistant Professor and to Associate Professor with tenure.

ii. Tenured Full Professors consider cases having to do with promotion to that rank.

b. Review for academic tenure

i. “Tenure at Duke University…should be reserved for those who have clearly demonstrated through their performance as scholars and teachers that their work has been widely perceived among their peers as outstanding. Persons holding the rank of Associate Professor with tenure are expected to stand in competition with the foremost persons of similar rank in similar fields. Good teaching and university service should be expected but cannot in and of themselves be sufficient grounds for tenure. The expectation of continuous intellectual development and leadership as demonstrated by published scholarship that is recognized by leading scholars at Duke and elsewhere must be an indispensable qualification for tenure at Duke University” (Faculty Handbook, 3/3).

ii. Persons on tenure-track term appointments will be reviewed in the year prior to the final year of their term, using the process outlined below (2.c.)

c. Review process

i. All decisions on continuation, termination, promotion, and tenure involve the following steps:

(a) a meeting of the Committee on Faculty to consider the case and discuss the review process, including a calendar for the review;

(b) nomination by the dean and approval by the Committee on Faculty of a review committee, typically composed of three persons all of whom are eligible to vote on the matter, with membership drawn from both within and without the candidate's field or division;

(c) review by the committee of the candidate's materials, following guidelines from the Provost’s Office—including but not limited to an intellectual development statement, curriculum vitae, list of published work and reviews thereof, teaching evaluations, letters of reference (required for promotion and tenure) determined by the review committee, statement concerning service to church, school, and community;

(d) submission of a written report by the committee and consideration of that and all relevant materials in the dossier by the Faculty;

(e) a meeting of eligible faculty, a discussion of the candidate in detail, and a vote by secret written ballot (absentee ballots, when accompanied by a substantive statement that is read at the meeting, are accepted and recorded separately);

(f) a decision by the dean, who reviews all relevant materials, makes their own determination in the case, registers their concurrence or non-concurrence with the Faculty, transmits that decision and the full dossier and the vote of the Faculty to the Provost with a substantive evaluative statement that reviews, in some detail, all the factors and the quality thereof in the case and indicates their concurrence or non-concurrence with the Faculty’s recommendation (and in cases of tenure and promotion to the Provost's Advisory Committee on Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure, following the guidelines from the Provost’s Office).

(g) consultation by the dean with the Provost.

ii. Tenure and promotion decisions follow further protocols approved by Academic Council and established by the Provost and the Provost's Advisory Committee on Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure.

3. Peer review of tenured faculty

a. The purpose of peer review of tenured faculty is to provide a means of continuing mutual support and accountability through collegial review of productive scholarship and effective teaching.

b. Persons holding tenure will be reviewed approximately every seven years by a panel of three peers. A report will be made to the dean, who will discuss the assessment with the faculty member. A copy of the report will be forwarded by the dean to the provost.

4. Annual report and evaluation of faculty

The dean will make an annual review of every faculty member as a part of a yearly report made to the Provost. The dean may solicit an annual summary of activities from each faculty member. Any issues that merit attention will be discussed by the dean with the particular faculty member.

Fuqua School of Business

Faculty Evaluation, Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure:

I. Criteria and Procedures for Faculty Titles and Standards

Faculty ranks and titles are described in the Duke University Faculty Handbook, Chapter 2. The elaboration that follows pertains specifically to standards and practices in the Fuqua School of Business. A faculty member in the School holds one of the tenure track or non-tenure track titles described below. Fuqua faculty are organized into academic areas with any changes to the number or composition of areas determined by faculty discussion and vote using the faculty meeting procedures outlined detailed in the school bylaws and contingent on a positive majority amongst those voting by secret ballot in person or absentee. Each area will have an area coordinator appointed by the dean.

A. Tenure Track Appointments.

Tenure track appointments carry the title of professor, associate professor, or assistant professor. All tenure-track faculty members must have a specific area affiliation at Fuqua. Some characteristics of these appointments and their incumbents are as follows:

1. Professor.

Appointments to this rank will be with tenure. Persons holding this rank are expected to stand in competition with the foremost professors of similar rank in similar fields, and to exceed the standards expected of associate professors.

2. Associate Professor

Appointments to this rank may be with or without tenure. Persons holding this rank with tenure are expected to stand in competition with the foremost professors of similar rank in similar fields and to have substantial records of research accomplishment. Persons holding this rank without tenure are expected to have demonstrated a capacity for research accomplishment. Persons holding this rank, whether tenured or not, should contribute effectively to the School's objective of excellence in the education of others, be it in classroom performance, textbook writing, directing student research, program management, executive education, or other areas of importance to the Fuqua School.

3. Assistant Professor

Appointments at this rank are never tenured. Persons holding this rank are expected to show promise of qualifying for the rank of associate professor within five to eight years from the appointment as assistant professor.

4. It is a policy of the School that a full-time faculty member may not hold tenure track appointments at Duke for more than eight consecutive years, unless the member is awarded tenure. Leaves for which the Provost of Duke University explicitly grants tenure clock relief will not be counted towards this time period.

B. Non-tenure Track Appointments

Various types of term appointments may be used to attract to the Fuqua School faculty members to whom the tenure track ranks are not well suited. These appointments do not involve the expectation of tenure at a later date. The titles of such appointments can be tailored to the circumstances, but in no case should they be inconsistent in level with the system of tenure track titles nor should they be inconsistent with University nomenclature. Non-tenure-track appointments may occur in the following categories:

1. Regular-rank, non-tenure-track faculty are part of the voting faculty and are expected to participate fully in all faculty meetings, except those devoted to personnel matters involving tenure-track faculty. Consistent with Duke University policy, these faculty members may hold titles of professor of the practice (assistant, associate or full), research professor (assistant, associate or full), or clinical professor (assistant, associate or full). These appointments do not exceed a five-year term, though reappointments are possible (see section IV. below). All regular-rank faculty members (including non-tenure- track, regular rank faculty members) must have a specified rank (assistant, associate, or full) and an area affiliation at Fuqua.

2. Non-regular-rank non-tenure track faculty are not part of the voting faculty. These appointments can be honorary, eponymous in nature or compensatory positions to employ faculty to engage in instructional effort.

a. Faculty may be offered courtesy or secondary appointments at non- regular-rank titles with no remuneration. These appointments are designed to establish academic relationships with individuals in fields complementary to the disciplines represented at Fuqua. These appointments will not exceed a one-year term although reappointments are possible. They are subject to approval by the Fuqua faculty as outlined in section III.A. below. These faculty members may hold non-regular rank titles allowed by Duke University or they may hold secondary titles allowing the individual to append “and the Fuqua School of Business” to a current Duke title.

b. Faculty may be hired to non-regular-rank positions for instructional purposes as needed without faculty approval. Consistent with Duke University policy, these faculty members may hold titles of adjunct (assistant, associate or full), lecturing fellow or senior lecturing fellow, scholar in residence, consulting professor or executive-in-residence. These faculty members are not part of the voting faculty. These appointments do not exceed a one-year term though reappointments are possible (see section III.B. below).

c. Individuals with primary appointments in units of Duke other than Fuqua and joint appointments in Fuqua are not members of the voting faculty. Joint appointments are those for which Fuqua agrees to share some financial remuneration with the unit representing the faculty member’s primary appointment. These appointments do not exceed a five-year term although reappointments are possible. Consistent with Duke University policy, these faculty members may add “and the Fuqua School of Business” to their existing titles.

II. Search Procedures for New Tenure-Track Faculty

A.  With the approval of the provost, and in consultation with the area coordinator(s) for the area(s) in which the search will concentrate (as determined by the faculty associate dean in consultation with the dean), the dean authorizes the initiation of a search for a new member of the faculty. Searches may be conducted by areas or by search committees. For area-conducted searches, the area coordinator will act as the chair of the search effort or appoint a chair. For other searches, the dean or the faculty associate dean will appoint a search committee, specifying the chair of that committee.

B.  The area or search committee's responsibilities are to work with the faculty associate dean to:

1. Inquire about the specific affirmative action goals for the School set by the University’s director of Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action;

2. Identify publications in which to advertise the search, draft an advertisement to be placed in these publications, and work with the dean’s office to place the advertisement;

3. Contact promising candidates for expressions of interest;

4. Interview potential candidates at professional meetings and elsewhere;

5. Narrow the list of candidates and, with the faculty associate dean's prior approval, invite the top candidates for on-campus interviews;

6. Ensure that each candidate is scheduled for a formal, “job talk” workshop that is announced to the voting faculty at least one-week in advance. Such announcements will include instructions as to how to become part of an interview schedule and/or obtain the invited candidate’s resume for review.

III. Appointment Procedures for New Faculty Appointments and Recurring Short-Term (Non- Regular-Rank and Joint) Faculty Appointments

A. Non-regular-rank, non-tenure track, non-compensatory courtesy or secondary appointments may be conferred for a period of not more than one year. This process may be repeated in subsequent years following an initial appointment. The process is in all cases as follows. All voting faculty will be notified by the dean’s office of the intent to make the appointment. This notification will include a brief rationale for the appointment and the candidate’s current CV.   During the one-week period following this notification any voting faculty member may request a faculty meeting to discuss and vote on the appointment; absent a call for a meeting the proposed appointment will be accepted without a meeting. If one or more faculty member calls for a meeting, all members of the voting faculty will be eligible to vote using the meeting procedures outlined in section VI below and appointment is contingent on a positive majority amongst those voting by secret ballot in person or absentee.

B. Non-regular-rank, non-tenure track faculty may be hired without a faculty vote for contract periods not to exceed one year. These faculty members will be hired only for well- defined work (primarily staffing courses) that is not able to be accomplished by regular-rank faculty members. These contracts shall be consistent with needs and budgeting identified during the year-by-year teaching planning process. This process may be repeated in subsequent years.

C. Joint appointments involving remuneration from the Fuqua School must always be conditional on an initial review and vote by all faculty at or above the proposed rank, using the meeting procedures outlined in section VI. below and contingent on a positive majority amongst those voting by secret ballot in person or absentee. Appointment terms will not exceed five years. Subsequent reappointment is contingent on a positive majority amongst those voting by secret ballot in person or absentee following the review procedures in section IV below.

D. Regular-rank, non-tenure-track faculty with initial contracts not exceeding two years may be hired according to one of two processes. First, the dean or faculty associate dean may call a meeting of all Fuqua voting faculty at or above the rank of the proposed appointment to discuss and vote on the appointment. A document containing the rationale for the appointment and the candidate’s current CV will be circulated at least one week in advance of this meeting. Alternatively, all voting faculty at or above the rank of the proposed appointment will be notified by the dean’s office of the intent to make the appointment. This notification will include a brief rationale for the appointment and the candidate’s current CV. The relevant faculty members will then have a one-week period during which any of these faculty members may request a faculty meeting to discuss and vote on the appointment; absent a call for a meeting the proposed appointment will be accepted without a meeting. If one or more faculty member calls for a meeting, all members of the voting faculty at or above the rank being considered will be eligible to vote and appointment is contingent on a majority positive vote of those voting. Contract renewal or extension will always be contingent on a majority positive vote of faculty voting following the faculty review procedures outlined in section IV below.

E. Regular-rank, non-tenure-track faculty with initial contracts of over two years in length must be hired according to the following procedure. The dean or associate dean for faculty will call a meeting of all Fuqua faculty at or above the rank being considered for appointment. A rationale for the appointment and the candidate’s CV will be circulated at least one week before the meeting. Appointment is contingent on a majority positive vote by the Fuqua faculty who vote on the proposal using the meeting procedures outlined in section VI. below. Reappointment or contract extension will always be contingent on a majority positive vote of faculty voting following the faculty review procedures outlined in section IV. below.

F. For appointments of tenure-track assistant professors to initial five-year terms, one of two processes will be used. First, the dean or faculty associate dean may call for a meeting and vote of all Fuqua tenure-track faculty. A brief rationale for the appointment and the candidate’s current CV will be circulated to the tenure-track faculty at least one week in advance of this meeting. Alternatively, all tenure-track faculty will be notified by the dean’s office of the intent to make the appointment. This notification will include a brief rationale for the appointment and the candidate’s current CV. Tenure-track faculty members will then have a one-week period during which any faculty member may request a faculty meeting to discuss and vote on the appointment; absent a call for a meeting the proposed appointment will be accepted. If one or more faculty member calls for a meeting, all members of the tenure-track faculty will be eligible to vote and appointment is contingent on a majority positive vote of faculty voting. The meeting will be conducted according to the procedures outlined in section VI. below. Contract extensions for assistant professors will follow the faculty review procedures outlined in section IV below.

G. For tenure track appointments to the faculty at the ranks of associate professor and professor, the process for formal faculty review and vote, delineated in section V., must be used.

IV. Timeline for Reappointment and Advancement of Regular-Rank Faculty and Joint Appointments.

A.  Timeline for Tenure-track Faculty Hired at the Rank of Assistant Professor

1. Initial appointment is for five years conditional upon the faculty member having completed their graduate studies by the end of the second year. If the faculty member does not complete their PhD (or equivalent, if relevant) degree by the end of the second year of employment, their contract will terminate.

2. Tenure clock starts running with employment date, with the customary date July 1. A formal review will generally be conducted by the spring of the fourth year. (An appropriate time shift will be implemented to address nontraditional contract start dates.) The faculty member, in consultation with their area coordinator, the faculty associate dean and the dean may request an earlier review. This review will be led by an ad hoc committee appointed by the faculty associate dean to determine if the person is on the tenure vector, as specified in section V. below.

3. Based upon the findings of the review, possible outside evaluations, and faculty discussion, the faculty will make one of three recommendations: that the appointment is renewed concurrent with a promotion to associate professor, that the appointment is renewed at the rank of assistant professor, or that the appointment is not renewed. Final decision for the promotion and /or appointment renewal rests with the provost based upon the recommendation of the dean.

4. Tenure review will typically occur by the fall of the penultimate contract year, usually the seventh year of employment but later if the provost has approved tenure clock relief.

B. Timeline for Consideration for Tenure

Tenure review will generally be conducted when contract deadlines dictate, i.e., during the fall of the penultimate contract year. A candidate may, in consultation with the faculty associate dean and their area coordinator, request an earlier consideration.

C. Timeline for consideration for promotion to full professor

1. Each year, the dean and the faculty associate dean will call a meeting to review all faculty members who might be considered for advancement to full professor with the current group of full professors.

