Approved:  February 19, 2010

Amended:  April 19, 2001 (Classics)

Amended:  October 26, 2001 (Religion)

Amended:  November 16, 2001 (Philosophy)

Amended: March 29, 2013

SECTION 1.  INTRODUCTION

The Departments of Religion, Philosophy, and Classics consist of three component departments that are affiliated for administrative purposes.  Except as noted in these Bylaws, for non-administrative purposes each component department retains its individual identity.

In these Bylaws “the department” and “DRPC” refer to the combined Departments of Religion, Philosophy, and Classics, which is a single “department” pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA); “component department” refers to the full-time faculty in either Religion, or Philosophy, or Classics.

SECTION II.  DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURES 

A.  Membership.  All full-time faculty members with primary appointments in the Departments of Religion, Philosophy, and Classics are voting members of the DPRC faculty, with the exception of the Department Chair and other administrators with the rank of chair or higher.  All references to “the faculty,” “the DPRC faculty,” “the department,” “the department faculty” and “DRPC” in these bylaws exclude the Chair

B.  Meetings and Agendas. The Chair will call at least one meeting of the DRPC faculty per semester, or more often as needed to conduct business, or at the request of any member of the DRPC faculty. Prior to the meeting (typically a week) the Chair will distribute an agenda for the meeting and call for any additional agenda items from the DPRC faculty. Minutes will be kept by various DPRC faculty members on a rotating basis.

C.  Quorum.  A majority of the members of the DRPC faculty must be present to conduct official business.

D.  Voting.  Each member of the DRPC faculty will have one vote at departmental meetings. Voting will be open response unless a faculty member requests that the voting for a particular issue use secret ballots.

E.  Committees. Committee membership, unless specifically addressed elsewhere in these bylaws, shall be determined through voluntary DPRC faculty participation, where this is feasible. If voluntary participation fails to fill committee membership, then the Department Chair will assign committee memberships on a rotation basis. If there are more volunteers than needed, membership will be determined by election. 

  • The Promotion, Tenure and Retention Committee will consist of all the tenured associate and full professors among the Bargaining Unit Faculty of the DRPC as detailed in Section IV. All references to the “P & T” committee or the “Promotion and Tenure” committee in these bylaws refer to this committee. 
  • Curriculum Committees. There will be a separate curriculum committee for each component department. These committees will make recommendations regarding curricular issues, including scheduling, new courses, and program revisions. The membership of each committee will normally consist of at least three faculty members from the component department.  
  • Administrative Committees. The faculty of each component department may act as an administrative committee that may review and make recommendations concerning matters that affect their component department. 
  • Student Affairs Committee. This committee will make recommendations concerning the distribution of scholarship funds, naming outstanding graduates in each component department, and selecting alumni to be honored. Membership will consist of one DPRC faculty member from each component department..
  • Faculty Development Committee. This committee will advise the chair regarding the appointment of faculty mentors and will review applications for professional development leave when requested by the applicant to do so. The committee may review the student evaluations and teaching materials of part-time instructors and make recommendations for improvement, retention, or dismissal. The committee will consist of two tenured associate or full professors from each component department. If there are not two tenured faculty, there may be one or no members from that component department.  
  • Ad Hoc Committees. Committees to address particular tasks not covered by the above may be formed at any time. The Department Chair may appoint such committees after consulting with the faculty, or the DPRC faculty may form such committees after consulting with the Chair.

SECTION III.  ANNUAL EVALUATION OF BARGAINING UNIT FACULTY

A.  Procedures for Evaluation

The normal ranges for the weighting of faculty effort are:

 

Regular Ranges

Zusman Professor Ranges

Teaching

40%-60%

30%-50%

Scholarship

20%-50%

20%-40%

Service

10%-40%

30%-50%

After the Chair has completed annual evaluations and assigned an integer value from 0 to 4 for each individual’s teaching, scholarship, and service, percentages within the these ranges will be assigned by an algorithm that gives each individual the maximum possible overall average.

The Chair may assign a different weighting from that defined above to allow for:

  • unique work assignments that differ from those of other BUFMS,
  • discipline pursuant to Article 14 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, or
  • correction of a pattern of substandard performance extending more than one year. 

The evaluation will be conducted according to criteria specified below.

B. Criteria for Evaluation

     1. Teaching

To receive a score of 1 (Adequate) in teaching, a faculty member must

    • give evidence of basic course preparation
    • meet classes regularly, and
    • receive teaching evaluations that indicate no significant problems in the classroom.

To receive a score of 2 (Meritorious) in teaching, a faculty member must

    • give evidence of careful preparation of syllabi and tests
    • advise students effectively
    • supervise independent studies, when appropriate, and
    • receive teaching evaluations that indicate a positive learning experience in the classroom.

