Policy on Faculty Work

Policy on Faculty Work

According to the IU Academic Handbook: “The academic work of Indiana University is done by individuals holding academic appointments in different classifications. Each tenured and tenure-probationary faculty member has responsibilities in the areas of teaching, research and service… Academic appointees in other classifications have responsibilities in some but not all of the three areas” (p. 63). The IU Academic Handbook and the IUPUI Supplement to the Handbook provide details on faculty ranks, rights, privileges, and obligations.

All academic appointees are required to fully meet the professional obligations of their appointments. Full-time academic appointees are expected to devote their primary professional time and energy to carrying out teaching, research and service responsibilities on behalf of Indiana University. The distribution of faculty effort depends both on the type of academic appointment (e.g., tenure-line versus non-tenure-line) as well as the particular focus of the faculty appointment (research, teaching, or service).

For tenure-line faculty, “When the University awards tenure to faculty, they in turn accept a responsibility to grow and change to meet evolving needs. Faculty members have a right to expect their colleagues to develop new competencies that keep departments and schools current. Department chairs must be able to rely on the support of all faculty when encouraging individuals to develop competencies needed for the unit's vitality” (IUPUI Supplement, p. 169). The expectation that faculty will grow and develop in order to keep the disciplines in which they work current and relevant extends to all faculty ranks, not just tenure-line faculty.

Furthermore, as the expectations and requirements of higher education evolve, faculty appointments may necessarily evolve over time. As noted in the IUPUI Faculty Council Faculty Work document with regard to initial faculty appointments, “While letters of offer must be reviewed carefully and while the university, campus, and school are each committed to honoring them, faculty must recognize that conditions of work can change. Individual faculty members should expect to contribute proportionately to program, departmental, or school norms for the faculty. In some units, research and/or teaching expectations differed when some faculty members were initially appointed. Accordingly, those faculty members should expect to accept added responsibilities that bring their overall level of contribution to the program, departmental, or school norm” (p. 5).

Among the professional obligations of their appointments, faculty are expected to meet deadlines given by the department, school and campus for all activities related to their positions, including – but not limited to – deadlines for: book orders, syllabi, final grades, PUL assessments, student course evaluations, Faculty Annual Reports, committee activities (e.g., primary, annual review, P&T).

As stated in the IU Academic Handbook’s Policy on Academic Freedom, “Academic freedom, accompanied by responsibility, attaches to all aspects of a teacher’s and librarian’s professional conduct. The teacher and librarian shall have full freedom of investigation, subject to adequate fulfillment of other academic duties.” Indiana University, including the School of Liberal Arts, “is committed to the concept of academic freedom and recognizes that such freedom, accompanied by responsibility, attaches to all aspects of a teacher’s or librarian’s professional conduct. Within this context, each person observes the regulations of the University, and maintains the right to criticize and to seek revision and reform. … Above all, he or she strives to be an effective teacher, scholar, librarian, or administrator.” As the IUPUI Faculty Work Policy summarizes, “Academic freedom ensures that faculty can pursue their scholarly interests, but only insofar as they meet their responsibilities to their unit” (p. 1).

DISTRIBUTION OF ACADEMIC EFFORT

All faculty have responsibilities in the areas of teaching, research and/or service, depending on the nature of their appointments. It is understood that any faculty member’s weekly distribution of effort is going to ebb and flow during the course of a semester and academic year as teaching, service, and research responsibilities and demands shift. Even so, over the course of their appointment, faculty effort normally falls within the following parameters.

1. Faculty Classifications

1.1. Tenure-Line Faculty
For the School, the standard distribution of effort for tenure-line faculty is forty percent (40%) research, forty percent (40%) teaching, and twenty percent (20%) service. The standard distribution of academic effort for tenure-line faculty may have some variability depending on the focus of scholarship (research, teaching, and/or service) and disciplinary expectations.

1.2. Lecturer-Line Faculty
The standard distribution of academic effort for lecturer-line faculty is eighty percent (80%) teaching and twenty percent (20%) service.

