Department of Classics Bylaws

Approved:  April 19, 2001

1. Meetings and Committees. The department is small; under the circumstances, there are no standing committees. All discussions and actions which might reasonably be undertaken by a committee shall be the work of the entire department functioning as a Committee of the Whole. Regular and open communication among all members of the department is expected and encouraged. A meeting of the faculty may be called by the Chair at any time, or requested by any member of the department. Except for Promotion and Tenure (see below), all business of the department is initiated by and concluded by the Chair, who may seek recommendations from one or more members of the faculty as desired. Should it be necessary to vote on any issue, all tenured and tenure-track faculty shall have one vote and the majority shall prevail.


2. Procedure for Advice Regarding Naming of Chair. Should the position of Chair become vacant, any member of the faculty may call a meeting to discuss recommendations to be made to the Dean. Formal review of the Chair shall be in accordance with University and College procedures; informal review is expected to be constant.

3. Procedure for Selection of Liberal Arts Senator. The Senator to represent the department in the College of Liberal Arts Senate shall be elected by all bargaining unit faculty members in the department from among their number. No person shall be required to serve in this capacity for more than two consecutive years, although an individual may serve as Senator indefinitely, if desired by the individual and by the vote of the department.

4. Faculty status.

1. On all matters pertaining to appointment, reappointment, dismissal, promotion, and tenure of faculty, the Chair shall convene the tenured faculty of the department as a Committee of the whole to function as a Search Committee, Promotion and Tenure Committee, or any other kind of faculty committee. As necessary and appropriate, additional faculty will be added to the Committee.

2. Annual Evaluation - The annual evaluation of faculty will be done by the chair, although suggestions and recommendations by other faculty may be offered or sought.

   The criteria used shall be as follows, with attention given to the last three years as well as the year under evaluation. The standard weighting of Teaching, Scholarship, and Service is 50%, 30%, and 20% respectively. An alternate weighting for any given year, usually within ten percentage points, shall be determined by the chair in consultation with each faculty member and a written explanation given to the faculty member and placed in the file.

   1. Teaching - Multiple criteria will be used, including but not necessarily limited to, review of course syllabi, handouts, and examinations, visitation to classrooms, substantiated student comments and formal student evaluations. Consistent good teaching is essential and failure to maintain a good teaching record could have a negative effect on promotion or tenure or, in extreme cases, lead to dismissal. The ratings are defined approximately as follows:

      Unsatisfactory - students are clearly not learning what they are expected to learn because the instructor does not communicate the information effectively or at all; the syllabus is either non-existent or unclear or lacking required information; the instructor significantly deviates from the syllabus in material ways without notice; instructor inexcusably or inexplicably fails to meet classes on several occasions; formal student evaluations are poor; peer evaluations note unresolved problems or deficiencies; and student advising is nonexistent or incompetent.

      Adequate - student learning is acceptable, at a minimum [this can be determined by the contemporary or subsequent presence of the same students in other courses in the department, by student and peer evaluation, and other means]; syllabuses and handouts meet minimum requirements but are not challenging or inspiring; instructor reliably meets classes and keeps office hours; formal student evaluations indicate no serious dissatisfaction; peer evaluation reveals no serious problems; and student advising is rare but competent.

      Meritorious - student learning is fully as expected for the course; the syllabus, handouts, and examinations are generally challenging and inspiring; instructor reliably meets classes and office hours; formal student evaluations reflect learning and generally positive feedback; peer evaluation is positive; and instructor is active with students and a consistent and reliable advisor.

      Outstanding - student learning is greater than expected; syllabuses, handouts, and examinations are challenging, inspired, and creative; instructor reliably meets all classes and office hours and often meets with students beyond required times; formal student evaluations reflect considerable learning and involvement of students; peer evaluation reveals evidence of excellent teaching; and instructor is active and effective in student advising.

      Extraordinary - Specific activity and results well above "Outstanding," above; for example, students reveal on their Senior Comprehensive Reviews, or in subsequent classes, a degree and kind of knowledge generally expected only of graduate students, and it is clear that they learned it from the candidate's course(s).

   2. Scholarship - Multiple criteria will be used, including but not necessarily limited to, publication of articles or books, presentation of papers at professional meetings, demonstrated activity and new learning as a result of attendance at meetings, consultation to public or professional requesters, and in some cases development of new courses for which considerable research is required. Evidence of scholarship should reveal both broad-based knowledge and extensive knowledge of a specific area. The ratings are defined approximately as follows:

      Unsatisfactory - little or no evidence of any scholarly activity, as defined above.

      Adequate - evidence [through routine conversation and observation] that the individual maintains currency in the field through consistent reading and otherwise maintains awareness of developments in the field; attendance at meetings with considerable involvement and attention, even if informal; some specific scholarly activity on a short time scale [three years or less] which seems likely to result in a paper presentation, a published article, or significant new course development requiring scholarly research.

      Meritorious - as above, but must include, within the year under evaluation, "published" scholarship subject to peer review, such as an article, a monograph, or a significant presentation at a professional meeting.

      Outstanding - as above, but the published scholarship must be significant in the field of inquiry as demonstrated by formal reviews or reactions. The quantity of published scholarship will likely be greater than under "Meritorious" above, although quality will be the primary criterion.

      Extraordinary - Activity and results well above "Outstanding," such as the publication of a well-reviewed scholarly book or monograph or multiple peer-reviewed scholarly articles, or the equivalent.