2. Based on this review, followed by a discussion between the faculty member and the faculty associate dean, the faculty member determines whether they wish to be considered formally for promotion to full professor during the current academic year

D.  Timeline for Reappointment and Advancement of Non-tenure Track Faculty Appointments

1. Contract extensions or promotions for regular-rank non-tenure-track faculty members and for joint appointments must be preceded by a review of the candidate's contributions to the Fuqua School by a faculty committee appointed for that purpose by the dean or faculty associate dean. This committee will follow the process outlined in section V. below.

2. These reviews will occur during the penultimate contract year, given approval of the dean based on an evaluation of ongoing need for the position and duties and fit of the faculty member for these. If the dean determines there is not an ongoing need for the position or that the current faculty member is no longer a good fit for position needs, the faculty member will be notified in writing with at least one-year notice before position termination. The faculty member may appeal the dean’s assessment within one month by requesting the decision to be announced to the Fuqua voting faculty. Two other faculty members may then call a faculty meeting for discussion and vote regarding the position removal decision; this vote will be advisory to the dean.

3. Contract terms for non-tenure-track faculty may never exceed five years.

V. Faculty Review and Meeting Procedures for Initial Appointment of Associate and Full Professors, for Promotion of Regular-Rank Faculty, for Reappointment of Regular-Rank and Joint- Appointment Faculty

A. All faculty members are expected to make reasonable contributions to the normal operations of the school and the Duke community. A demonstrated incapacity or unwillingness to do so disqualifies one for appointment, reappointment, or advancement.

B. The following review procedures are employed for renewal of regular-rank or joint- appointment faculty, promotion to associate or full professor and for the granting of tenure:

1. The faculty associate dean appoints an evaluation committee of faculty members, a majority of whom are from the School. All members of the evaluation committee are of the rank being considered for the faculty candidate, or a higher rank. If the candidate is being considered for a rank with tenure, all members of the evaluation committee are tenured.

2. Committees involving tenured candidates or candidates potentially advancing to tenure will be comprised of four members; committees involving appointment or renewal of untenured or non-tenure-track candidates will be comprised of three members.

3. The dean’s office will request from the candidate and provide relevant materials:

a. For tenure-track faculty, as specified by the provost’s AP&T.

b. For Non-tenure-track, regular-rank faculty, the dean’s office will request from the candidate a current resume or CV, a statement of past, current, and future contributions to Fuqua and Duke, and any other material deemed relevant to contractual duties. The dean’s office may request the faculty member to submit names that might be appropriate to evaluation of the candidate’s contribution to the Fuqua School, this will be forwarded to the review committee.

c. For Non-tenure-track, regular-rank faculty, the dean’s office will provide the review committee with the candidate’s most recent contractual duties. The dean’s office may also choose to provide the review committee with an assessment of a candidate’s contributions to the school, particularly those that are outside the scope of the candidate’s most recent contractual duties.

4. The review committee shall:

a. Examine and comment on the scholarly work of the candidate for tenure track candidates; evaluate and comment on the work related to formal contractual duties for non-tenure track candidates;

b. Recommend names for the faculty associate dean to solicit for evaluations of the candidate's scholarship (for tenure track) and comment on the necessity for external evaluations (for non-tenure track); and

c. Examine the teaching effectiveness of the candidate by reviewing student evaluations, consulting program director(s), reading or obtaining reviews of textbooks and case materials, and when possible, by other means; the committee should also examine course syllabi and any theses or dissertations supervised by the candidate;

d. Consider the quantity and quality of service to the area, to the Fuqua school, to the University, and to the profession;

e. Consider the candidate's success in obtaining research grants;

f. Prepare and deliver to the dean a written report of its opinion as to whether the candidate qualifies for the proposed action;

g. For faculty with formal research duties: Provide as part of that report a statement about the quality of the journals and publishers which have accepted work by the candidate and about the nature of scholarly productivity in the subject; this statement addresses such questions as whether excellent scholars in the discipline write articles rather than books, whether collaboration with other researchers is the norm, and, when feasible, how the responsibility for research is distributed among joint authors.

5. All faculty members at the rank being considered or higher will be eligible to attend the faculty meeting and vote on the personnel matter by secret ballot or to vote through absentee. In the case of contract renewal for assistant professors, assistant professors are not eligible to attend, as this renewal will involve possible promotion to associate professor.

6. Robert’s Rules will be used in the meetings with a quorum defined as 2/3 of the eligible faculty either voting by absentee ballot or present in the meeting. If a quorum is not achieved, the personnel matter will be tabled and a new meeting will be called.

7. The report of the committee and its supporting documents are made available through the dean's office only to faculty eligible to vote on the personnel matter. Approximately one week after these documents are made available, the faculty eligible to vote meet to discuss the committee’s recommendation. The recommendation, if moved and seconded, is then voted on by secret ballot.

8. The dean or faculty associate dean notifies the candidate of the faculty vote, and provides the candidate with such details of the evaluation as seem helpful to the candidate, as soon as practicable after the meeting. As soon as practicable after candidate notification, the dean or faculty associate dean also notifies all faculty members eligible to vote on the case of the outcome of the vote. The dean also notifies all faculty eligible to vote on the case of their recommendation. If the candidate chooses to end the process of evaluation and waive (in writing) their right to further review, then notification of the faculty as to the vote is not necessary and instead the dean or faculty associate dean will notify all faculty members eligible to vote on the case of the candidate’s decision to decline further review. The next step is contingent on rank

a. In the case of external appointment at untenured associate professor only, the dean has authority to make the appointment given a majority positive vote by the faculty who vote on the matter.

b. In all other cases, the dean, having knowledge of the committee report and the faculty discussion and vote, summarizes the deliberations, and formulates a written recommendation to the provost including the reasons for the recommendation, the report and documents collected by the ad hoc review committee submitted to the dean (including resume, publications, letters from colleagues, and statement of research interests and plans); and the tally of the faculty vote on the evaluation committee's recommendation.

VI.  Faculty Meeting Procedures Contingent on Dean or Faculty Request for a Meeting for Initial Appointment of Assistant Professors, Non-Tenure-Track Regular Rank Faculty, and Courtesy Appointments

A. All faculty members at the rank being considered or higher will be eligible to attend the faculty meeting and vote on the personnel matter by secret ballot or to vote through absentee. In the case of contract renewal for assistant professors, assistant professors are not eligible to attend, as this renewal will involve possible promotion to associate professor.

B. Robert’s Rules will be used in the meetings with a quorum defined as 2/3 of the eligible faculty either voting by absentee ballot or present in the meeting. If a quorum is not achieved, the personnel matter will be tabled and a new meeting will be called.

C. As soon as practicable, the dean or faculty associate dean notifies all faculty members eligible to vote on the case of the outcome of the vote.

D. The dean has the authority to make the appointment given a majority positive vote of the faculty who vote on the matter.

VII. Annual Faculty Evaluation Procedure

A. The faculty associate dean evaluates continuing faculty each year in an effort by the school to foster individual development, further the interests of the school, and determine faculty salary increases.

B. One objective of the Fuqua School is to achieve excellence in its faculty, either in research related to the management of complex organizations or in educational activities directed toward improving the competency of managers. The faculty as a group must cover both dimensions. While some individual faculty members will achieve excellence in both dimensions, every tenure track faculty member is expected to contribute at least at an acceptable level in the dimension in which they are considered less outstanding. A non-tenure track faculty member is expected to excel in either research or education. The steps in the annual faculty evaluation process are as follows:

1. In January of each year, each regular rank faculty member submits, to the faculty associate dean, information about their activities in research, education, and service during the previous calendar year, and a current resume.

2. There follows an initial evaluation of each regular rank faculty member managed by the faculty associate dean, in consultation with area coordinators and relevant (depending on individual faculty teaching assignments) program deans or director(s). This evaluation involves:

a. From the area coordinator: Assessment of the faculty member's contribution to educational programs, quality and quantity of research, and standing in the profession. For untenured faculty on tenure track appointments, progress toward tenure is an important consideration. For tenured faculty, important considerations are

(1) standing in the profession as a scholar;

(2) contribution to the development of junior faculty, the academic programs, the school, and the university

b. As necessary, from the program director(s) and associate dean(s) for academic programs opinion and information regarding the member's:

(1) Contributions in terms of course development and delivery;

(2) Value as a part of the educational program; and

(3) Contribution to program development.

C. The faculty associate dean and the dean review these evaluations and prepare faculty salary recommendations for the next fiscal year. The dean may base these recommendations in part on consideration of the overall mix of faculty skills.

D. The dean or the faculty associate dean discusses each assistant or associate professor's progress with them each year. The faculty associate dean also conducts periodic reviews with full professors.

Revised 2018

Nicholas School of the Environment

This document describes the considerations for recommending NSOE faculty for promotion and tenure at Duke University. It complements the information provided in Chapter 3 of the Faculty Handbook and is made available to AP&T members, external letter writers, and to all NSOE faculty on a webpage.

Research Excellence in the Nicholas School of the Environment

Environment encompasses an inherently multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary domain of scholarship that by advancing and applying the natural, social, and policy/decision making sciences addresses both fundamental questions and important societal challenges. Hence, evaluation of candidates should recognize and value:

1. the diversity of scholarship within and among these disciplines and the associated qualities that constitute an outstanding research record;

2. interdisciplinary contributions both at established interfaces between distinct disciplines and at new interfaces between previously separate areas and modes of inquiry; and

3. engaged scholarship, which is reflected in efforts and products that are often outside the traditional measures of research excellence within disciplines.

Traditional measures of excellence vary among and even within the disciplines represented in NSOE. In the social sciences, research excellence and impact are based on publication in high-impact journals and books from highly-ranked academic presses, citations, awards, and a record of funding, as necessary to support their research and student training. In the natural sciences, research excellence and impact are reflected in publication in highly-regarded and high-impact journals, citations, and a record of funding from competitive grant agencies (e.g., NSF, NIH, NASA, DOE, DOD). Typical publication rates vary widely among social and natural sciences.

Regardless of the field, the review committees and outside reviewers should use quantifiable measures – in the appropriate disciplinary context – to guide and inform a holistic and necessarily qualitative assessment of research excellence.

In addition to presenting their traditional research outputs (papers, books, grants), candidates have the responsibility (and should take the opportunity) to articulate how collaborative, interdisciplinary, and/or engaged scholarship and their products arise from and support the goals of their research program.

NSOE views both disciplinary and interdisciplinary contributions as valuable routes to research excellence. Collaborative scholarship is the norm in many of our disciplines, but should be accompanied by evidence of leadership of substantial elements of collaborative work. Engaged scholarship and its non-traditional products are valued as an integral part of the research output/ scholarly achievement of the candidate, but are viewed as enhancements of rather than substitutes for traditional measures of research excellence.

Good Teaching and University Service

Strong and committed teaching, mentoring, and service are necessary –but not sufficient– for granting tenure. It is challenging to objectively evaluate these, but the fact that their evaluation is challenging does not take away from the importance of these contributions. Annual evaluations by departmental chairs or review committees consider, document, and provide feedback on these areas. The associated documentation is included (e.g., teaching evaluations) in 3-year and tenure review packages.

Education is a central aspect of our mission and NSOE values faculty for their contributions to it. Evidence of teaching excellence includes appropriate and potentially innovative course structure and content, pedagogical training, and recognition by students, faculty peers, and outside organizations. Course evaluations by students may be part of a record of teaching excellence, but suffer from well-understood biases (e.g., by gender) and other limitations. The standard teaching load for tenure track professors is 2.5 courses per year unless a different load has been negotiated with the administration.

We consider whether faculty are shouldering their share and meeting departmental needs of teaching across programs; this includes advising and mentoring students in the undergraduate, professional, and doctoral programs, and serving as advisor of the Master’s Project (MP) for professional students, and for undergraduate graduation with distinction, as well as serving as chair or member of doctoral committees.

Service to the School, the University, and to the profession and society beyond the University, is valued but is not considered a substitute for research excellence when making tenure or promotion decisions. A progressively increasing commitment from Assistant to Associate to Full Professor is expected.

Promotion to Full Professor

Advancement to Full Professor can be expected after continued demonstration of academic excellence, productivity and scholarly impact. At this point in their career, candidates should have broadly established reputations as intellectual leaders in their field(s) of scholarship, ideally at a global level, and possibly through media interviews, opinion pieces, etc. As with tenure and promotion to Associate Professor the standards and metrics of research excellence and impact within their fields for promotion to full professor should be grounded in the disciplines and their scholarly cultures. Interdisciplinary, collaborative, and engaged scholarship will continue to be valued as potential elements of research excellence.

Unlike promotion to Associate Professor and its strong focus on research, the candidate for promotion to Full Professor should also demonstrate excellence in either teaching or service or both, and should contribute substantially in both categories. Teaching, mentoring, and advising are central to the mission of our school and important criteria for promotion to full professor. Leadership in service positions is an important contribution to the effective governance of the school and to academic disciplines.

Pratt School of Engineering

Procedures for Faculty Recruitment, Promotion, and Tenure

I. Faculty Recruitment

1. When a vacancy is created by resignation, retirement or other causes the department chair will ask for authorization from the dean to initiate a faculty search. The request should contain, as appropriate, details about the expected field of specialty of the new faculty member, desired experience level and salary range.

2. The departments will send to the dean a written description of the position that constitutes the announcement for the position. A list of journals and/or individuals to whom the announcement of the position is sent will be enclosed.

3. After the department has identified one or more highly desirable candidates for the position it will request dean's authorization to invite them to the campus for an interview.

4. For prospective tenured appointments, the candidates' interview itineraries should include the provost or their deputy and the dean of the Graduate School. The curriculum vitae should be sent to these individuals before the visit.

5. Before an offer is extended, the EEO self-audit form and a request to make an offer should be sent to the dean who may consult the Director of Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action before approving the request. Upon dean's approval of offer terms, an offer letter will be written by the dean’s office, with copies to the department and provost's offices. Copies of acceptance or rejection letters should also be provided immediately upon receipt.

6. The departments are responsible for maintaining complete files of all correspondence relative to an appointment, which should be detailed enough to provide proof that equal opportunity procedures have been respected.

II. Promotion and Tenure

1. The promotion and/or tenure action begins with an annual review of all faculty members in ranks eligible for promotion and/or tenure by the chair and/or the assembly of full professors of the department. Possible nominees (if any) are then considered for detailed departmental review.