1.3. Other Faculty Lines
The school also hires a limited number of faculty in other types of faculty lines, including clinical, research, post-doctorate, and academic specialist lines. The distribution of academic effort for each of these lines is dependent on the specific appointment and is determined at the time of (re)appointment.

2. 10-month and 12-month appointments

Faculty hold either 10-month or 12-month appointments; a faculty member’s appointment length may change depending on changes in responsibilities of the faculty over time.

2.1. Start-End Dates
Faculty on 10-month appointments are paid over the 10-month period of August 1 to May 31 of each year. Faculty are expected to be available to be on campus no later than seven days prior to the first day of classes in August, and to be available to be on campus through at least the day of commencement in May or the submission of final Spring Semester grades, whichever is later.

Twelve-month appointments run from July 1 to June 30.

2.2. Vacations and Holidays
All faculty receive the following seven holidays each year: Labor Day (1 day), Thanksgiving (2 days – Thanksgiving Day and Friday after Thanksgiving), Christmas (1 day), New Years Day (1 day), MLK Day (1 day) Memorial Day (1 day). Faculty on 12­month appointments also receive Independence Day (1 day).

Faculty on 10-month appointments do not receive vacation time. Except for the holidays listed above, faculty are expected to provide full effort to their appointments, and be available for collaboration, even when classes are not in session, including during fall, winter and spring breaks.

Faculty on 12-month appointments are entitled to vacation days as outlined in the IU Academic Handbook.

2.3. Absence from Campus
Faculty are required to assure class coverage (e.g., guest speaker, on-line lecture, extended project) in the event of their absence for any reason, and must secure approval from the chair/director for any travel that may significantly impact teaching and/or service obligations. Faculty should inform their chairs/directors whenever a class session is missed due to illness or other unforeseen event.

2.4. Leaves
Indiana University allows for and supports a variety of types of leaves – including sabbatical, sick, and family medical (FMLA) leaves, among others – as described in the IU Academic Handbook. Requests for leaves of any type are typically discussed first with the department chair or program director in consultation with the Dean’s Office. The School policy on sabbatical-like leaves for senior lecturers is given in Appendix Three.

TEACHING EXPECTATIONS

For all faculty members, teaching assignments must balance the school’s need for undergraduate and graduate teaching, and give preference to coverage of courses required for majors as well as courses that meet campus general education core and school competency requirements. At times during a faculty member’s career, these needs may require adjustments in the combination of courses he or she teaches (e.g., with respect to topic, level, frequency of particular offerings, etc.)

Assigning faculty to specific courses is complex and, as noted in the IUPUI Supplement to the IU Academic Handbook, faculty have a right to “fair and equitable treatment that withstands review among peers and is within program expectations;” chairs and program directors are expected to consult with faculty with regard to their teaching preferences, but “no absolute right exists with regard to assignment or effort distribution” (p. 166). Chairs and directors, in consultation with the Associate Dean for Academic Programs and subject to the approval of the Dean, have the responsibility for creating course schedules, based on curricular requirements and student needs, as well as the authority to assign faculty to teach them, including when (terms, days, times) as well as mode (face-to-face, online, etc.).

All faculty with teaching assignments are expected to: hold regular office hours (in person or virtually, as appropriate); respond in a timely manner to students; keep current in their fields and with teaching pedagogy; develop syllabi and course requirements that meet department, school, and campus requirements; assess student learning/performance, provide students with regular feedback on their learning/performance, and submit grades and other assessments by posted due dates; and administer and reflect on student course evaluations.

When teaching is part of the faculty assignment, effectiveness is an essential criterion for evaluation and advancement. Faculty must demonstrate command of their subject matter, continuous growth in the subject field, and an ability to create and maintain instructional environments to promote student learning.