To receive a score of 3 (Outstanding) in teaching, a faculty member must meet the above expectations for Meritorious and

    • give evidence of significant time and attention being devoted to teaching by, for example, the development of new courses, major revisions of current courses, experimenting with a variety of new teaching methods, the utilization of a variety of media and technologies in teaching, teaching writing intensive courses, teaching research methods courses, leading field trips or teaching abroad, or performing other teaching related tasks as requested (senior theses, independent studies, Masters committees, and such), and
    • receive teaching evaluations that indicate a significant learning experience.

To receive a score of 4 (Extraordinary) in teaching, a faculty member must meet the above expectations for Outstanding and

    • receive recognition from both peers and students that demonstrate that the quality of the teaching is well beyond the normal as demonstrated by excellent performance in a variety of classes. This will typically involve receiving teaching evaluations that indicate an exceptional learning experience.

Faculty members who do not fulfill at least the requirements for Adequate will receive a score of 0 (Unsatisfactory).

Documentation of Teaching

The faculty member should submit documentation of his or her teaching. Such documentation should include such items as syllabi, handouts and other classroom materials, tests and other instruments used for assessing learning, and a description of methods and technologies used in instruction.

Teaching outside the traditional classroom setting also should be documented, including directing senior theses, leading study abroad, serving on honors and masters thesis committees, supervising independent study, and facilitating extracurricular activities that advance students’ understanding of our disciplines.

Student evaluations must be a factor in the evaluation of teaching. Untenured faculty members will be evaluated on both numerical scores and narrative comments. Tenured faculty members may submit numerical scores, but they are not required to do so. A tenured faculty member’s decision not to submit numerical scores shall not result in negative consequences. Finally, student evaluations should constitute only one factor among several in rating the faculty member's teaching.

Peer evaluation will be administered by the Promotion and Tenure Committee and must be a factor in the overall evaluation of teaching for untenured faculty (each year) and for tenured faculty (every three years). Peer evaluation will consist of review of documentation and evaluations described above. Peer evaluation may also include prearranged classroom visitation if requested by the faculty member being evaluated or if requested by the P & T committee or the Department Chair. The chair of the P & T committee will submit a written report of peer evaluations to the department chair and the faculty member under review.

Quantitative considerations, such as number of new courses offered and number of writing assignments, should factor into the evaluation process. Furthermore, peer evaluations are expected to note carefully and credit appropriately indications of quality in teaching.

2. Scholarship

To receive a score of 1 (Adequate) in scholarship, a faculty member must

    • Maintain currency in the scholarship of the professor’s own field. This currency can be demonstrated by contributing to the ongoing life of his or her discipline by attending a conference, chairing a panel, responding to a paper, submitting or publishing one or more book reviews, preparing a brief article for a reference work, submitting significant revisions to a previously submitted article, or the equivalent.

To receive a score of 2 (Meritorious) in scholarship, a faculty member must

Maintain currency in the scholarship of the professor’s own field and present evidence of serious research by at least one of the following:

      • delivering a scholarly paper at a professional meeting
      • preparing a substantial article for a reference work
      • preparing a preliminary field report
      • engaging in archaeological field work or museum work
      • submitting a significant grant application
      • publishing a non-peer-reviewed article or chapter
      • submitting an article to a peer-reviewed journal
      • submitting a chapter to a peer-reviewed book
      • submitting a substantial book proposal to an academic publisher
      • submitting a preliminary fieldwork report or museum research documentation
      • publishing a substantial review of a major work
      • editing an academic series
      • or the equivalent. 

To receive a score of 3 (Outstanding) in scholarship, a faculty member must

Maintain currency in the scholarship of the professor’s own field and demonstrate that currency by contributing to the ongoing life of his or her discipline and present evidence of sustained research by at least one of the following:

  • publishing an article in a peer-reviewed journal
  • publishing a chapter in a peer-reviewed book
  • publishing a co-authored article in a peer-reviewed journal
  • publishing a report on an archaeological project
  • obtaining a significant grant.
  • editing or co-editing a peer-reviewed book
  • revising and republishing a previously published book or textbook, or the equivalent
  • completing a significant portion of a book-length manuscript
  • supervising and conducting an excavation project
  • or the equivalent

To receive a score of 4 (Extraordinary) in scholarship, a faculty member must maintain currency in the scholarship of the professor’s own field, demonstrate that currency by contributing to the ongoing life of his or her discipline, and present evidence of comprehensive research by at least one of the following:

      • publishing a peer-reviewed academic book
      • publishing a peer-reviewed textbook in the appropriate field
      • publishing 2 or more articles in peer-reviewed academic journals
      • publishing 2 or more chapters in peer-reviewed academic books
      • or the equivalent. 