2. The possible nominees are informed by the chair of their eligibility for detailed departmental review. If they desire to be reviewed for promotion and/or tenure, they are asked to provide the chair with complete copies of all major publications and suggestions of up to three referees outside of the university from whom assessments of the nominee's scholarly and professional accomplishments might be obtained.

3. The chair requests letters from at least six outside referees, some of whom may have been suggested by the nominee, and also gathers data (with the help of a committee if necessary) about the nominee's teaching skills.

4. A dossier containing resume, complete publications, and all outside reference letters is circulated to the faculty of the department holding appointments above the candidate's present rank. Faculty members respond by a confidential vote either for or against the promotion recommendation, and have whatever explanations they consider necessary to support their vote.

5. The chair summarizes the responses and announces the intention to either recommend or not recommend the nominee. The nominee is informed orally of this intention.

6. If the nominee is recommended for promotion, a dossier consisting of all the nominee's publications, an investigative report on their teaching, and all inside and outside reference letters, will be forwarded to the dean of the school. The forwarding letter shall contain a summary of the views of the faculty on the candidate as well as the chair's personal views concerning the recommendation. In addition, individual faculty members may write to the Office of the Provost in support of or dissent from the department and school recommendation. Copies of such correspondence shall be sent to the department chair and the dean of the school.

7. All recommendations received from departments are subjected to an administrative review by the executive group of the Engineering Administrative Council, which consists of the dean and engineering department chairs. This group in recent years has delegated this responsibility to a faculty committee appointed by and advisory to the dean. The purpose of this review is primarily to ensure that all recommendations relative to the faculty in the Pratt School of Engineering are made following a uniform set of standards. The dean of the school summarizes the views of the executive group in their forwarding letter to the provost which is attached to the complete dossier(s) of the nominee(s). The nominee is informed orally through their department chair, of the result of action at the school level.

For a full and authoritative discussion of current university policy on tenure and promotion applicable to the Pratt School of Engineering, see Chapter 3 of the Faculty Handbook.

Sanford School of Public Policy

I. Mission Statement

The mission of the Sanford School of Public Policy is to educate tomorrow’s leaders and improve the quality of public policymaking through research, professional training, and policy and community engagement.

II. Voting Rights

 A. Determination of Rules Governing Voting Rights and Other Procedural Matters

Tenured faculty with a primary appointment in the Sanford School of Public Policy will determine rules governing voting rights and other procedural matters, subject to University regulations.

An amendment to these bylaws will be adopted if two-thirds of the tenured faculty who are not on leave vote affirmatively for adoption at a faculty meeting. Proposed amendments will be distributed by the dean’s office at least five days prior to that faculty meeting.

B. Assignment of Voting Rights

The “Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty” of the School (hereafter the TTT Faculty) consists of the dean and all tenure-line full-time Duke faculty with rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor, and with primary appointment in the School, together with any other tenure-line Duke faculty (including those with joint appointments between the Sanford School and another unit) added by majority vote of the tenured faculty with primary appointments in PPS.

The “Voting Faculty” of the School consists of the TTT Faculty and other members of the regular-rank faculty granted the vote based on the recommendation of the dean and supported by a majority vote of the tenured faculty with a primary appointment in Public Policy.

Ordinarily, the right to vote will be extended to regular-rank faculty with full-time, multi-year appointments who are significantly involved in the School’s teaching or research missions.

C. Quorum

A quorum is required for every vote that is mandated by these Bylaws and that occurs in a meeting of the faculty. A quorum consists of two-thirds of the tenure-line faculty of rank relevant to the vote as specified in these bylaws. Faculty members who are on leave are not counted against the quorum unless they attend the meeting. By agreement with the dean, a faculty member may attend a meeting by telephone. For votes taken electronically, two-thirds of the tenure-line faculty eligible to vote on the issue and not on leave must cast a ballot for the vote to be valid.

D. Voting Procedures

A meeting must be held for all votes with the following exceptions.  An electronic or other remote vote will be held for the following procedures:

• Initial appointment of a regular rank non TTT faculty member if the candidate has been employed for a minimum of three years by Duke prior.
• Renewal of non-tenure line regular rank faculty
• Promotion from assistant to associate research professor
• Secondary appointment

“Other Matters for Decision by the Faculty” in the bylaws are ordinarily voted on in meetings but may be held by electronic vote if the Executive Committee agrees. 

Electronic or remote votes must be conducted by a procedure that gives reasonable assurance of confidentiality and a defined deadline for submitting a vote. In the case of any electronic vote, any faculty member who chooses to do so may vote by secret paper ballot, rather than electronically.

All votes pertaining to TTT faculty and to changes of these bylaws must be held in face to face meetings, with the following exception: Generally, votes are not taken in the initial meeting in which the written report that evaluates an internal assistant professor’s qualifications for promotion is discussed. Instead, within a week there will either be an additional faculty meeting to discuss and vote on the case, or there will be an electronic vote on the case. Whichever process is chosen should remain confidential.  

III. Definition of Faculty Titles

The Sanford School of Public Policy follows the University’s nomenclature regarding faculty titles, as defined in the most recent articles in the Faculty Handbook.  

The following titles are available for regular-rank appointments in Public Policy:

• assistant professor
• associate professor
• professor
• associate professor of the practice
• professor of the practice
• assistant research professor
• associate research professor
• research professor
• lecturer
• senior lecturer

In addition, the dean will make appointments using non-regular-rank titles as appropriate.

IV. Appointment Procedures

Any new appointment, promotion, or contract renewal for a member of the regular-rank faculty requires an affirmative vote by a majority of that portion of the voting faculty who are qualified by rank and tenure status, who are not on leave, and who attend a meeting (if that is required for the decision at hand) called by the dean.  Voting is by secret ballot.

Prior to the vote, a written report will be distributed to the faculty members who are eligible to vote.   This report will describe the search process (in the case of a new appointment) and the qualifications of the candidate.

A. Initial appointments

1. The TTT Faculty vote on whether to offer an initial appointment to a tenure-line position. The entire Voting Faculty vote on initial appointments for other regular rank faculty positions.  

2. The tenure status and rank of initial offers are determined by the relevant subgroup of faculty consistent with University regulations.  

• For tenure-line appointments, the relevant subgroup consists of the TTT Faculty with equal or higher rank than that which is proposed.
• For other regular rank appointments, the relevant subgroup consists of the Voting Faculty with equal or higher rank than that which is proposed.

B. Reappointments

For renewal of contract for a tenure-line assistant professor, the TTT Faculty holding rank of associate professor or professor vote on reappointment at the rank of assistant professor.  

On votes for candidates for reappointment to the same regular non-tenure track rank, all regular rank faculty, who hold the same rank as the candidate or a higher rank are eligible to vote.

C. Tenure and Promotion

The TTT Faculty with tenure and rank of associate professor or professor vote on internal promotions from assistant professor to associate professor with tenure. The TTT Faculty with rank of professor vote on promotions to that rank.  

For a promotion review of a member of the regular rank, non-tenure-line faculty, all those Voting Faculty members are eligible to vote who have rank equal to or higher than the rank to which the candidate is being considered for promotion.  

All votes on recommendations for promotion of members of the regular-rank faculty other than lecturers require a majority vote.   Such votes shall occur by secret ballot.

D. Secondary Appointments

In the case of secondary appointments, the entire Voting Faculty votes on the initial appointment.  In the last year of the term of a secondary appointment, the dean, in consultation with the Executive Committee, will determine whether it is to be renewed, and for how long.  

V. Criteria for Appointments, Reappointments, and Promotions for Regular Rank, Non-Tenure Track Faculty in Public Policy 

Appointments will either be made after an open search or after a waiver has been approved.  Dossiers in support of appointment or promotion to associate or full rank will follow posted Sanford guidelines as approved by the provost in accordance with the Faculty Handbook.  These guidelines may be revised by the Sanford Executive Committee and are subject to provost approval.  

A. Lecturer

Candidates for teaching positions who have completed a master’s degree or JD or the equivalent, will be considered for appointment as lecturer. Exceptions to the requirement of completion of an advanced degree must be satisfactorily justified in the report of the review committee.

Reappointment to lecturer: Satisfactory performance as a Duke teacher is required for reappointment to lecturer. Reappointment also requires satisfactory performance in administration, program development, research and writing, and fundraising, to the extent that these activities are included in the job definition.  

Senior Lecturer:  Senior lecturers for initial appointment, promotion or reappointments must be assessed by the teaching community as having made a distinctive contribution to the craft of teaching as demonstrated by excellence in teaching and some of the following factors: curricular innovation, exemplary pedagogy, participation in national conferences on the scholarship of teaching and learning, writing and or mentoring about teaching, an exemplary record of student mentoring, or an original contribution to program development.

Promotion or reappointment to senior lecturer requires continued excellence in demonstrating the performance of a senior lecturer.

B. Professor of the Practice

Candidates whose appointments are justified by contributions to the policy process, or by their scholarly qualifications and contribution to the administrative and teaching mission of the school, will be considered for appointment as “Professor of the Practice” or “Associate Professor of the Practice.”

Initial Appointments

Initial appointment as Professor of the Practice will be reserved for those who have had a highly distinguished career in government, journalism, politics, documentary studies, the private sector, the nonprofit sector, or in administration and teaching in the Sanford School of Public Policy. The appropriate basis for evaluating distinction depends on the particular area of the candidate’s contribution, but would ordinarily include such indicators as seniority, rank within the relevant organization, reputation among peers, quality of publication (if any), honors and awards, and demonstrated ability to translate experience into useful lessons for students.

Initial appointment as Associate Professor of the Practice will be for individuals whose careers show significant achievement but not at the level of distinction and seniority that would warrant appointment at the level of professor of the practice.

Reappointments and Promotion

Satisfactory performance as a teacher of undergraduate or professional students is normally required for reappointment at both levels. Reappointment also requires satisfactory performance in administration, program development, research and writing, and fundraising, to the extent that these activities are included in the job definition. For initial appointment or promotion to full professor, 3 external letters are required. For reappointment to full professor, 2 of these may be substituted by internal letters from Duke faculty external to Sanford.

Professors of the Practice also will be evaluated based on evidence of continued engagement and achievement in their professions outside their University responsibilities, as evidenced by relevant research, writing and involvement with the media; service on major governmental commissions; service on other professional commissions, task forces or comparable groups; governmental or other service (including consulting) during leave periods; professional honors and awards; external funding for their teaching; programs and other University activities in the U.S. and overseas; or other professional activities; or by their administrative and teaching contributions to the Sanford School and its reputation.

Promotion from Associate to full Professor will be based on further achievement related to University responsibilities or recognition within their profession outside the University. Evidence of such further achievement and recognition will be based on the same criteria noted above as well as peer recognition. Examples of such achievements by those appointed primarily on the basis of their contributions to administration and teaching are in Appendix III.

C. Research Professor:

Research faculty differ from tenure-track faculty in that they typically undertake fewer instructional assignments and are frequently supported by external research funds. Nonetheless, research faculty, in addition to involvement in research projects, may participate in administrative and teaching activities in the Sanford School to the extent that these activities are included in their job description. Consequently, decisions about appointment, renewal, and promotion of research faculty are based on assessment of scholarly accomplishment and promise and on availability of external research funding to support their work, as well as on an assessment of the execution of any additional duties laid out in their contract.  

Assistant Research Professor

An Assistant Research Professor should hold a Ph.D. in a policy related field and have completed a dissertation (or other additional work) that shows promise with respect to scholarship and/or a set of skills that serve as critical inputs into particular projects.  

Associate Research Professor

An Associate Research Professor should meet the Assistant Research Professor criteria and be accomplished scholars. Since many research faculty are supported by external funding sources, excellence may be established through academic publications, non-academic research publications, and successful grant applications. As Associate Research faculty member should have demonstrated the ability to maintain an active research agenda and develop scholarly collaborations, to obtain grants, and to publish and otherwise distribute research findings through a variety of outlets. To the extent that an associate research professor works on teams, the ability of the professor to play either a leadership role or a consistently supportive role should also be recognized. In addition, to the extent that is appropriate for a particular appointment based on the contract, the criteria applied in tenure-track faculty review decisions will be used to evaluate teaching, administrative, and service contributions.  

Reappointment

Satisfactory performance in research and other activities specified in the job description is required for reappointment.  

Research Professor:

Research professors should have an established research record comparable with the record of a tenured professor. That means that they should meet the same threshold as a tenured full professor in being widely recognized as outstanding by others in the field. In addition, satisfactory performance in research and other activities specified in the job description is required for reappointment. Research professors are expected to maintain an active program of research through grant funding, academic publications, and scholarly collaborations.

Reappointment and promotion

For reappointment or promotion to research professor, letters will be required from four arms-length sources external to Duke.

Revised March 13, 2023; Amended June 26, 2019, June 6, 2018, May 1, 2017, August 24, 2015, September 8, 2014,
 January 6, 2014, August 29, 2013, May 21, 2012, November 28, 2011, February 21, 2011, May 5, 2010

Modified appendixes March 13, 2023, June 26, 2019 Appendix 1 only, June 6, 2018, June 15, 2017,
 June 14, 2016, June 25, 2015, August 1, 2014, July 7, 2014, January 6, 2014, August 29, 2013, June 15, 2012

School of Law

Procedures for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure

The Law School Lateral Faculty Appointments Committee and the Entry-Level Faculty Appointments Committee, working in conjunction with the dean, are charged generally with identifying personnel needs, establishing priorities of needs, locating prospective appointees, evaluating, candidates, and making recommendations to the faculty on all new appointments. All members of the faculty are encouraged to submit to the committees the names of prospective candidates they believe deserve serious consideration.

The committees shall make a recommendation to the faculty concerning the type of appointment to be offered to a particular candidate it finds acceptable. If the appointment is to be with tenure status, the fact shall be made known to the faculty when the name is placed before it.

A candidate shall be granted indefinite tenure only if they have demonstrated the qualities necessary for sustained excellence as both a teacher and a creative and productive scholar, looking to the future as well as the past. In making this decision, the faculty may assess the quality of a candidate’s teaching on the basis of student evaluations, class visitations, and/or such other techniques it deems appropriate; it may assess the quality of a candidate’s scholarship only on the basis of their written work that is in a state of completion sufficient to satisfy reasonably standards of craftsmanship, and this written work must be sufficiently substantial to permit confident judgment by the faculty in the matter. Other factors that may weigh in the decision are the extent, relevance, and significance of a candidate’s contributions to legal education, law reform, public service, and the administration of justice.