1. Teaching Loads
1.1. Tenure-Line Faculty

  • The base teaching load for tenure-line faculty is six courses per year.
  • Tenure-line faculty are expected to have an active research agenda and are therefore eligible for a one-course release per year. Once approved, this release is subject to the ongoing recommendation of the chair at the time of the faculty annual review, as well as approval by the Dean (see Research section below).
  • Tenure-line faculty who are actively involved in PhD programs in the School are
    expected to:
    • Be actively and extensively involved with the non-classroom responsibilities that are required for the mentoring and advising of PhD students, and in particular chairing and participating in dissertation committees;
    • Have active, highly productive research agendas that serve as models for, engage and, ideally, support through external grants PhD students; and
    • Regularly teach courses for students in the PhD program that require: (a) continual retooling of course material, keeping current on advances in the field, and/or highly intensive interaction with individual students in the course, such as with seminars; (b) frequently working with students in independent studies, individualized readings, etc.

Consequently, faculty who are actively involved in a school PhD program may be eligible for a 2-2 teaching load, with the recommendation of the chair at the time of the Faculty Annual Review and subject to the approval of the Dean.

1.2. Lecturer-Line Faculty

  • The base teaching load for lecturer-line faculty on ten-month contracts is eight 3-credit courses (24 credit hours) per year.

1.3. Clinical-Line Faculty

  • The teaching load for clinical-line faculty on ten-month contracts is variable depending on the appointment, but the base appointment is eight courses per year and adjusted as appropriate for the expectations of the appointment.

All reductions in teaching loads are subject to the approval of the Dean. (See section on redistribution of academic efforts.)

2. Student Evaluations

All faculty, regardless of appointment or rank, are required to administer student evaluations in every section of every class that is part of their teaching load in every term, including summer sessions. (NOTE: Independent studies and other such courses typically are not part of a faculty’s teaching load and so do not require student evaluations.)

According to school policies and guidelines, student evaluations are used to provide information to help document excellent or effective teaching, and are a necessary component of faculty annual review, annual merit salary increase recommendations, teaching award nominations, and promotion and/or tenure dossiers.

All faculty are expected to use the student evaluations approved by the Faculty Assembly. Evaluations must be administered to students by the deadline communicated to the faculty and staff for that particular term, but in any event no later than the last day of classes in the term. The results and/or analyses of the course evaluations are not to be shared with the faculty member until after grades have been submitted for that term.

Formal student evaluations, including both quantitative and qualitative feedback, are considered part of the faculty member’s personnel record and so should be handled accordingly. Section Three of the IUPUI Supplement outlines campus policy with regard to the right of faculty access to student evaluations.

3. Peer Review

As stated in the IUPUI Supplement to the IU Academic Handbook, “the concept of peer review underlies policies associated with observing and assessing faculty performance… Although each unit should develop its own practices in regard to peer review, faculty must also acknowledge the obligation of chairs/deans or their delegates to observe colleagues’ teaching activities, in both physical and online teaching environments ” (p. 167). In addition, as stated in the IUPUI P&T Guidelines, evaluation by peers “should occur continuously across the career in the form of regular peer review of teaching, research and creative activity, and service” (2014-15, p. 25).

Peer review of teaching is primarily a formative activity to facilitate ongoing reflection on and development of skill in teaching throughout one’s teaching career. Therefore, there is often no rank requirement with regard to who provides a teaching review, even for the purposes of P&T (see IUPUI P&T Guidelines, 2014-15, p. 18). However, there are times when summative peer reviews are needed, along with other indicators, to contribute to the evaluation of faculty members’ educational strategies and effectiveness as a teacher, and so in these situations peer review by faculty of the same or higher rank will be most appropriate.

The expectations for peer review, formative or summative as appropriate, are as follows:

  • Associate Faculty: at least once during the first year of appointment; at least once every two years after that.
  • Lecturers/Junior Clinical Faculty: at least once during the first year of appointment; at least five peer reviews for promotion dossier.
  • Senior Lecturers/Senior Clinical Faculty: at least once every three years.
  • Untenured tenure-line faculty: at least once during the first year of appointment; at least four peer reviews for promotion dossier to show satisfactory teaching.
  • Tenured faculty: at least once every five years; associate professors going up for
    promotion on teaching or balanced case should have at least four peer reviews for promotion dossier.