Faculty members who do not fulfill at least the requirements for Adequate will receive a score of 0 (Unsatisfactory).

Documentation of Scholarship

The Departments of Religion, Philosophy, and Classics recognize that sustained and comprehensive research is the product of many years of labor. Research, writing, and revision of an article or book frequently takes more than one year. Such activity should be rewarded. A faculty member may receive credit for sustained work on a project over the course of several years, but in each successive year he or she must submit documentation of significant progress.

The faculty member should submit documentation of his or her scholarly activities. Such documentation may include evidence of work in progress, in addition to evidence of completion of the project. For example, a draft of a publication, or part of a publication, may be submitted as evidence of work in progress; a contract may be submitted to demonstrate acceptance for publication; or the publication itself may be submitted to demonstrate successful completion of the project. At the discretion of the faculty member, a completed work may count as evidence for a ranking of Meritorious or higher, either when it is accepted for publication (as demonstrated by a contract, letter of acceptance, or the equivalent, that indicates the work is to be published without further revision) or when it physically appears in print. It cannot count as evidence of completion of the project in more than one year.

3.  Service for Regular Faculty

All department members are expected to perform service.

To receive a score of 1 (Adequate) in service, a faculty member must

    • participate in service at the departmental level (or the equivalent) by attending and contributing to DPRC faculty meetings, as well as participating in departmental committees and other service as needed.

To receive a score of 2 (Meritorious) in service, a faculty member must

  • participate in service at the departmental level as specified under Adequate and
  • participate in college, university, professional or community committees, programs, or initiatives.

To receive a score of 3 (Outstanding) in service, a faculty member must

    • participate in service at the departmental level as specified under Adequate and
    • participate in college, university, professional or community committees, programs, or initiatives that demand a significant time commitment, or involve significant projects, such as reviewing manuscripts, writing popular or outreach pieces, or providing consultation services to non-academic projects. Exceptional departmental service representing comparable amounts of time and accomplishment will also merit this rating.

To receive a score of 4 (Extraordinary) in service, a faculty member must

    • participate in service at the departmental level as specified under Adequate and
    • assume a leadership role in college, university, professional or community committees, programs, or initiatives that result in major initiatives or accomplishments.

Faculty members who do not fulfill at least the requirements for Adequate will receive a score of 0 (Unsatisfactory).

4. Service for the Zusman Professor

Broad ranging service is an integral aspect of the position of the Zusman Chair of Judaic Studies. It is expected that the Zusman Professor will be active within the university and in the general community, promoting the importance of Judaic studies. Performance of the extracurricular activities of the Zusman Professor will be reflected in a reduced teaching load. The Zusman Professor will coordinate the activities of the Ryterband Symposium Committee, a collaboration of Wright State University, the University of Dayton and United Theological Seminary.

To receive a score of 1 (Adequate) in service, the Zusman Professor must

    • participate in service at the departmental level, by attending and contributing to DPRC faculty meetings, as well as participating in departmental committees and other service as needed,
    • coordinate the annual Ryterband Symposium, and
    • organize public lectures or programs at the university or in the community.
 

To receive a score of 2 (Meritorious) in service, the Zusman Professor must

    • participate in service at the departmental level as specified under Adequate,
    • coordinate the annual Ryterband Symposium,
    • organize public lectures or programs at the university or in the community,
    • participate in college, university, professional or community committees, programs, or initiatives, and
    • present at least two lectures in Judaic studies to local synagogues, churches or service organizations.

To receive a score of 3 (Outstanding) in service, a faculty member must

    • participate in service at the departmental level as specified under Adequate,
    • coordinate the annual Ryterband Symposium,
    • organize significant public lectures or programs at the university or in the community,
    • participate in college, university, professional or community committees, programs, or initiatives that demand a significant time commitment, or involve significant projects, and
    • present numerous lectures in Judaic studies to local synagogues, churches or service organizations.

To receive a score of 4 (Extraordinary) in service, a faculty member must

    • participate in service at the departmental level as specified under Adequate,
    • coordinate the annual Ryterband Symposium,
    • organize significant public lectures or programs at the university or in the community,
    • participate in college, university, professional or community committees, programs, or initiatives that demand a significant time commitment, or involve significant projects,
    • present numerous public lectures in Judaic studies to local synagogues, churches or service organizations, and
    • assume a leadership role in college, university, professional or community committees, programs, or initiatives that result in major initiatives or accomplishments in Judaic studies.