Detailed descriptions of procedures and standards for the various types of law school appointments appear in Rules 4-1 and 4-3 of the Law School Rules, below:

Rule 4-1 Faculty Meeting Attendance

1.Faculty meetings may be called in the discretion of the dean, provided that the dean shall give notice to all members of the Faculty with rights of attendance of the time, place, and agenda of any such meeting at least 48 hours before it is scheduled to take place. No item of business of which such members of the Faculty have not been so notified shall be acted upon by the Faculty over the objection of any member.

2. Tenured and tenure-track members of the Faculty, Joint Appointees, and Research Professors shall be entitled to attend and participate in all Faculty meetings, with the exception that tenure-track Faculty will not be entitled to attend Faculty meetings (or the portions of Faculty meetings) dedicated to discussions of tenure for internal candidates or reappointment of tenure-track Faculty members.

Assistant, Associate, and Clinical Professors of Law and Professors of the Practice are entitled to attend and participate in all Faculty meetings with the proviso that: in Faculty meetings (or the portions of Faculty meetings) dedicated to discussions of tenure for external candidates, upon request made before or during a Faculty meeting by a member of the Faculty entitled to vote on the matter, some time shall be reserved during the discussion period for discussion of the candidates(s) with Assistant, Associate, and Clinical Professors of Law and Professors of the Practice absent.

Assistant, Associate, and Clinical Professors of Law (Teaching) are entitled to attend all faculty meetings designated by the dean as general business meetings.

In addition, the Faculty may, in its discretion, invite or permit others to attend and participate.

3. No action shall be taken on any item of business at a Faculty meeting unless a quorum, which shall consist of not less than one-half of the regular members of the Faculty in residence and with voting rights on the item(s) of business, is present and unless by a majority vote of those present entitled to vote and actually voting.

4. At the request of not less than three members of the Faculty present and entitled to vote, and after debate on the item, action on any item of business initially before the Faculty shall be deferred to the next meeting.

Revised April 2023

Rule 4-3 Appointments, Promotions, and the Granting of Tenure

1.Tenured and tenure-track members of the Faculty and Research Professors.

Tenured and tenure-track members of the Faculty shall be eligible to vote on recommended appointments, provided, however, that only tenured members of the Faculty shall be eligible to vote on tenure, and only tenured members of the Faculty shall be eligible to vote on reappointments of tenure-track faculty. No affirmative action shall be taken by the Faculty on any recommended appointment or on any matter affecting indefinite tenure, unless by two-thirds majority vote of those members present, eligible to vote, and actually voting. However, for members of the Faculty appointed before 2019, only a majority vote of those members present, eligible to vote, and actually voting shall be required for a matter affecting indefinite tenure.

a. Initial Appointments as Professor of Law

(1) In recommending to the Faculty initial appointments to tenure-track or tenured Professor of Law positions, the following guidelines shall ordinarily be followed by the Entry-Level Faculty Appointments and the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committees, provided, however, that the Committees may depart from these guidelines for compelling reasons:

(a) An initial appointment as Assistant Professor for a term of three years without tenure: to a candidate who when he or she commences teaching here will have fewer than three years of law school teaching experience in a tenure-track appointment.

(b) An initial appointment as Associate Professor for a term of three years without tenure: to a candidate who when he or she commences teaching here will have had at least three years of law school teaching experience in a tenure-track appointment.

(c) An initial appointment as Professor with indefinite tenure: to a candidate who when he or she commences teaching here will have had five or more years of law school teaching experience and who will have had a tenured appointment in another law school or the likelihood of gaining it shortly.

(d) The type of appointment to be recommended for a candidate who does not fall within any of the above categories shall be determined in light of his or her professorial experience and achievements.

(2) No candidate ordinarily will be recommended to the Faculty by the Entry-Level Faculty Appointments Committee or the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committee for an initial appointment to tenure-track or tenured Professor of Law positions unless that candidate has visited the Law School or most members of the Faculty have otherwise had an opportunity to meet him or her.

b. Promotions and the Granting of Tenure

(1) To provide direction and advice to a faculty member before tenure is granted, the dean shall conduct annual reviews of the faculty member, including appraisals of his or her teaching, scholarly achievement, research agenda, and other contributions to the Law School. In addition to consulting directly with the faculty member for these annual reviews, the dean shall consult with the faculty member’s mentoring committee (described in paragraph (8) below).

Ordinarily, during the first semester of the final year of an Assistant Professor’s initial appointment, a reappointment review shall be undertaken by the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committee. The review should include appraisals of the faculty member’s teaching, scholarly achievement, research agenda, and other contributions to the Law School. Although opinions of scholars outside of the Law School community may be relevant to the review, outside letters need not be solicited. After the completion of the review, the Committee shall advise the dean of its recommendation with respect to reappointment, and the dean shall take the recommendation to the Faculty for its consideration and vote. If the Faculty votes in favor of the reappointment, the dean shall inform the provost, whose approval is required for reappointment.

If the Faculty has voted not to reappoint a faculty member, the dean shall inform the faculty member, and, if requested by the faculty member, shall provide him or her with a written statement of the reasons for the decision.

(2) Upon approval by the Faculty and the provost, an Assistant Professor shall be reappointed for an additional term of three years and promoted to the rank of Associate Professor.

(3) If the dean concludes that it would be in the best interests of the Law School to pursue reappointment and promotion before the final year of an initial appointment, the dean may request consultation by the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committee, which will ordinarily seek the advice of the candidate’s mentoring committee.

(4) Ordinarily during the first semester of the penultimate year of an Associate Professor’s term, the tenured members of the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committee shall consider the Associate Professor for reappointment with indefinite tenure at the rank of Professor. (See paragraph (7) for contents of the Committee review.) After the completion of its consideration, the Committee shall advise the dean of its recommendation with respect to reappointment, and the dean shall take the recommendation to the Faculty for its consideration and vote. If the Faculty votes in favor of the reappointment, the dean shall inform the provost, whose approval is required for reappointment.

(5) If the Faculty has voted not to reappoint a faculty member, the dean shall inform the faculty member, and, if requested by the faculty member, shall provide him or her with a written statement of the reasons for the decision.

(6) With the consent of the tenure candidate and after consultation with the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committee, the dean may extend the time at which a non-tenured member of the Faculty shall be considered for reappointment with indefinite tenure. When the dean grants such an extension, the term of the member concerned shall be extended by one year. The total length of a non-tenured faculty member’s term is not to exceed seven years.

(7) A candidate shall be granted indefinite tenure only if he or she has demonstrated the qualities necessary for sustained excellence as both a teacher and a creative and productive scholar, looking to the future as well as the past. In making this decision, the Faculty may assess the quality of a candidate’s teaching on the basis of student evaluations, class visitations, and/or such other techniques it deems appropriate; it may assess the quality of a candidate’s scholarship only on the basis of his or her written work that is in a state of completion sufficient to satisfy reasonable standards of craftsmanship, and this written work must be sufficiently substantial to permit confident judgment by the Faculty in the matter. Other factors that may weigh in the decision are the extent, relevance, and significance of a candidate's contributions to legal education, law reform, public service, and the administration of justice. These standards may, however, be appropriately modified if it is intended and expected that a candidate's paramount function will be not directly to contribute to the teaching and scholarship missions of the Law School, but rather to perform in an ancillary capacity, as in the case of a head librarian; but in such a case, the granting of indefinite tenure shall not carry an entitlement to teach except and to the extent as may be specifically authorized by the tenured members of the Faculty.

(8) The dean shall appoint a mentoring committee for each tenure-track member of the Faculty for the purpose of following the progress of the member toward promotion and/or tenure and advising the tenure-track member and the dean of that progress.

(9) Except as noted in Rules 4-1.2 and 4-3.1, all tenured and tenure-track members of the Faculty shall be entitled to participate in the governance of the school on all matters.

c. Appointment as Director of the Law Library and Research Professor of Law

An appointment as Director of the Law Library and Research Professor of Law may be made by the Faculty to the person selected by the dean to administer the Law Library if his or her educational and professional background qualify him or her, in the Faculty’s judgment, to assume teaching responsibilities within the School. The incumbent shall teach courses in the curriculum on call of the dean, subject to the authority of the Curriculum Committee.

Appointment as Research Professor will be made at a rank corresponding to that appropriate for a regular professorial appointment and may be held only as long as the individual serves as director of the Law Library. The appointment shall not carry a right of indefinite tenure and shall be subject to formal review and renewal by the Faculty at five-year intervals. Such review shall be conducted by the Library Committee. At the request of the dean, the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committee may lengthen the interval for review to 10 years when the Faculty member has undergone at least one review for reappointment at the level of Research Professor.

A Research Professor shall be entitled to participate in the governance of the school as provided in Rule 4-3.2.c(6) for Professors of the Practice.

d. Appointment as Professor of Law for Untenured Dean Selected by the Provost

An appointment as Professor of Law may be made by the Faculty to the individual selected by the president and provost as Dean of the Law School. In the event this individual is not awarded tenure under Rule 4-3.1.a(1)(c), the appointment would be with all of the privileges and status of a tenured professor except that the appointment would be held only as long as the individual serves as Dean of the Law School plus three years.

2. Non-Tenure Track Faculty, Clinical Faculty, and Secondary Appointments in the Law School

a. Clinical Professor of Law

(1) Appointment to the position of Clinical Professor of Law will be made of experienced attorneys of demonstrated skill and judgment who exhibit the ability to inculcate these characteristics in others. The primary work of Clinical Professors of Law within the Law School is to contribute importantly to the teaching and service missions of the Law School. A Clinical Professor of Law will generally be expected to maintain a full teaching load and, if teaching in a real client clinic, to ensure the regular operation of that clinic as required to meet the needs of its clients. While it is not expected that a Clinical Professor of Law will contribute to the research mission of the Law School, it is expected that a Clinical Professor of Law will demonstrate intellectual engagement and leadership in their fields of expertise and make other contributions to the Law School comparable to those expected of other members of the Faculty. To provide guidance with respect to the implementation of this rule, the Faculty has adopted Policy 4-8, which addresses the meaning of the terms “excellence in clinical teaching” and “intellectual engagement and leadership” as they are used throughout this rule.

(2) An initial appointment without the presumption of renewal to the position of Clinical Professor of Law shall be considered by either the Entry-Level Faculty Appointments Committee or the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotions Committee, at the dean’s discretion. In its consideration of the appointment, the Committee shall consult with the dean and the relevant Program Director. After the completion of its consideration, the Committee shall advise the dean of its recommendation regarding the appointment, and shall take the recommendation to the Faculty for its consideration and vote. For appointments without the presumption of renewal, the Committee’s recommendation shall be based principally on its determination that the candidate has demonstrated the potential to achieve excellence in clinical teaching, its appraisal of the candidate’s potential for intellectual engagement and leadership in the candidate’s field, and its assessment of the candidate’s potential to make other important contributions to the Law School. In making its determination, the Committee shall review a curriculum vitae, any available indicia of teaching skills, written comments provided by current members of the faculty (including, without limitation, from clinical faculty members), letters of reference, and a statement from the candidate that includes, without limitation, (i) a description of the course(s) the candidate will be teaching (including (a) the professional development objectives of the course, and (b) if applicable, client service objectives, plans for case selection, and case management strategies), and (ii) a discussion of the activities in which the candidate engages, or expects to engage, that evidence intellectual engagement and leadership in the candidate’s field. Appointments and promotions of Clinical Professors of Law will be made at ranks corresponding to those used for tenured and tenure-track professorial appointments (i.e., Assistant, Associate, or Clinical Professor of Law), albeit normally without tenure eligibility while holding a clinical appointment. An appointment without the presumption of renewal will ordinarily be made for terms of three years.

(3) Ordinarily, during the first semester of the final year of a Clinical Professor of Law’s initial appointment without the presumption of renewal, a review shall be undertaken by the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotions Committee to determine whether the candidate should be reappointed to a second three-year term without the presumption of renewal. This review should take into account appraisals of the candidate’s progress with respect to the candidate’s teaching, intellectual engagement and leadership in their field, the candidate’s other contributions to the Law School, as well as a written dean’s report concerning the candidate. After completion of its consideration, the Committee shall advise the dean of its recommendation regarding the reappointment, and shall take the recommendation to the Faculty for its consideration and vote. If the Faculty has voted not to reappoint a faculty member, the dean shall inform the Faculty member, and, if requested by the faculty member, shall provide him or her with a written statement of the reasons for the decision. Under no circumstances shall a Clinical Professor of Law serve more than two appointments without the presumption of renewal before then being considered for an appointment with the presumption of renewal.

(4) Ordinarily, during the first semester of the final year of a Clinical Professor of Law’s second appointment without the presumption of renewal, a review shall be undertaken by the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotions Committee to determine if the candidate should be granted an appointment with the presumption of renewal. For a Clinical Professor of Law’s initial appointment with the presumption of renewal, the Committee’s recommendation shall be based on its determination that the candidate has demonstrated sufficient progress towards achieving excellence in clinical teaching, as well as its appraisal of the Clinical Professor of Law’s non-clinical teaching (if applicable), professional service, evidence of intellectual engagement and leadership in their field, other contributions to the Law School, as well as a written dean's report concerning the candidate. In making its determination, the Committee shall review the dean’s report, student evaluations of the course(s) taught by the candidate, written comments provided by former students in the clinical course assessing the candidate’s teaching, written comments provided by faculty members, including clinical faculty, and at least three letters of reference solicited by the Committee from persons outside Duke Law School who are familiar with, and qualified to assess, the candidate. The Committee shall also review a statement from the candidate that includes, without limitation: (i) a self-assessment of the candidate’s clinical and non-clinical (if any) teaching; (ii) an overview of the changes, if any, proposed for the clinical and non-clinical (if any) course(s) taught by the candidate; (iii) a discussion of the activities in which the candidate engages that evidence intellectual engagement and leadership in their field and how this work is expected to evolve, if at all, during the period of the reappointment; and (iv) a discussion of the other contributions to the Law School made by the candidate. The Committee may also seek the advice of the candidate’s Mentoring Committee. After completion of its review, the Committee shall advise the dean of its recommendation with respect to the candidate’s initial appointment as Clinical Professor of Law with the presumption of renewal, and shall take the matter to the Faculty for its consideration and vote. An appointment with the presumption of renewal shall ordinarily be for a term of five years.