4. Policy on Accumulated Overload Instruction

Full-time faculty of all ranks in the IU School of Liberal Arts at IUPUI regularly provide instruction, for student graduate or undergraduate credit, in excess of their standard teaching load. Such overload credit instruction is typically given in the form of individualized major or capstone course requirements, directed reading or writing courses, independent research courses, as well as M.A. thesis direction and certain types of internships.

Faculty members who have accrued 45 credit hours of such overload instruction may request to use these credit hours to replace one 3-credit hour course in their normal teaching load.

Any request for overload teaching credit should be submitted with documentation of the faculty member’s contributions and resulting outcomes (course/thesis, credit hours, section number, semester, year, student names, and short description of faculty work) and negotiated with the Department Chair prior to the finalization of the course schedule for the semester in which it may be credited.

It is expected that the Faculty Member and the Department Chair will be in regular consultation about the accumulation of overload credit, and plans for the semester in which it will be credited. Should such advance consultation not have taken place, the credit can still be authorized, but the Chair has the option of delaying the implementation of the overload teaching credit for up to one academic year.

Any overload teaching credit is subject to the approval of the Dean of the School of Liberal Arts.

5. Summer Teaching for Faculty on 10-month Appointments

Faculty on 10-month appointments are eligible to teach up to six credit hours during the summer on a separate summer appointment. Summer teaching is not guaranteed; course assignments are based on curricular need, student enrollment, and faculty expertise, and chairs/directors are responsible for the fair and appropriate assignment of summer courses. Summer teaching appointments beyond 6 credits are overloads, and so require approval by the school and the Academic Affairs Office. Salary rates for summer instruction are set by the school.

RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY

1. Tenure-Line Faculty

As stated in the IUPUI Supplement to the IU Academic Handbook, “tenured and tenure-track faculty are expected to combine teaching, research, and service at performance levels that their departmental and unit peers regard as satisfactory or better. It is assumed that tenure-related faculty members spend some time in research, appropriately balanced by teaching and service. If time spent in research will impinge on expectations of effort in the other two areas beyond what is considered normative, the faculty member must obtain the consent of the administrative officer [that is, the chair/director and the dean]. It is further assumed that faculty members' research relates to the unit's mission, documented by such measures of accountability as individual faculty annual reports (FAR)” (p. 166).

1.1. Expectations
By definition, tenure-line faculty members have a responsibility, regardless of rank, to pursue and maintain active research and/or creative activity agendas that (a) lead to the regular dissemination of peer-reviewed publications/products/activities/exhibits in venues (including print, digital, or visual) appropriate for their research/creative activity, and (b) over time lead to or maintain national and/or international recognition of their scholarship.

1.2. Course Release for Research/Creative Activity:
Research and creative activity are central to the role of tenured and tenure-track faculty members in the School. To foster this, tenure-line faculty are eligible for a one course reduction in teaching from the six course standard, upon recommendation of the department chair or program director and approval of the dean, at the time of the faculty annual review. In addition, faculty are expected to demonstrate at least satisfactory performance in teaching and service at the time of the faculty annual review to be eligible for a course release for research/creative activity.

As a School of Liberal Arts, we take a broad perspective in defining research and scholarly activity. Scholarly activity is most often associated with research, but can also encompass creative and applied activities, teaching, and extension/professional practice. Importantly, scholarly activity results in what is generally called “intellectual property,” which can be shared with, reviewed, and validated by peers and other appropriate parties beyond the university. Indicators of scholarly activity that may merit a course reduction include but are not limited to:

  • Publication of peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals, including electronic
    journals
  • Publication of research reports from supported research
  • Submission of substantive and successful grant proposals to external agencies
  • Publications of monographs and books by scholarly presses
  • Publication of peer-reviewed chapters in edited volumes
  • Publication of other scholarly and creative activity, including poems and fiction, in
    appropriate media
  • Public performances associated with scholarly work as related to a Liberal Arts
    discipline
  • Applied research products/activity/exhibits appropriately reviewed using standards established by the relevant discipline
  • Scholarly editing, digital products, or other activities/products that make original and appropriately reviewed contributions to a relevant discipline.