Faculty members who do not fulfill at least the requirements for Adequate will receive a score of 0 (Unsatisfactory).

Documentation of Service

The faculty member will list all service related activities and include a brief description of any committees, programs, or initiatives. This description will also note the frequency of meetings attended by the faculty member, or time devoted to the specific program or initiative, and any significant accomplishments that resulted. In determining the significance of service related activities, both quality and quantity will be considered.

SECTION IV. PROMOTION, TENURE, AND RETENTION

A.   PROCEDURES

1.  Committee Structure and Duties:

The Promotion, Tenure, and Retention Committee of the DRPC will consist of all the tenured Bargaining Unit faculty of the department at the rank of Associate Professor or higher. The chairperson of the Department is an ex officio member and may neither vote nor chair the committee The Committee fosters and evaluates faculty scholarship, teaching, and service. The Committee is responsible for setting up annual evaluation subcommittees for untenured BUFMs, upon appointment, to guide them through the promotion and tenure process, to evaluate their records and report to the full Committee. Members of the Committee vote on all tenure cases but may not vote on recommendations for promotion to a higher rank than their own. If there are not at least 4 qualified voting members, the committee chair will, in consultation with the candidate and the other committee members, invite suitable Bargaining Unit Faculty members of other departments to serve.

 

 The full committee will:

      • Provide an annual statement to each untenured BUFM and the department chair of that BUFM’s progress toward promotion and tenure, including a peer review of teaching.
      • Provide a statement to cumulative progress toward promotion to each tenured BUFM below the rank of Professor as requested by the faculty member in accordance with the CBA.
      • Evaluate each candidate’s case for promotion and/or tenure and make a recommendation to the College Promotion and Tenure committee.

2. The Promotion and Tenure Process: The purpose of these procedures is to insure a full, free, and fair hearing for each case. Any department member wishing to be considered for promotion and/or tenure shall submit his or her request in writing to the Department chair with a copy to the Chair of the Promotion, Tenure and Retention Committee following the deadlines of the CBA.

    • Upon notification by the Department chair, the chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will meet with the candidate to discuss preparing the document and other procedural issues. This meeting should occur as soon as possible, but no later than the end of Spring semester.
    • In consultation with the chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the candidate will prepare the promotion and/or tenure document according to the procedures and deadlines outlined in the CBA.

At least one week prior to any meeting, each member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will be provided with a copy of the candidate’s promotion and/or tenure file and will be given access to all relevant articles, and all supporting materials. The committee will have at least two meetings normally one week apart (but in no case less than three days apart). The first meeting will be devoted to reviewing all the elements of the case and will provide an opportunity for each committee member to express opinions. Additional meetings will be called as necessary to allow for full discussion. These additional meeting may occur as early as the following day. When the committee is ready, but not in the first meeting, a vote will be taken on whether or not to recommend promotion and/or tenure, and the shape and content of the final recommendation will be discussed. The chair of the committee will then draft a document outlining the committee's recommendation and circulate this document to committee members, providing them opportunity for suggested changes.

The committee chairperson will then prepare the final copy of the committee’s report and submit it to the Department chair, including the recorded vote, with a copy to the candidate.

B.  Criteria for Promotion

The evaluation of any professor's performance in the Wright State Departments of Religion, Philosophy and Classics is primarily a qualitative one, and like humanistic learning and the process of education itself, not easily amenable to quantitative translations. While seeking clear and rational criteria that can be mutually agreed upon, we strongly resist the urge to reduce these evaluations to numbers or to apply them in a mechanical fashion.

All committee judgments about these accomplishments will be based solely on the candidate’s promotion and tenure file, which must include all items required by the CBA. External letters will be used as supporting evidence of scholarly achievement and will assist the committee in evaluating the quality of the candidate's scholarship. Scholarly work published prior to coming to Wright State will be considered evidence to support tenure and promotion to Associate Professor as long as there is consistent evidence of sustained research and publication  while at Wright State.  For faculty hired at the level of Associate Professor or above, all prior scholarship will be given full consideration in the decision to grant tenure.

The committee must justify its conclusions with reference to the previous annual reviews of progress towards tenure.

Promotion at each rank will be according to the following criteria:

 

Assistant Professor to Associate Professor: Promotion to Associate Professor requires superior achievement in both teaching and scholarship, and at least satisfactory achievement in service. Teaching will be considered superior when there is consistent evidence of considerable time and attention being devoted to the elements of teaching, such as: course development, pedagogical technique and student tutoring, and when student and peer teaching evaluations indicate consistently significant learning experiences. In evaluating teaching, primary weight will be given to the immediately preceding three years.