   3. Service - Multiple criteria will be used because 'service' can take many forms and can be to the department, to the college, to the university, or to the profession. Criteria include, but are not necessarily limited to, outreach to public schools, liaison with other departments for programs or activity of joint interest (such as the preparation of certified Latin teachers), development of innovative technology for teachers, service on College and University Committees, service to professional organizations as an officer or member of a committee. In all cases, both the quality and the quantity of the accomplishments in Service shall be assessed. The ratings are defined approximately as follows:

      Unsatisfactory - Little or no evidence of any kind of service and the individual does not actively participate in departmental affairs.

      Adequate - The individual is reliably involved in the work of the department. No other service beyond departmental.

      Meritorious - In addition to being reliable and actively participating within the department, the individual undertakes new assignments and initiatives within the department or college and is an active member of one or more College or University Committees or offices, or is a member of a committee or holds office in professional organizations, or is involved with outreach programs.

      Outstanding - Individual is consistently active within the department, College, and/or University, or consistently active in one or more professional organizations, and takes initiative for new endeavors. The activity requires the expenditure of considerable effort, and significant knowledge or expertise, which is widely recognized.

      Extraordinary - Activity and results above "Outstanding," including demonstrated and recognized leadership or major accomplishment in one or more service activities.

   4. Progress toward promotion and/or tenure - The Annual Evaluation of each faculty member by the chair shall include a statement reflecting the individual's progress toward promotion to the next rank, and tenure, if applicable. This statement shall occur annually for untenured members, but may be limited to once every three years for tenured associate professors. An independent statement regarding such progress shall be produced by the department Promotion and Tenure Committee, which shall be convened for this purpose even if there is no promotion and/or tenure decision in that particular year. The committee shall be composed of at least three tenured faculty of Associate Professor rank or higher, selected by all bargaining unit faculty in the department, who shall make an effort to maintain a degree of continuity in the committee's membership.
      
      
3. Promotion and Tenure - Promotion and tenure shall be initiated in accordance with procedures of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The department Promotion and Tenure Committee shall consist of three tenured faculty members, two of whom hold the rank to which the candidate aspires, or a higher rank. If three persons thus eligible are not available from within the department, additional members shall be sought from other departments by consensus of the tenured bargaining unit faculty members. The chair of the department shall serve as a non-voting member of the Committee. The Committee shall evaluate candidates for promotion and tenure according to the following criteria:
   
   
   1. For promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure, the candidate must have demonstrated a record in Teaching over the past three years which reflects an active, effective and respected teacher and advisor. A strong record in Service is desirable, but not essential if the Teaching record is extremely strong, i.e., the candidate should show high accomplishments and activity in one of the two areas, although excellent Service cannot cancel bad teaching.

      The candidate must demonstrate ongoing productivity as a scholar, demonstrated by a minimum of four articles published in refereed journals, or one book and one article, or the equivalent. The reputation (and relevance) of the source of publication shall be an important consideration. The scholarship should be based on primary or original research and will be qualitatively assessed by the Promotion and Tenure Committee and by at least three outside scholars with appropriate expertise. Scholarly activity other than traditional publication of books and articles will be considered if it demonstrates the equivalent or greater scholarly activity and learning (e.g., certain large-scale collaborative projects, usually grant-funded). Scholarly work completed prior to the candidate's appointment at Wright State University will be considered on an equal level to work done while at this institution, but in no case shall all of the scholarship assessed be done prior to arrival at Wright State.

   2. (2) For promotion to full Professor, the candidate must continue to demonstrate the same active, effective and respected record as teacher and advisor, and an adequate record in Service. The candidate must also demonstrate additional scholarship since promotion to Associate Professor, in the form of at least one book or four articles (or equivalent, as above), evaluated for quality as above. In addition, the candidate's good reputation within the profession will be evaluated. All performance of the candidate will be assessed qualitatively by the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and scholarship and service to the profession will be assessed qualitatively by at least three qualified outside persons as well. Demonstrated leadership in Service activity can counterbalance some of the quantity or quality in Teaching and Scholarship, but candidates for full Professor must be good teachers and must have produced significant scholarship since promotion to Associate Professor, of the approximate quantity and quality described above.

   3. Evaluation of Cumulative Progress Toward Promotion and Tenure: The department promotion and tenure committee shall conduct an annual evaluation of each untenured faculty member's cumulative progress toward promotion and tenure, and an annual evaluation of the progress toward promotion for tenured faculty, unless an option of every three years is selected, in writing, by a tenured faculty member. The annual evaluation by the chair shall consider peer evaluation of teaching as well as other criteria described. Peer evaluation of teaching will be performed annually by the promotion and tenure committee for all untenured faculty. The committee will review course materials, student feedback and other available materials and, as needed, conduct classroom visitations.

5. Mentoring of New Faculty - It is the primary responsibility of the Chair to mentor new faculty, as well as to encourage and facilitate the professional development of all faculty. Much of the activity can be delegated to other members of the department as necessary or appropriate.

6. Teaching Assignments and Schedules. The assignment of courses and the scheduling of classes are the responsibility of the Chair. However, since open and regular communication is expected within the department, all members of the faculty may state their preferences or offer comments.

7. Curriculum and Academic Standards. Innovations or changes in the departmental curriculum or the academic standards of the department are recommended by the faculty as a Committee of the whole and submitted to the Chair.

8. Amendments. Changes or amendments to these Bylaws may be initiated by any tenured or tenure-track member of the departmental faculty, whereupon such changes shall be discussed and recommended or rejected by the faculty as a Committee of the whole. A majority vote shall prevail.