(5) During the first semester of the final year of a Clinical Professor of Law’s initial appointment with the presumption of renewal or any subsequent renewal appointment thereafter, a reappointment review of the candidate shall be undertaken by the Professional Skills Appointments Committee. All such reappointment reviews should include appraisals of the candidate’s clinical teaching, non-clinical teaching (if applicable), professional service, evidence of intellectual engagement and leadership in the candidate’s field, the candidate’s other contributions to the Law School, as well as a written dean’s report concerning the candidate. In making its determination, the Committee shall not ordinarily be expected to receive or consider written comments from former students or letters of reference (whether from other members of the faculty or from persons outside the Law School). Unless there is good cause for non-reappointment, it is presumed that the Committee shall recommend that a Clinical Professor of Law holding an appointment with the presumption of renewal be reappointed when considered for any renewal term. Good cause for non-reappointment is defined as (i) substantial evidence that the candidate (a) has failed to demonstrate sustained excellence in the candidate’s clinical teaching and sustained intellectual engagement and leadership in their field, as well as in the candidate’s other service to the Law School, (b) in the case of a Clinical Professor of Law teaching in a real client clinic, has not provided high quality supervision with respect to the legal work of the candidate’s clinic, or (c) otherwise failed to meet high standards of competence and professionalism; (ii) the termination or material modification of the entire clinical program; or (iii) the termination or material modification of the clinic in which the Clinical Professor of Law teaches. After the completion of the review, the Committee shall advise the dean of its recommendation with respect to reappointment, and shall take the matter to the Faculty for its consideration and vote.

(6) Any clinical instructor holding an appointment under Rule 4-3.2.b (i.e., as an Assistant, Associate, or Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching)) while also serving as the director of a clinic, and any legal writing instructor holding such an appointment while also serving as the Director of Legal Writing, shall be presumed to be eligible for consideration for an appointment as a Clinical Professor of Law under Rule 4-3.2.a (i.e., as an Assistant, Associate, or Clinical Professor of Law, either with or without the presumption of renewal, as appropriate) within three years of their initial appointment under Rule 4-3.2.b. Any clinical, professional skills, or legal writing instructor who is not also serving as the director of a clinic or as the Director of Legal Writing, but who holds an appointment as an Assistant, Associate, or Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching) pursuant to Rule 4-3.2.b, may be considered for appointment as a Clinical Professor of Law under Rule 4-3.2.a at any time at the discretion of the dean. For the avoidance of doubt, any faculty member initially holding an appointment under Rule 4-3.2.b (i.e., Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching)) who is subsequently appointed to a renewal term under Rule 4-3.2.a (i.e., Clinical Professor of Law) shall ordinarily be appointed at the rank and with the security of position, including, without limitation, the presumption of renewal, as would have been the case had the faculty member been reappointed under Rule 4-3.2.b.

(7) To provide direction and advice to a Clinical Professor of Law, the dean shall conduct an annual review of the faculty member, including appraisals of the Clinical Professor of Law’s teaching, professional service, evidence of intellectual engagement and leadership in their field, and other contributions to the Law School. Additionally, to provide direction and advice to a Clinical Professor of Law in advance of the Committee’s consideration of the Clinical Professor of Law for an initial appointment with the presumption of renewal, the dean shall generally appoint a mentoring committee to work with the Clinical Professor of Law (as described in paragraph (8) below). In addition to consulting directly with the faculty member for these annual reviews, the dean shall consult with the Clinical Professor of Law’s mentoring committee while it is constituted.

(8) Unless the dean, the candidate, and the relevant Program Director determine that it is unnecessary, the dean shall appoint a mentoring committee to work with a Clinical Professor of Law during the term(s) of the Clinical Professor of Law’s appointment without the presumption of renewal. The mentoring committee shall follow the progress of the Clinical Professor of Law toward promotion and advise the faculty member and the dean of that progress. The mentoring committee shall include at least the relevant Program Director, one other Clinical Professor of Law and one tenured or tenure-track member of the faculty, preferably one who is knowledgeable about the Clinical Professor of Law’s field.

(9) Except as noted in Rule 4-1.2, Assistant, Associate, and Clinical Professors of Law shall be entitled to participate in the governance of the school on all matters other than voting on tenure and the appointment and reappointment of tenure-track Faculty; provided, however, that only Clinical Professors of Law who have an appointment with the presumption of renewal shall be eligible to vote on the reappointment of Clinical Professors of Law and Professors of the Practice.

b. Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching)

(1) Appointment to the position of Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching) will be made of experienced attorneys of demonstrated skill and judgment who exhibit the ability to inculcate these characteristics in others through excellence in clinical teaching. The primary work of Clinical Professors of Law (Teaching) within the Law School is to contribute importantly to the teaching mission of the Law School, particularly within the Law School’s Legal Writing, Clinical, and Professional Skills programs. A Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching) will generally be expected to maintain a full teaching load and, if teaching in a real client clinic, to ensure the regular operation of that clinic as required to meet the needs of its clients. To provide guidance with respect to the implementation of this rule, the Faculty has adopted Policy 4-8, which addresses the meaning of the term “excellence in clinical teaching” as it is used throughout this rule.

(2) An initial appointment without the presumption of renewal to the position of Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching) shall be considered by the Professional Skills Appointments Committee. Such initial appointment shall typically be considered after two, one-year appointments as either a Lecturing Fellow or Senior Lecturing Fellow, as appropriate. In its consideration of the appointment, the Committee shall consult with the dean and the relevant Program Director. After the completion of its consideration, the Committee shall advise the dean of its recommendation regarding the appointment. At the request of the Committee, the dean shall consult with the Committee on any specific decision on renewal. The Committee may refer any decision on renewal to the Governing Faculty for its final action. For appointments without the presumption of renewal, the Committee’s recommendation shall be based principally on its determination that the candidate has demonstrated the potential for excellence in clinical teaching. In making its determination, the Committee shall review a curriculum vitae, any available indicia of teaching skills, written comments from the relevant Program Director, written comments provided by current members of the faculty (including, without limitation, from clinical, legal writing, and professional skills faculty members), and a statement from the candidate that includes, without limitation, a description of the course(s) the candidate will be teaching (including (a) the professional development objectives of the course, and (b) if applicable, client service objectives, plans for case selection, and case management strategies). Appointments of Clinical Professors of Law (Teaching) will be made at ranks corresponding to those used for tenured and tenure-track professorial appointments (i.e., Assistant, Associate, and Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching)), albeit normally without tenure eligibility while holding a clinical appointment. An appointment without the presumption of renewal will ordinarily be made for terms of three years. Under no circumstances shall a candidate for Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching) serve more than four one-year appointments as Lecturing Fellow or Senior Lecturing Fellow before then being considered for an appointment without the presumption of renewal.

(3) Ordinarily, during the first semester of the first year of a Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching)’s initial appointment without the presumption of renewal, a review shall be undertaken by the Professional Skills Appointments Committee to determine whether the candidate should be reappointed to a second three-year term without the presumption of renewal. This review should take into account appraisals of the candidate’s progress with respect to the candidate’s teaching, the candidate’s other contributions to the Law School, as well as a written dean’s report concerning the candidate. After the completion of its consideration, the Committee shall advise the dean of its recommendation regarding the reappointment, and shall take the recommendation to the Faculty for its consideration and vote. If the Faculty has voted not to reappoint the candidate, the dean shall inform the candidate, and, if requested by the candidate, shall provide him or her with a written statement of the reasons for the decision. Under no circumstances shall a Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching) serve more than two appointments without the presumption of renewal before then being considered for an appointment with the presumption of renewal.

(4) Ordinarily, during the first semester of the first year of a Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching)’s second appointment without the presumption of renewal, a review shall be undertaken by the Professional Skills Appointments Committee to determine if the candidate should be granted an appointment with the presumption of renewal. For a Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching)’s initial appointment with the presumption of renewal, the Committee’s recommendation shall be based on its determination that the candidate has demonstrated sufficient progress towards achieving excellence in clinical teaching, as well as its appraisal of the candidate’s non-clinical teaching (if applicable), professional service, other contributions to the Law School, and a written dean's report concerning the candidate. In making its determination, the Committee shall review the dean’s report, student evaluations of the course(s) taught by the candidate, written comments provided by former students assessing the candidate’s teaching, written comments provided by faculty members, including clinical faculty, and at least two letters of reference solicited by the Committee from persons outside Duke Law School who are familiar with, and qualified to assess, the candidate. The Committee shall also review a statement from the candidate that includes, without limitation: (a) a self-assessment of the candidate’s clinical and non-clinical (if any) teaching; (b) an overview of the changes, if any, proposed for the clinical and non-clinical (if any) course(s) taught by the candidate; and (c) a discussion of the other contributions to the Law School made by the candidate. After completion of its review, the Committee shall advise the dean of its recommendation with respect to the candidate’s initial appointment as Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching) with the presumption of renewal, and shall take the matter to the Faculty for its consideration and vote. An appointment with the presumption of renewal shall ordinarily be for a term of five years.

(5) During the first semester of the final year of any of a Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching)’s initial appointment with the presumption of renewal or any subsequent renewal appointment thereafter, a reappointment review of the candidate shall be undertaken by the Professional Skills Appointments Committee. All such reappointment reviews should include appraisals of the candidate’s clinical teaching, non-clinical teaching (if applicable), professional service, the candidate’s other contributions to the Law School, as well as a written dean’s report concerning the candidate. In making its determination, the Committee shall not ordinarily be expected to receive or consider written comments from former students or letters of reference (whether from other members of the faculty or from persons outside the Law School). Unless there is good cause for non-reappointment, it is presumed that the Committee shall recommend that a Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching) holding an appointment with the presumption of renewal be reappointed when considered for any renewal term. Good cause for non-reappointment is defined as (a) substantial evidence that the candidate (i) has failed to demonstrate sustained excellence in the candidate’s clinical teaching, as well as in the candidate’s other service to the Law School, (ii) in the case of a Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching) teaching in a real client clinic, has not provided high quality supervision with respect to the legal work of the candidate’s clinic, or (iii) otherwise failed to meet high standards of competence and professionalism; (b) the termination or material modification of the entire clinical, legal writing or professional skills program; or (c) the termination or material modification of the particular program or course in which the Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching) teaches. After the completion of the review, the Committee shall advise the dean of its recommendation with respect to reappointment, and shall take the matter to the Faculty for its consideration and vote.

(6) To provide direction and advice to an Assistant, Associate, or Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching), the relevant Program Director shall conduct an annual review of all such faculty members, including appraisals of each such faculty member’s teaching, professional service, and other contributions to the Law School and provide a report to the dean.

(7) Assistant, Associate, and Clinical Professors of Law (Teaching) shall be encouraged to participate fully in the mission and life of the Law School and eligible to serve on committees and attend all faculty meetings designated by the dean as general business faculty meetings.

c. Professor of the Practice of Law

(1) Appointment to the position of Professor of the Practice of Law at the rank appropriate for a regular professorial appointment may be made for individuals with distinguished legal practice experience who carry a full teaching load and whose professional activities outside teaching focus on relevant areas of practice without the usual expectations of scholarship. An exception to the requirement of a full-time teaching load may be made for those holding a joint appointment at a comparable rank in another school within the University. An initial appointment shall ordinarily be for a period of three years.

(2) An initial appointment to the position of Professor of the Practice of Law shall be considered by either the Entry-Level Faculty Appointments Committee or the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committee, at the dean’s discretion. After the completion of its consideration, the Committee shall advise the dean of its recommendation regarding the appointment, and the Dean shall take the recommendation to the Faculty for its consideration and vote. For initial appointments, the Committee shall review a curriculum vitae, student evaluations and other indicia of teaching skills, a representative sample of the candidate's publications, if any, and letters of reference.

(3) Appointments are for the initial term only unless the dean recommends renewal. If the dean wishes to renew the appointment of a Professor of the Practice of Law, the dean shall notify the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committee and the Governing Faculty that a review has been commenced, and shall solicit comments. All such comments shall be incorporated in a written dean’s report, which shall be submitted to the Committee for consideration in its review of the renewal. After the completion of the review, the Committee shall advise the dean of its recommendation with respect to reappointment, and the dean shall take the matter to the Faculty for its consideration and vote.

(4) In conducting the review of any proposed renewal, the dean and the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committee shall generally follow the procedures for the review of tenure track faculty, and shall also meet the requirements of the University review applicable to such appointments.

(5) The procedures for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor of the Practice of Law, and from Associate to full Professor of the Practice of Law, shall generally follow the procedures for the review of tenure-track faculty, and shall also meet the requirements of the University review applicable to such appointments.

(6) Except as noted in Rule 4-1.2, Professors of the Practice of Law shall be entitled to participate in the governance of the school on all matters other than voting on tenure and the appointment and reappointment of tenure-track faculty; provided, however, that only Professors of the Practice of Law who have been appointed to a renewal appointment shall be eligible to vote on the reappointment of Clinical Professors of Law and Professors of the Practice of Law.

d. Visiting Professorial Appointments

Absent exceptional circumstances, visiting appointments made for the purpose of evaluation of the candidate for possible appointment to the Faculty shall be made by the dean in consultation with the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committee, which shall identify such candidates through procedures adopted to ensure examination of the academic field or other definition of relevant alternative candidates.

e. Joint Appointments

An instructor holding a primary appointment in another division of the University may simultaneously hold a joint appointment of professorial or non-professorial rank in the Law School, provided that a candidate shall in no case be granted an indefinite term if he or she does not already have indefinite tenure in his or her primary appointment. Such an appointee shall have a standing invitation to attend faculty meetings and to participate in deliberations as a non-voting member, and shall be eligible for appointment by the dean to standing or ad hoc committees of the School.

f. Initial Appointment and Periodic Review of Other Non-tenure-track Faculty and Secondary Appointments

(1) Non tenure-track instructors may be appointed by the dean with the following titles (supplemented with descriptors– e.g., of Legal History, of Criminal Law – as appropriate):

(a) Adjunct Professor of Law (at the rank appropriate for a regular professorial appointment), for part-time instructors from outside the Law School with regular academic appointments elsewhere

(b) Lecturer in Law (with the Senior rank awarded ten years after receipt of a law degree), for law-trained library personnel teaching courses approved by the Curriculum Committee other than or in addition to legal research;

(c) Lecturing Fellow in Law (with the Senior rank awarded ten years after receipt of degree), for (i) law-trained library personnel teaching Legal Research; (ii) fixed, short-term appointments in the clinical, professional skills, or legal writing program; (iii) instructors from outside the Law.