It is neither practicable nor appropriate to impose a strict formula to apply these criteria in judging individual faculty research for purposes of a course release. However, examples of scholarly activity that may warrant a course release might include several journal articles and/or book chapters within the previous five years, a refereed book within the previous five to seven years, or the equivalent level of appropriately reviewed products/activity – including public and applied – disseminated in outlets of appropriate quality. Tenure-line faculty who have more intensive scholarly productivity may request an additional course reduction for a particular year by requesting a ‘redistribution of academic effort,’ as described in the section below.

In some instances, such as the development of a book, progress in the form of draft chapters will serve as an indicator of significant scholarly activity; similarly, other activities like research presentations at professional meetings, the submission of grant proposals, public performances and the collection and analyses of data may also reflect significant scholarly activity during a particular year. However, although these activities are indicators of scholarly work, in order to maintain eligibility for a research release, faculty are expected to engage in research/creative activity that leads to publication or some other substantive peer- or otherwise appropriately reviewed product/activity/grant within a meaningful period of time. Chairs are asked to consider these issues and to allow course releases for research in a manner consistent with department and disciplinary standards for what constitutes ongoing research, subject to annual review and approval by the Dean of the School of Liberal Arts.

Faculty whose scholarly activity does not warrant a course reduction are still expected to meet department or program expectations for research at the time of the faculty annual review by at least showing evidence of progress on an appropriate scholarly agenda.

NOTE: Promotion and/or tenure decisions are based on a separate evaluation of overall excellence and impact on a discipline over time.

2. Non-Tenure-Line Faculty

Some non-tenure-line appointments, such as research professors and research associates, have research expectations, which are described in their letters of appointment. These faculty who do not have teaching appointments also have the responsibility to pursue and maintain active research and/or creative activity agendas that (a) lead to the regular dissemination of peer-reviewed publications/products/activities/exhibits in venues (including print, digital, or visual) appropriate for their research/creative activity, and (b) over time lead to or maintain national and/or international recognition of their scholarship
Teaching is a scholarly and dynamic endeavor that covers a broad range of activities. However, clinical and lecturer-line faculty by definition do not have research expectations. Even so, as indicated in the campus promotion and tenure guidelines, “evidence of regular and significant local/regional peer reviewed dissemination of good practice” is required for promotion to senior lecturer, and “some level of national peer-reviewed dissemination of [teaching/service] scholarship is required to document excellence” for promotion for clinical faculty. Clinical and lecture-line faculty are encouraged to pursue and disseminate the results of activities relating to teaching or service, as appropriate for their appointments, and such activity and/or products should be evaluated as part of their annual reviews and for consideration of salary increases and/or promotion where applicable.

SERVICE EXPECTATIONS

All faculty are expected to contribute 20% of their effort each year toward service to the department/program, school, campus, university, community, and/or profession (although chairs may grant tenure-eligible faculty in the first years of their appointment a lighter load, keeping in mind that promotion and tenure does require satisfactory performance in service). There are no full-time faculty appointments in the School of Liberal Arts that are exempt from service responsibilities. All full-time faculty have basic service obligations to their departments/programs, the school, and the campus. As noted in the IFC Faculty Work document, “University, campus, school, departmental, and community service responsibilities should be determined equitably among faculty members” (p. 4).

At the department/program level, all faculty are expected to attend regularly and participate in department/program meetings, serve on primary and annual review committees as assigned, and contribute to and provide leadership for other committees (e.g., graduate admissions, curriculum, awards) as appropriate. At the school/campus level, all faculty are expected to attend regularly the Faculty Assembly, serve regularly on committees (if and as appropriate for their rank/appointment), periodically hold leadership roles (e.g., chair) on school and/or campus committees, and attend at least one school/campus-level event each year: Commencement, the Celebration of Scholarship, the Graduating Student Reception, the Chancellor’s Honors Convocation and/or the Taylor Symposium. Chairs should encourage and take note of service performed and functions attended. Faculty may also provide service at the community and/or professional level as part of their service activities (e.g., serving on or chairing committees or task forces, organizing conference sessions or exhibits, peer reviewing manuscripts, writing reports or book reviews).