Scholarship will be considered superior when there is evidence of sustained research and publication that has resulted in the publication of four or more peer-reviewed articles or chapters of demonstrated quality, or the publication of an authored and peer-reviewed book, or a combination of three published, peer-reviewed articles and other scholarship deemed an equivalent accomplishment (e.g., edited volumes, translations, major review articles). Such equivalents are not automatic and must be judged as equivalent by the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the Department Chair, and subsequent reviewers.

Service will be considered satisfactory when there is consistent involvement in the work of the department and the broader community (college, university, profession, or general public). Ordinarily, service will be minimal in the first few years but will gradually increase.

Associate Professor to Professor: Promotion to Professor requires achievements in teaching, scholarship, and service significantly beyond that required for promotion to associate. The candidate must exhibit superior performance in the three areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Superior performance in teaching is indicated by accomplishments such as consistently high student and peer evaluations, evidence of course revision and development, effective advising, and supervision of independent study projects. Superior performance inscholarship is indicated by regular and substantive publication, resulting in a significant body of work that is widely recognized as making a notable contribution to the field. In assessing the recognition of the scholarship the committee will rely on data such as the citation of the candidate’s work by other scholars, participation in national or international conferences, and the evaluation of outsider reviewers. In addition to the record of scholarship required for promotion to associate professor, the candidate is expected to publish either a peer-reviewed scholarly book or six peer-reviewed scholarly articles of demonstrated quality, or the equivalent. Superior performance in service is indicated by a record of leadership in and beyond the department. The candidate should have assumed leadership roles within the department by chairing committees and providing leadership for department projects; the candidate should also have a record of significant service to the college, the university, or the profession beyond the university.

C.  Recommendation for Tenure

Tenure shall be recommended according to the same criteria listed above for promotion to the ranks of associate professor and professor. For faculty hired at the rank of associate professor or professor, the entire body of previous scholarship will be considered in meeting these criteria.

SECTION V.  PROCEDURES FOR CONSULTATION 

A.  Faculty Appointments and Dismissals

When a search for a DPRC faculty position is authorized, a search committee will be formed. Bargaining unit faculty members in the component department (or departments) in which the appointment is anticipated will comprise a majority of the committee and will be selected by the bargaining unit faculty members in the DRPC. The search committee will assist in advertising the position, receive applications, recommend candidates for preliminary interviews and select candidates to invite for campus interviews. After interviewing the candidates the DRPC faculty will then meet to discuss and evaluate the candidates. The committee will then prepare an assessment of their suitability. The chair of the search committee will forward this assessment along with any additional recommendations of the search committee to the chair and dean.

When the dean consults with the department about the possible termination of a probationary tenure-track faculty member, the department chair will convene the department Promotion and Tenure Committee and inform them of the issues involved. The Committee will meet with the probationary faculty member to discuss the situation. The Committee will then meet for a full discussion of the reasons for dismissal or retention and vote by secret ballot on whether or not to recommend dismissal of the faculty member. The Committee will prepare a written recommendation, including both the vote and the major reasons given on each side. This recommendation will be sent to the department chair, who will forward it to the dean.

B. Chair Review and Selection

When a vacancy in the office of chair is anticipated the department will determine which of its members are willing to serve as chair, inviting each interested person to meet with the department and outline his or her vision for the department. After interviewing these candidates, the department will vote by secret ballot on which candidate or candidates to recommend to the dean. The names of the candidates and the results of the ballot will be communicated to the dean in writing.

If an external search is authorized a majority of search committee members, including at least one from each component department, will be selected from and by the DRPC Bargaining Unit Faculty.  This committee will make recommendations about job description, hiring criteria, and advertising. They will then advertise the position, receive applications, and recommend candidates for interviews. After interviewing the candidates the DPRC faculty will then meet to discuss and evaluate the candidates and prepare an assessment of their suitability. The chair of the search committee will forward this assessment along with any additional recommendations of the search committee to the dean.

All the DPRC faculty are expected to participate in the annual review of the chair conducted by the dean’s office.  

D.  Other Issues

Whenever possible, the chair will bring issues that affect the department to the faculty for discussion and recommendations, before decisions are made. The department may choose to give advice and recommendations to the chair by consensus, by vote, or by a written report.

E. Amendment of By-Laws

Any DPRC Bargaining Unit Faculty member may propose an amendment to the by-laws. The amendment will be submitted to the chair and included in the agenda for a department meeting. It will be discussed at a regular meeting and voted upon by the department’s BUFMs at a subsequent meeting. A majority vote by the bargaining unit faculty is necessary to recommend an amendment.