(2) Initial appointments shall be made by the dean, and renewals will be in the dean’s discretion, with comments and recommendations solicited from the relevant Program Director and faculty committees. Except as otherwise provided, appointments and decisions on renewal will not be submitted to the full Faculty for approval. The dean shall continuously monitor the performance of non-tenure track faculty, and shall conduct a review of such instructors’ performance every three years. The periodic reviews by the dean should normally include a curriculum vitae and student evaluations or other indicia of teaching skills, as well as any other material considered relevant.

The Director of the Law Library will appoint and review the performance of the Director of Research Instruction. The Director of Research Instruction will review the teaching performance of librarians who instruct in legal research under the supervision of the Director of the Law Library. Instructors in the First-Year Writing Program will be reviewed by the Director of Legal Writing, under the supervision of the dean.

Instructors in the clinical programs supervised by the directors or team leaders shall be reviewed by the relevant Program Director under the supervision of the dean.

Judges and practitioners in special team-taught courses such as Legal Ethics and Appellate Practice shall be selected by, and may be reappointed by, the faculty member in charge of each program after consultation with the dean.

Language instructors shall be selected by, and may be reappointed by the dean upon the advice of the Dean for International Studies.

(3) If the dean wishes to submit for consideration a proposal for a new course to be taught by a new instructor, the course proposal as well as the proposed instructor’s qualifications to teach the course should be reviewed by the Curriculum Committee. If the dean recommends the renewal of the appointment of a new instructor teaching a new course after the first year in which it is taught, the Curriculum Committee should conduct a review of the course before the dean renews the instructor’s contract. The review should include a curriculum vitae, student evaluations or other indicia of teaching skills and a brief report of the dean.

(4) Secondary Appointments from other Departments at Duke University or Other Universities

(a) Proposals for initial secondary appointments shall be reviewed by the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committee. After the completion of its review, the Committee shall forward any positive recommendation to the dean, who shall then prepare a brief report to the Governing Faculty for its consideration and vote. If the Faculty votes in favor of the appointment, the dean shall inform the provost, whose approval is required for appointment. An initial appointment shall ordinarily be made for a period of three years. Subsequent reappointments may be for three years or for a longer term. To provide guidance with respect to initial secondary appointments and reappointments, the faculty has adopted Policy 4-9.

(b) Review after a three-year initial appointment shall be conducted by the dean, and should normally include a curriculum vitae and student evaluations or other indicia of teaching skills as well as any other material considered relevant. Consideration shall also be given to the institutional contributions the faculty member in question has made to the Law School.

(c) As part of any review after the initial appointment, the dean shall notify the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committee and the Governing Faculty that a review has been commenced, and shall solicit comments. All such comments shall be incorporated in a written dean's report to accompany the decision on renewal. Except as provided in subsection (d) below, the dean may act on behalf of the Law School in renewing a secondary appointment without action of the Governing Faculty.

(d) The dean shall convey decisions on renewal to the Lateral Faculty Appointments and Promotion Committee before making them final, together with a written report, and may consult with the Committee before making those decisions final. At the request of the Committee, the dean shall consult with the Committee on any specific renewal decision. The Committee may refer any decision on renewal to the Governing Faculty for its final action.

(e) After Law School action on an appointment or renewal, the recommendation to appoint or renew shall be submitted to the dean or department chair of the faculty member’s primary department or school.

Revised April 2023

School of Medicine – Basic Sciences

Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure (AP&T) Processes for Regular Rank Faculty with Primary Appointments in Basic Science Departments

General Considerations

Appointment, promotion, and the conferring of tenure to regular rank faculty in the Basic Science departments of the School of Medicine follow the guidelines set forth by the Office of the Provost. Detailed guidance for this process is provided by the Duke University Office of Faculty Affairs Administration.

The time from the initial appointment as an Assistant Professor, tenure track, until a decision to, or not to, award tenure is seven years (Tenure Clock). In accordance with university bylaws, if the candidate is not notified of a decision regarding tenure by the end of their seventh year, then tenure is granted by default.

The faculty member and the department chair should also agree on any extension of time-to-tenure (Tenure Clock) for reason of family leave, disability, or part-time or flexible-time employment arrangements, in accordance with university policy. Tenure Clock extension requests should be submitted in writing to the Dean, School of Medicine at, or close to, the time the need arises.

For all new hires, a national search must be conducted unless a waiver of the national search requirement is approved by the Dean, School of Medicine.

New appointments: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor (tenure track, without tenure) 

Criteria

The candidate must have an outstanding research record in their field commensurate with their rank.

The candidate must have the potential to develop an outstanding independent research program, obtain appropriate extramural funding, and become an excellent teacher and mentor.

Procedures

The candidate will submit all relevant documents including (1) curriculum vitae, (2) statement of research and teaching contributions, (3) copies of scholarly publications, (4) description of research funding, and (5) list of suggested reviewers. A complete list of requirements is posted on the provost’s AP&T website, https://facultyaffairs.provost.duke.edu/apt.

A minimum of three letters of recommendation for the level of Assistant Professor and six letters of recommendation for the level of Associate Professor must be obtained. These letters should indicate that the candidate is truly outstanding and provide documentation for this assertion.

A vote of all faculty in the department of rank equal to or higher than the rank sought by the candidate must be conducted and a tabulation retained of the vote. To be valid, a quorum is required, defined as a majority of eligible voting faculty of the department. A majority of these faculty eligible to vote must approve the appointment. The names of the faculty members present and voting along with a numerical tally of the vote is to be included with the dossier as prescribed by the provost’s guidelines.

A letter from the department chair to the Dean, School of Medicine should summarize the search and selection process, including information about the numbers of applications received and interviews conducted. The letter should describe efforts to ensure that minorities and women were represented in the final pool and indicate how the candidate fits into the overall departmental plan.

Under special circumstances, promotion of a current faculty member from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor without tenure will be considered. The review process will be the same as for a new appointment of an Associate Professor without tenure, with the criteria and required documentation established by the reviewing parties on a case-by-case basis.  

School of Medicine Review:

New appointment recommendations for faculty candidates in the tenure track at the ranks of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor (tenure track, without tenure) will be reviewed by the Dean, School of Medicine.

The final decision shall rest with the Provost.

New appointments: Associate Professor with tenure, Professor with tenure 

Criteria

For appointments to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure, the candidate must meet or exceed criteria across all five of the following dimensions. Achievement of these criteria must be clearly addressed in both internal and external documentation.

Important and original contributions to the candidate’s field. The candidate must have a publication record that demonstrates substantial independent scholarship and important research contributions, including opening new avenues of investigation and/or new ways of tackling a fundamental question. For publications on which the candidate is not first or senior author, the candidate must clearly articulate the specific contribution(s) that the candidate has made as part of their statement of research and teaching contributions (see B.1 below).

Demonstrated success with obtaining external funding sufficient to support the research effort expected from a tenured faculty member in their specific research area, with a strong likelihood of sustained funding at that level.

A strong national/international reputation, including invited participation in major meetings in their field.

Significant contributions to teaching.

Service to the department and university, as well as participation in interdisciplinary collaborations between departments and/or schools.

The rank of Professor with tenure is reserved for those who have clearly met the criteria for tenure and have demonstrated continuous intellectual development and leadership since achieving the rank of Associate Professor with tenure.

Procedures

The department chair will appoint a department AP&T committee comprised of at least three, but preferably five, faculty members of rank equal to or higher than the rank sought by the candidate. At least one of those must be from outside the candidate’s primary department. Committee members must not be collaborators or mentors of the candidate. Committee members must be approved by the Dean, School of Medicine.

The candidate will submit all relevant documents including (1) curriculum vitae, (2) statement of research and teaching contributions, (3) copies of scholarly publications, (4) description of research funding, and (5) list of suggested outside reviewers. A complete list of requirements is posted on the provost AP&T website (https://facultyaffairs.provost.duke.edu/appointment-promotion-and-tenure/).

The candidate will present their work in a public seminar within the six months prior to final consideration of their dossier.

The department AP&T committee chair will solicit six to ten (a minimum of six) letters from individuals external to Duke University who are qualified to evaluate the candidate's scholarly contributions. At least half of these letters should be obtained from qualified individuals suggested by the evaluating faculty of the department, but not by the individual being reviewed. Letters from persons who have served as mentors or who have published jointly with the candidate may be included, but these letters shall be in addition to the six required letters.

The submitted dossier will be reviewed and discussed by the department AP&T committee at a formal committee meeting. A vote will be taken by secret ballot of committee members. The results of that vote and the names of faculty voting will be recorded. Decisions of the department AP&T committee are determined by a majority vote.

The department AP&T committee will forward a summary to the department chair regarding the candidate’s fitness for appointment to a rank with tenure, aggregate vote of the committee, and names of the faculty members who voted. Included will be the complete dossier, a written committee report describing the scholarship and impact of the candidate’s work, comments about significant publications, and statements from other units if applicable. The written evaluation should include an assessment of the candidate's teaching abilities, if possible. It should also describe the candidate’s service at their previous institution(s). Where relevant, it should discuss the candidate’s contributions to fostering an equitable and inclusive learning and research environment.

A vote of all faculty with tenure in the department of rank equal to or higher than the rank sought by the candidate must be conducted and a tabulation retained of the vote. To be valid, a quorum is required, defined as a majority of eligible voting faculty of the department. A majority of these faculty eligible to vote must approve the appointment. The names of the faculty members present and voting along with a numerical tally of the vote is to be included with the dossier as prescribed by the provost’s guidelines.

A letter from the department chair to the Dean, School of Medicine should summarize the search and selection process, including information about the numbers of applications received and interviews conducted. The letter should describe efforts to ensure that minorities and women were represented in the final pool and indicate how the candidate fits into the overall departmental plan.

School of Medicine Review

New appointment recommendations for faculty candidates at the ranks of Associate Professor with tenure and Professor with tenure will be reviewed by the Dean, School of Medicine.

The final decision shall rest with the provost.

Promotions: Associate Professor with tenure, Professor with tenure 

Criteria

For promotion to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure, the candidate must meet or exceed criteria across all five of the following dimensions. Achievement of these criteria must be clearly addressed in both internal and external documentation.

Important and original contributions to the candidate’s field. The candidate must have a publication record that demonstrates substantial independent scholarship and important research contributions, including opening new avenues of investigation and/or new ways of tackling a fundamental question. For publications on which the candidate is not first or senior author, the candidate must clearly articulate the specific contribution(s) that the candidate has made as part of their statement of research and teaching contributions (see B.5 below).  

Demonstrated success with obtaining external funding sufficient to support the research effort expected from a tenured faculty member in their specific research area, with a strong likelihood of sustained funding at that level.

A strong national/international reputation, including invited participation in major meetings in their field.

Significant contributions to teaching.

Service to the department and university, as well as participation in interdisciplinary collaborations between departments and/or schools.

The rank of Professor with tenure is reserved for those who have clearly met the criteria for tenure and have demonstrated continuous intellectual development and leadership since achieving the rank of Associate Professor with tenure.

Procedures

The department chair is responsible for ensuring that the School of Medicine requirements for formal annual faculty review are met. All faculty eligible for promotion or tenure must meet at least annually with the chair or designee to review their progress toward promotion and be advised of their standing in the department.

Any faculty member may formally request that they be considered for promotion or tenure by submitting a letter to the department chair.

The faculty candidate for promotion to a rank with tenure shall be notified by the department chair a minimum of one month in advance of a scheduled departmental AP&T committee review.

The department chair will appoint a department AP&T committee comprised of at least three, but preferably five, faculty members of rank equal to or higher than the rank sought by the candidate. At least one of those must be from outside the candidate’s primary department. Committee members must not be collaborators or mentors of the candidate. Committee members must be approved by the Dean, School of Medicine.

The candidate will submit to the department AP&T committee all relevant documents including (1) curriculum vitae, (2) statement of research and teaching contributions, (3) copies of scholarly publications, (4) description of research funding, and (5) list of suggested outside reviewers. A complete list of requirements is posted on the provost AP&T website (https://facultyaffairs.provost.duke.edu/apt).

The candidate will present their work in a public seminar within the six months prior to final consideration of their dossier.

The department AP&T committee chair will solicit six to ten (a minimum of six) letters from individuals external to Duke University who are qualified to evaluate the candidate's scholarly contributions. At least half of these letters should be obtained from qualified individuals suggested by the evaluating faculty of the department, but not by the individual being reviewed. Letters from persons who have served as mentors or who have published jointly with the candidate may be included, but these letters shall be in addition to the six required letters.

The submitted dossier will be reviewed and discussed by the department AP&T committee at a formal committee meeting. A vote will be taken by secret ballot of committee members. The results of that vote and the names of faculty voting will be recorded. Decisions of the department AP&T committee are determined by a majority vote.

The department AP&T committee will forward a summary to the department chair regarding the candidate’s fitness for promotion to a rank with tenure, aggregate vote of the committee, and names of the faculty members who voted. Included will be the complete dossier, a written committee report describing the scholarship and impact of the candidate’s work, comments about significant publications, and statements from other units. The written evaluation should include an assessment of the candidate's teaching abilities, where applicable. It should also describe service that the candidate has provided to the department, school, university or community, and discipline. Where relevant, it should discuss the candidate’s contributions to fostering an equitable and inclusive learning and research environment.

Following a positive determination by the department AP&T committee, the complete dossier will be presented to all tenured faculty within the department of rank equal to or higher than the rank sought by the candidate. A secret vote will be taken at a meeting of these faculty members and the results recorded by the department chair together with the names of those faculty members voting. To be valid, a quorum is required, defined as a majority of eligible voting faculty of the department. A majority of these faculty eligible to vote must approve the promotion. The names of the faculty members present and voting along with a numerical tally of the vote is to be included with the dossier as prescribed by the provost’s guidelines.

School of Medicine Review

In the case of a positive determination by the department, the dossier will be forwarded to the Dean, School of Medicine accompanied by a letter from the department chair detailing the qualifications of the candidate, the vote by the faculty, the names of the faculty voting, and the personal recommendation of the department chair. With a positive department recommendation and concurrence of the Dean, School of Medicine, the dossier will be submitted by the SOM AP&T Office. The SOM AP&T Office will submit the dossier to the provost AP&T Committee for consideration, accompanied by a cover letter to the provost that includes the recommendation of the Dean, School of Medicine.