Service activities compensated by consulting fees or by supplemental pay are understood to be in addition to regular service activities; they may be credited as service for the purpose of tenure and promotion.

Faculty must take care not to proliferate their service activities to the detriment of their research, teaching, and normal personal life and should turn down offers beyond expected service not suitable to their interests and effectiveness.

Faculty who have service opportunities or obligations that are beyond the 20% of their effort that is part of their appointment may request a redistribution of academic effort (see below).

RECOGNIZING, REWARDING, & COMPENSATING FACULTY WORK

1. Redistribution of Academic Effort

Unless described in a letter of appointment from the dean, any redistribution of academic effort from the standards outlined above in terms of percentages of effort in teaching/research/service and/or teaching load requires the approval of the dean and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to be added to the faculty member’s personnel file that details the approved changes and includes a time table for review and renewal. (NOTE: In the case of appointments by the chair of faculty to interdepartmental appointments such as lead advisor, director of graduate studies, and department program director for which teaching load reductions are already defined by school policy, the MOU does not need the approval of the dean.)

Requests for redistribution of academic effort that is not already defined by school policy, including any changes in teaching load, must include the following: . A rationale for and a description of the project/position/activity for which the redistribution of effort is being requested.

  • An explanation of how the project/position/activity will require effort beyond that
    expected as part of the standard work distribution; include a description of the service
    currently being done that represents the 20% service commitment expected of all
    faculty.
  • A description of how and when the project/position/activity will be evaluated.
  • Description of funding amounts and sources to support any reduction in teaching load
    or research expectation.
  • Anticipated period of time for the redistribution of effort
  • Copies of the two most recent faculty annual reviews
  • Approval of the department chair or program director

Requests for redistribution of academic effort are typically submitted to the dean for approval at the time of the faculty annual review.

The Faculty Annual Review should clearly indicate any redistribution of effort and/or change in teaching/research/service load as well as include the description of the project/position/activity being done. The project/position/activity should be specifically evaluated by the chair/director in the faculty annual review.

2. Salary Policy (Updated March 6, 2015)

The School of Liberal Arts endorses merit pay as the basis for faculty salary adjustments, providing that the resulting salary structure is equitable and market-oriented. The salary adjustment categories and procedures identified below should lessen some of the problems faculty and administrators have identified, i.e., inequities within and among departments, compression between ranks, and unresponsiveness to market demands. The dean should allocate funds for all categories whenever meritorious cases for salary adjustment arise, although it should be noted that, while faculty salaries are to remain one of the highest budgetary priorities of the school, all adjustments are ultimately based on availability of funds within the school. The dean is responsible for deciding the appropriate distribution of salary adjustment sums allocated to individuals and departments. Likewise, although required to consult with faculty, the dean is ultimately responsible for final decisions on all salary adjustments. All faculty salary adjustments must fall under one of the categories, which are described below in order of priority.

2.1. Promotion Adjustment
Promotion represents special merit and should carry a substantial extra reward separate from normal considerations of merit, market, and equity, although care must be taken to ensure that any combination of the adjustments does not skew the departmental or school salary structure. Promotions should carry a salary increase of 10% of the faculty member’s base salary at the time of promotion, based on a 10-month appointment, with the following minimum amounts (including clinical lines): Professor, $8,000; Associate Professor, $6,000; Senior Lecturer, $5,000. Minimum dollar amounts should be reviewed every five years (last reviewed: 2015).