If the department reaches an unfavorable decision, the Dean, School of Medicine will be informed and the dossier forwarded to the Dean, School of Medicine for review. The dossier will be accompanied by a letter from the department chair detailing the qualifications of the candidate, the vote by the faculty on the candidate's promotion, the names of the faculty voting, the rationale for the unfavorable decision, and the personal recommendation of the chair. A negative decision can be appealed by the faculty member by letter to the Dean, School of Medicine within 10 business days of notification. If the decision is reversed to a positive determination, the promotion will be advanced to the provost AP&T Committee according to the procedures for a positive department recommendation. If the decision remains negative, further appeal by the faculty member or department chair can be made to the provost.

University Review

The complete dossier is reviewed by the Provost’s Advisory Committee on Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure as detailed in the Duke University Faculty Handbook, Chapter 3, and their recommendation forwarded to the provost.

In turn, a positive recommendation of the provost, after consultation with the president, is forwarded to the Board of Trustees for their action.

The provost will communicate to the Dean, School of Medicine the final decision.

The Dean, School of Medicine will in turn notify the department chair.

The department chair, in turn, communicates the decision to the candidate.

If the provost reaches a negative decision, the provost will so notify the Dean, School of Medicine. The school will have two weeks within which it can communicate to the provost any grounds on which it feels the decision is inappropriate. An appeal should be forwarded by the department to the Dean, School of Medicine who will send the appeal to the provost, along with the Dean’s recommendation for disposition. For any individual case, the department or school is limited to one appeal of the decision by the provost.

Expectation of Privacy

All documents contained in the dossier, with the exception of the materials submitted by the candidate, are considered confidential as are the identities of all external reviewers. The total dossier is made available to those individuals officially responsible for recommendations and/or decisions on the candidate's status. These individuals include (1) the tenured department faculty of rank equal to or higher than the rank sought by the candidate, (2) the department chair, (3) the Dean, School of Medicine (4) the provost, (5) the provost's Advisory Committee on Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure, (6) the President, and (7) the Board of Trustees. All individuals participating in the appointment, promotion, and tenure process are expected to adhere to this statement regarding confidentiality.

Ad-hoc panels and/or individual additional external reviewers may be consulted by any of the above listed university administrators or faculty bodies with the expectation that the privacy and confidentiality of the dossier is protected.

Materials to be Submitted by the Department to the Provost in Support of Nominations for Faculty Appointments and Promotions with Tenure

The School of Medicine AP&T Office is responsible for administrative support of department AP&T processes. The dossier should be submitted to the designated SOM AP&T Duke Box folder. The department should retain a copy of the complete dossier in its files. The SOM AP&T Office reviews the dossier for completeness before forwarding to the Provost’s Office. Copies of the complete list of materials to be submitted by the department in support of nominations for appointments and promotions with tenure are available on the Duke University Faculty Affairs Administration Appointment, Promotion and Tenure website: https://facultyaffairs.provost.duke.edu/apt.

School of Medicine - Clinical Departments

Process for tenure track faculty with primary appointments in Clinical Departments.

*Additional Details and Specific Guidance are Available on the School of Medicine Website.

General Considerations

The School of Medicine has two promotion pathways: the Career Track and the Tenure Track. Determination of the track appropriate for the individual faculty member typically occurs after several years spent at the rank of Assistant Professor.  

The ranks of Medical Instructor and Assistant Professor are considered “undifferentiated” with respect to track.

Early career, undifferentiated faculty are considered “tenure eligible”. Understanding that some undifferentiated faculty will follow the Tenure Track, the Tenure Clock begins on the start date of employment at the rank of Assistant Professor.

Identification of the track most conducive to the faculty member’s career goals will be determined by mutual agreement of the faculty member and the Department Chair. Assignment of a promotion track (Career Track or Tenure Track) occurs at the time of promotion (or appointment) to Associate Professor.

Track assignments may be changed only with the mutual agreement of the faculty member and the Department Chair.

The time from the initial appointment as an Assistant Professor until a decision to, or not to, award tenure is ten years (Tenure Clock). In accordance with university bylaws, if the candidate in the Tenure Track is not notified of a decision regarding tenure by the end of their tenth year, then tenure is granted by default.

The faculty member and the Department Chair should also agree on any extension of time-to-tenure (Tenure Clock) for reason of family leave, disability, or part-time or flexible-time employment arrangements, in accordance with university policy. Tenure Clock extension requests should be submitted at, or close to, the time the need arises, and may be requested by any faculty member who is eligible to become tenured (Tenure Clock <10 years) regardless of whether they are currently on the Tenure Track.

Each clinical department determines the number of tenured positions for its respective faculty. These numbers are established by the chair and the dean based on financial and programmatic needs. The number of untenured tenure track positions is significantly greater than the number of tenured positions so that tenure may not be granted to all qualified faculty.

Departmental Level Review

Initiation of Review for Promotion and/or Tenure

The Department Chair (or Division Chief) is responsible for ensuring that the School of Medicine requirements for periodic faculty review are met. The requirements are posted on the School of Medicine website. All faculty eligible for promotion and / or tenure must have an annual meeting with their Chair or Chief to review their progress toward promotion.

All faculty at the rank of Assistant Professor should be formally reviewed within five (5) years of initial appointment to Assistant Professor to evaluate progression towards promotion and determine the promotion track. The review is to be conducted by a representative subcommittee or individual designated by the Department Chair in conjunction with the DAPT Committee Chair. Outside letters are not required at this level of review. The faculty member must be apprised of their standing in the department following that review, and a report of that formal review is to be included in the personnel file of the faculty member and forwarded to the DAPT Committee.

Consideration of any faculty member for promotion and/or tenure may be formally requested by the faculty member, Division Chief, or Department Chair at any time. However, a review that would confer tenure may not proceed if a tenured position is not available due to financial and programmatic considerations as determined by the Department Chair.

The tenure review process can be initiated by the Department Chair at any time. Normally the review process to determine the awarding of tenure begins no later than the start of the tenth year. This allows approximately six (6) months for departmental process and another six (6) months for disposition at the School of Medicine and university levels. It can be initiated at any time the Chair feels appropriate.

Department AP&T Committee 

All departments must have a standing (not ad hoc) Department AP&T (DAPT) Committee.

The DAPT Committee is charged with review of academic promotion and tenure decisions for all faculty of the respective department, including those on the Career Track and the Tenure Track.

The Department Chair is responsible for appointing DAPT Committee members. Members should be selected to represent the broad interests of the department. Committee membership (regular and ad hoc) should include Tenure Track and Career Track faculty, with all members at the rank of Associate Professor or full Professor. There should be sufficient representation to evaluate the contributions of faculty across the wide breadth of School of Medicine activities including education, clinical care, clinical research, data science, patient safety and care quality, and practice improvement and innovation.

A committee Chair (or Co-Chairs) shall be appointed by the Department Chair. The committee Chair will be responsible for leading and recording all discussions and votes.

The term of the committee Chair shall be up to 4 years and will be renewable at the discretion of the Department Chair.

The DAPT Committee should include at least five (5) members of the tenured faculty at the rank of Associate Professor or full Professor. In departments with fewer than five tenured faculty, all tenured faculty should be members of the DAPT Committee.

Ad hoc (non-voting) members may be involved in DAPT Committee deliberations for particular cases, if deemed appropriate and necessary.

The Department Chair cannot be a voting member of the committee but may serve as an ex officio (non-voting) member.

For departments with strong affiliations with Centers/Institutes that report directly to the dean, at least one faculty member with a joint appointment in the department and Center/Institute should be a member of the committee.

Each member must have a specified term of service of up to 5 years. Terms may be renewable at the discretion of the Department Chair, with input from the DAPT Committee Chair. Terms should be staggered to provide continuity.

The committee membership must be made known to department faculty.
 Committee composition should reflect the values of, equity diversity, and inclusion (EDI), and include representation from those underrepresented in medicine.

All committee members must engage in EDI training with content and frequency determined by the Vice Dean for EDI and approved by the dean.

Each committee must produce an annual report for the Department Chair, the Dean of the School of Medicine, and the Clinical Sciences AP&T Committee documenting the demographics, rank, track, and target date for next promotion of each faculty member in their respective department.

The committee must annually approve the Annual Faculty Conference (annual review) forms used by the department to ensure there is a uniform process to prepare faculty for promotion, and to plan for mentorship, sponsorship, and coaching for all faculty, for assessing each faculty member’s contributions to EDI, and for documenting professionalism.

The committee must have a defined and actionable plan for performance improvement of the departmental AP&T process and report annually to the Department Chair and the Vice Chairs for Faculty and EDI (or department equivalent) to address concerning trends, identified inequities, other issues, and to advance opportunities for improvement.

The committee must also conduct “outward-facing” work, in which members of the committee, or department officials familiar with the AP&T process, visit component units within or affiliated with the department (e.g., Divisions, Centers/Institutes) on a yearly basis to engage with junior and senior faculty about the AP&T process, preparation for promotion, dossiers, and mentorship.  The AP&T representatives should also regularly interview junior faculty in the departmental units to identify any concerns about equity, diversity, and fairness in the AP&T process.

Review of the AP&T Dossier

To prepare for review of the candidacy of a faculty member for promotion and/or tenure, the following documents are to be submitted by the candidate to their department:

Curriculum vitae

• Annotated bibliography of publications, selected from the curriculum vitae, felt by the candidate to be most representative of their published work.
• Roster of at least eight to ten (8-10) names of individuals qualified to evaluate the candidate's scholarly contributions.
• List of reviewers the candidate may wish not to be used.
• Intellectual Development Statement by the candidate, including what they view as their accomplishments in the various areas pertinent for promotion and a summary of future plans. This statement should highlight how the candidate’s work is aligned with Duke’s values.

A screening review of these documents will be conducted by the DAPT Committee (or designee thereof) to evaluate the readiness of the candidate for advancement. In the case of a favorable screening review, the DAPT Committee will notify the candidate of same and request letters of evaluation in preparation for a full committee review.

 For considerations at the rank of Professor (Tenure Track or Career Track) and Associate Professor with tenure, the DAPT Committee should solicit at least six (6) letters of evaluation from individuals external to Duke University of their choosing who are qualified to assess the candidate’s scholarly contributions. The DAPT Committee shall use its own discretion regarding reviewers the candidate does not wish used. (See table below).

For considerations at the rank of Associate Professor without tenure (either track) the DAPT Committee should solicit at least six (6) letters of evaluation from individuals of their choosing who are qualified to assess the candidate's scholarly contributions. At least 3 letters should be from individuals external to Duke. Up to 3 letters may be from individuals internal to Duke. The DAPT Committee shall use its own discretion regarding reviewers the candidate does not wish used. (See table below).

Table. Letters of Evaluation Requirements

The submitted dossier will be reviewed and discussed by the DAPT Committee at a formal committee meeting. A vote will then be taken by secret ballot of committee members.  Voting privileges are determined by rank of the committee member regardless of AP&T Track of the committee member. Committee members may vote on a decision to promote a faculty member to a rank at or below their own. Career Track faculty may vote on Tenure Track dossiers and vice versa if the voter’s rank is at or above the candidate’s proposed rank. The results of that vote and the names of faculty voting will be recorded by the Chair of the DAPT Committee:

All votes will be taken by secret ballot and will be recorded

Decisions of the DAPT Committee are determined by a majority vote

The DAPT Committee will forward its findings and record of the aggregate vote to the Department Chair

The DAPT Committee will then forward the complete dossier, along with a written evaluation of the candidate's fitness for promotion/tenure, the results of the secret ballot, and the names of the faculty members who voted, to the Department Chair for their consideration. That written evaluation should include a formal assessment of the candidate's clinical and teaching abilities, where applicable. It should also include service that the candidate has provided to the department, school, university or community, and discipline, beyond what is typically expected for a faculty member of their rank. If relevant, it should discuss the candidate’s contributions to fostering an equitable and inclusive learning and research environment.

For candidates being considered for a tenure appointment, the Department Chair will forward the complete dossier along with their personal recommendation to the School of Medicine Clinical Sciences AP&T Committee (CSAPT) in the following instances:

• In all cases of positive action taken by the DAPT Committee
• In all cases of final tenure evaluation (i.e., in the final year of a candidate’s Tenure Clock), regardless of the action taken by the DAPT Committee)
• In the case of a negative evaluation by the DAPT Committee, if the faculty candidate so chooses. In this instance, the candidate should be apprised of other non-tenure track opportunities, if appropriate.

The Department Chair will notify the candidate and will apprise them of the vote of the DAPT Committee and the recommendation of the Department Chair before the dossier goes forward to the CSAPT Committee.

Clinical Sciences AP&T Committee (CSAPT) for the Schools of Medicine and Nursing

Membership

The Clinical Sciences AP&T Committee shall be composed of ten (10) full tenured professors as the voting faculty.

The CSAPT Committee members will be selected by the Dean of the SOM and the Dean of the SON with notification provided to the provost from a list of approved tenured full professors, broadly representing the clinical, research and teaching faculty. Member selection will be made as vacancies occur.

Representation from the School of Medicine on the CSAPT Committee should reflect the missions of the School of Medicine, including research, clinical care and education. Committee membership must include at least one Ph.D. representative. Representation from the SON will be a tenured faculty from the school’s FGA APT committee. Committee composition should reflect the values of EDI and include representation from those underrepresented in medicine.

No department shall have more than two representatives serving at any one time. Department Chairs are ineligible to serve on the committee.

All committee members must engage in EDI training as determined by the Vice Dean for EDI and approved by the dean.

Committee Member Selection and Approval Process

The Deans of the SOM and the SON can solicit nominations from current full tenured professors, Department Chairs, Division Chiefs, and Center and Institute Directors.

The recommendations of the Dean of the SOM will be forwarded to the SOM Clinical Sciences Faculty Council (CSFC) for comment and endorsement. The recommendations of the Dean of the SON will be forwarded to the provost.

The complete approved list will then be presented to the provost for information and approval.

Once approved by the Deans and the CSFC, nominees will remain viable candidates until they are either selected or decline the invitation to serve.

If a vacancy occurs, the relevant dean will select members from the list and invite them to serve on the committee. The deans can request additional nominations from the Chairs if a sufficient number of acceptable faculty cannot be obtained.

Term

Each faculty member will serve a term of three (3) years, the terms to be staggered to ensure continuity. A member appointed for only one or two years may be reappointed by the provost for a second term of three years, at the discretion of the provost. No member shall serve for more than six consecutive years. Beyond six consecutive years, a member may be reappointed following a one-year absence from the committee.

Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee

A committee Chair shall be appointed by the dean from current and past committee members. The Chair is responsible for leading and recording all discussions and votes.

The Chair shall serve for a 2-year term.

The Chair may serve for six consecutive years as a member and an additional 2 years as Chair.

A committee Vice Chair shall be appointed by the dean from current and past committee members. The Vice Chair will function as the Chair when the Chair is absent. It is anticipated that upon the end of the current committee Chair’s appointment, the Vice Chair will become Chair. A new Vice Chair would be appointed by the dean to fulfill the succession of leadership for the committee, providing continuity and a level of knowledge about the process

Procedures of the Committee

A quorum of five (5) members is needed for all decisions.

All votes will be taken by secret ballot and will be recorded.

Decisions of the Clinical Sciences AP&T Committee are determined by a majority vote of those present.

The Chair of the CSAPT Committee is responsible for writing the summary report, including all votes and actions taken by the committee, to be forwarded to the Dean of the School of Medicine or Nursing as appropriate. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the Chair of the committee to communicate any concerns, requests for additional information, and any negative decisions to the Department Chair and/or appropriate dean as per the deliberations of the Clinical Sciences AP&T Committee.

The CSAPT Committee shall meet monthly to ensure timely processing of all requests for faculty promotion/tenure.

AP&T Process and Final Action

The School of Medicine DAPT Committees and the School of Nursing AP&T Committee propose faculty for academic appointment or promotion.

The Clinical Sciences AP&T Committee reviews the dossier of faculty being proposed for ranks with tenure and makes a recommendation to support or deny the proposed academic rank or recommend a different rank to the appropriate dean. If a department recommendation is denied, a negative decision can be appealed by the department or the candidate to the Dean of the School of Medicine or Nursing as appropriate within two weeks of receiving the dean’s decision in writing. The recommendation is reviewed by the appropriate faculty’s dean. All recommendations of the Clinical Sciences AP&T Committee are considered recommendations, advisory to the appropriate dean. It is therefore at the dean’s discretion to bring their recommendations to the Executive Committee of the Medical Center Executive Committee (MCEC).

If the dean’s review is positive, the candidate's dossier is presented to the MCEC for approval. Appeals of the dean’s decision can be made to the provost within two weeks of receiving the dean’s decision in writing.

The MCEC recommendation along with the dean’s recommendation is forwarded to the provost.

The provost makes a final recommendation and forwards positive appointment recommendations to the Board of Trustees according to existing procedures.

The Dean of the School of Medicine or Nursing shall notify the Department Chair or other appropriate individual of the decision of the MCEC and decision of the provost.

Administrative Support

The AP&T Office of the Dean of School of Medicine will provide administrative support to the CSAPT Committee. It will be responsible for assuring completeness of the files, for detailed procedures, and for working with the CSAPT Committee Chair and/or Vice Chair to ensure that all supporting documents are available and are submitted for CSAPT review and also to the MCEC and to the provost’s office for incorporation into the BOT for final approval. The AP&T Office documents and forwards all decisions by the CSAPT and MCEC to the provost for final approval before submitting to the BOT.

School of Nursing

 Faculty ranks and titles are described in the Duke University Faculty Handbook, Chapter 2.

The elaboration that follows pertains specifically to standards and practices in the Duke University School of Nursing. Three regular rank faculty appointment tracks are offered in the School:  Track I (tenured/tenure earning), Track II (non-tenure earning clinical, practice track) and Track III (non-tenure earning research) The role and criteria for each Track are provided here with additional details and specific guidance available on the School of Nursing website.

General Considerations

Determination of the track appropriate for the individual faculty member typically occurs at time of hire.  

The criteria for appointment, promotion and tenure within each track are AP&T criteria documents specific to each track. In the criteria documents, many examples are provided regarding how faculty can demonstrate that criteria are met; however, it is important to note that the examples are illustrative, not all are needed to document quality, and examples that are not listed may be used. It is important to recognize that meeting or exceeding the minimal criteria does not guarantee appointment, promotion, or tenure due to financial or programmatic constraints. An overview of each track is described below.

Faculty Tracks, Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Timepoints. 

Track I Tenured/Tenure Earning

The role of the faculty member in the Track I, a tenure earning track, is to contribute to our mission by advancing the science of nursing through research as an independent investigator, as evidenced by a program of research, scholarly publications, and extramural research funding. Advancement in Track I is determined by progressive significance and impact of the scholar’s research, which receives national or international recognition. All faculty members are expected to demonstrate excellence in teaching and progressive contributions in service.

Untenured tenure track positions are subject to renewal, and these appointments expire on June 30 unless otherwise specified.

The School of Nursing has a 10-year tenure clock. This means the time from the initial appointment in any track in our School until a decision to, or not to, award tenure is 10 years.

If tenure has not been awarded following the ninth year, a candidate for promotion will be notified by our AP&T Committee six months prior to the first day of their tenth year on the tenure track; the faculty member will be notified to submit their materials for tenure review by the first day of their tenth year. If a request for tenure review has not been initiated by a faculty member by the first day of the tenth year, the AP&T Committee will inform the dean and the respective Division Chair that the committee cannot recommend tenure, and the dean will notify the faculty member of the committee's decision.

In accordance with university bylaws, if the candidate in a tenure track is not notified of a decision regarding tenure by the end of their tenth year, then tenure is granted by default. Tenure clock extensions may be granted in extenuating circumstances as described in the Duke University Faculty Handbook.

Tenure may be granted at the time of appointment or through promotion.

Track II – Practice

The role of the faculty member in our Track II, a non-tenure earning practice track, is to contribute to our mission through scholarly practice as a clinician, educator or administrator, as evidenced by dissemination of practice and teaching innovations in scholarly venues and leadership that transforms and improves practice and education. Advancement in Track II is determined by progressive significance and impact of the faculty member’s scholarly practice, which receives national or international recognition. All faculty members are expected to demonstrate excellence in teaching and progressive contributions in service.

All faculty appointments in Track II are considered to be term appointments that expire on June 30 unless otherwise specified. Track II appointments are reviewed based on the designated term of reappointment.

Track III – Research

The role of the faculty member in our Track III, a non-tenure earning research track, is to contribute to our research mission in one of two ways, as an independent investigator or as a methodological consultant/collaborator on other DUSON faculty research programs. The faculty member’s contributions are evidenced by either an independent program of research or methodological expertise, extramural or intramural research funding, and/or scholarly publications on data-based research and research methods. Advancement in Track III is determined by progressive significance and impact of the faculty member’s program of research or methodological area, which receives national or international recognition. All faculty members are expected to demonstrate excellence in teaching and progressive contributions in service.

All faculty appointments in Track III are considered to be term appointments that expire on June 30 unless otherwise specified. Track III appointments are reviewed are reviewed based on the designated term of reappointment.

School of Nursing Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Processes

The SON AP&T Committee recommends regular rank faculty appointments and promotions at the associate professor and professor ranks in all tracks; recommends tenure actions; and conducts five-year evaluations for untenured Track I faculty members and five-year reviews for Track II and Track III professors for reappointment.

The AP&T Committee is comprised of regular rank faculty members elected by FGA from the eligible pool of members (Track I professors with tenure, associate professors with tenure, and Track II and Track III professors) each for a two-year term. The composition of the committee is six professors with tenure, four associate professors with tenure, and four Track II and Track III professors. The Chair of the committee is elected by the committee and must be a tenured professor. A Track I professor from our AP&T Committee is a member of the School of Medicine’s Clinical Sciences Committee, and a Track I committee member serves as an ex officio member of the Peer Review Committee.

Faculty may seek promotion or tenure review at any time. It is recommended that the faculty member seek guidance from mentors, their Division Chair, senior faculty and/or AP&T Committee members regarding “readiness” for promotion review given the established AP&T criteria. It is also recommended that faculty pursue professorial advancement one rank at a time (i.e., from the assistant professor rank to associate professor rank, and from the associate rank to the professor rank).

To begin the promotion or tenure review process, the faculty member should review, prepare, and submit the dossier materials indicated on the AP&T Dossier Checklist along with the Division Chair Faculty Promotion Review Sheet to the Division Chair. Once the Division Chair has reviewed the dossier and signed the checklist, the faculty member submits the full dossier and signed checklist to the Director of Faculty Affairs via email. At this point external and student letters are solicited that will be added to the dossier. For faculty candidates who transfer to the School of Nursing from another Duke school at the associate or professor rank, in most cases the AP&T Committee will review the candidate’s CV, intellectual statement, teaching evaluations, selected publications and solicit external review letters.

For Track I (tenure) AP&T reviews, at least six letters are needed from individuals external to Duke

who are qualified to write on behalf of the candidate’s contributions, with no more than two from the same institution.

For Track II (clinical) and Track III (research) AP&T reviews, a total of six letters are needed from individuals external to Duke who are qualified to write on behalf of the candidate’s contributions, with no more than two from the same institution.

APT Timeline

The process for appointment, promotion, or tenure at the associate professor and professor ranks, which includes external reviews, is usually completed within one (1) year from the time the dossier is submitted to the Faculty Affairs Office. Appointments at the assistant professor rank usually occur in less time.

School of Nursing AP&T Committee Review Process.

The School’s AP&T Committee will take action and vote on all associate professor or full professor appointment, promotion, and tenure cases that are submitted for review at a formal full committee meeting (see Figure 1. below).  Following the committee’s action, the faculty member’s dossier along with the AP&T committee’s report and vote will be forwarded to the dean for their review and recommendation.  The dean’s review is considered a separate and independent review of the dossier. For School of Nursing (SON) tenure actions, the School of Medicine (SOM) Clinical Sciences AP&T Committee serves as a second level of review (refer to School of Medicine AP&T processes within this appendix). 

Figure 1. School of Nursing Roles in AP&T Review Process

Processes by Track

A. For Track II and III promotion cases to the Associate Professor and Professor ranks and Track I promotion cases to the Associate Professor without tenure rank

The dean will review the faculty member’s dossier and the AP&T committee’s report and provide a letter of recommendation. 

With a positive AP&T Committee report and positive recommendation by the dean, the dossier will be forwarded for action by the Medical Center Executive Committee (MCEC).   

In the event the dean’s recommendation is negative, the case will not move forward, and the faculty member will be notified by the dean that the dossier will not advance.  

B.  For Track I cases at the Associate Professor with tenure and Professor with tenure ranks

1. School review:

The dean will review the faculty member’s dossier and the AP&T committee’s report and provide a letter of recommendation. 

With a positive AP&T Committee report and positive recommendation by the dean, the dossier will be forwarded for action by the SOM Clinical Sciences AP&T Committee (see next section SOM Clinical Sciences AP&T (CSAPT) review; also described in the School of Medicine AP&T processes found within this appendix).   

In the event the AP&T Committee’s report and the dean’s recommendation are negative, the case will not move forward, and the faculty member will be notified by the dean that the dossier will not advance.  

In the event the AP&T Committee’s report is positive and the dean’s recommendation is negative, the case will not move forward, and the faculty member will be notified by the dean that the dossier will not advance.  

2. SOM Clinical Sciences AP&T committee (CSAPT) review:

Please review the SOM CSAPT processes (within the Appendix).

One DUSON FGA AP&T representative is a member of CSAPT.

Following a positive action by the SOM CSAPT Committee, the dossier will be forwarded to MCEC with the DUSON AP&T Committee’s report, the dean’s recommendation, and the SOM CSAPT Committee’s recommendation.

Upon negative action by the SOM CSAPT Committee, the dossier will not advance, and the faculty member will be notified by the dean.

However, in cases of a final tenure review, the faculty member’s dossier will be forwarded to the MCEC.  

3. Medical Center Executive Committee (MCEC) level review:

Tenure actions are presented to the MCEC for review and a vote and non-tenure actions are presented to MCEC for information.

Tenure actions approved by MCEC are forwarded for final action at a Board of Trustees meeting.  

AP&T Tenure Action Appeals

As reflected in the Duke University Faculty Handbook, a faculty member may appeal a negative tenure action. The appeal must be made in writing to the provost within two weeks of the action. However, a dean’s decision on promotion from assistant to associate professor without tenure is final and is not appealable to the provost.

Faculty Track Changes

Track changes are an exception, rather than the rule, for faculty progression. These rare faculty track changes may be accomplished only with the mutual agreement of the faculty member and the dean. A faculty member should also discuss their desire to change appointment tracks with their Division Chair.

Because a change in an appointment track may have implications for the School’s resources, particularly when a change to Track I (tenure track) is considered, the dean will review all requests for track changes.

In addition, a faculty member who requests to transfer from Track II or Track III (non-tenure earning tracks) to Track I within the School will accrue time toward tenure as defined by Track I guidelines, and the tenure clock would begin on the date of the appointment to the prior track. The AP&T Committee reviews and makes recommendations for the appropriate rank for a faculty member’s track change request as outlined in the process below.

After discussion with their Division Chair, a faculty member forwards a written request to change tracks to the dean for consideration. The request will include a detailed rationale for the change in appointment tracks and the faculty member's CV and intellectual statement. If the dean supports the track change action, the dean will advise the faculty member of this support and forward the requested materials to the AP&T Committee via the Director of Faculty Affairs.

The AP&T Committee will review the request and based on the current AP&T criteria, make a recommendation for rank on the requested track and convey its recommendation to the faculty member. The faculty member can accept or decline the rank recommendation. If the faculty member accepts the AP&T Committee's recommendation, the appropriate review process will begin.

If the AP&T Committee recommends rank at the assistant professor level, a letter of support from the dean is required to effect the change in track to the assistant professor rank. If the AP&T Committee recommends a rank at the associate professor level or higher, a full external review of the dossier will be initiated. In either case, the faculty member remains in their current rank and track until the review process is completed and the change in track/status has been approved by the Board of Trustees. The faculty member will receive formal notification of the change once approved.

Reviewed April 2023
 

Trinity College of Arts and Sciences

Procedures governing appointments, reappointments, promotions, and tenure are available in Chapter 3 of the Faculty Handbook. In addition, review procedures and a description of materials required for dossiers are available on the Faculty Affairs website: https://facultyaffairs.provost.duke.edu/. For more detailed information regarding procedures in Arts and Sciences, see the handbook at:

 https://admin.trinity.duke.edu/faculty-affairs.