2.2. Annual Merit Adjustment
Merit will constitute the primary basis for annual salary adjustments. Merit pay must be tied to annual reviews, which are based upon the information provided in faculty annual reports, including the faculty member’s annual goals. Faculty goals should reflect the goals and requirements of the department and school, as well as the faculty member’s particular interests. Tenure-line faculty members will be assessed based upon their teaching, research, and service. Lecturers and clinical faculty will be assessed based upon on their teaching and service. In reviewing faculty annual reports, each department should adopt standards for ranking faculty performance as significantly exceeding department expectations, exceeding department expectations, meeting department expectations, performing below department expectations, or offering unsatisfactory performance. As noted in the SLA Annual Summary Review Form, each department shall determine the relative weight that teaching and service for lecturers – and teaching, research and service for tenure-line faculty – count toward the overall evaluation of the faculty member. Each year, the dean will provide departments with a pool of money for all merit adjustments. The department is responsible for distributing those funds according to department policy. The dean should make every effort to make appropriate annual adjustment allocations to the departments.

2.3. Other Adjustments

2.3.1. Market Adjustment
The School of Liberal Arts should pay competitive market salaries to recruit and retain high quality faculty. Market adjustments should be made when departments demonstrate empirically that an individual faculty member can command a higher salary elsewhere in academe. Such empirical evidence typically requires presentation of a competing offer. Market adjustments should go only to faculty members whose last two annual reviews indicate that they have exceeded department expectations as measured by departmental standards.
Faculty members who have an offer from another institution may present their request for a salary increase to their department chair, or to the director of the institute or program to which their primary responsibilities lie, who will forward the faculty member’s request to the dean, along with the formal offer from the other institution, faculty member’s c.v., last two annual reviews, and a letter either recommending or not recommending the adjustment. If an increase is granted, the adjustment can be made over a period of years.

2.3.2. Equity Adjustment
In any merit system for which no predictable adjustment pool exists, some faculty members may fall behind in salary compared to colleagues with similar career accomplishments. The SLA believes such faculty members should be offered equitable compensation with such peers.
Upon submitting salary recommendations each spring, the chair/director will notify any faculty members whose performance has been judged by their department to have exceeded department expectations and whose salary has fallen to below 90% of the average salary of all other faculty in their department in their rank. Faculty members with joint appointments should be compared with all other faculty of their rank in all of the departments or programs to which they are appointed. If a department does not have multiple faculty members in a particular rank, a faculty member in that rank may compare his or her salary to faculty in the same rank in other SLA departments with comparable salary structures.

Faculty members who wish to pursue an equity adjustment should petition their chair, or the chair or director of the department, institute or program to which their primary responsibilities lie (hereafter chair), who is responsible for reviewing the faculty member’s claims for equity adjustment based upon the department or program’s standards for ranking faculty performance. A faculty petition for equity adjustment should include a statement offering reasons for the raise, along with copies of the petitioner’s c.v. and last two annual reviews.

If the chair agrees with the faculty member that an equity adjustment is called for, the case is sent with the chair’s recommendation to the dean. If the dean and the chair agree on their findings, they will negotiate an equity adjustment for the faculty member in question.

If the chair disagrees with the faculty member that an equity adjustment is appropriate, the case is sent with the chair’s recommendation to the Faculty Enhancement Committee. The chair should also send a copy of the petition and recommendation to the dean. The Faculty Enhancement Committee will review the case and forward its recommendation to the dean, with copies forwarded to the petitioning faculty member and the chair. The dean’s decision will be based on the recommendations of both the chair and the Faculty Enhancement Committee.

If the dean approves an equity adjustment, the salary pool allocated by the dean’s office will ordinarily be responsible for 100% of the monies necessary for the raise. However, if the dean feels the equity shortfall stems from systematic undervaluation of the faculty member’s contributions over a period of years, the dean may refer the case to the Faculty Enhancement Committee. If that committee agrees with the dean’s findings, it will suggest an appropriate and reasonable distribution of the funding of the equity enhancement between department and dean’s office funds. The dean will then determine the appropriate distribution of the funding of the equity adjustment based on the Faculty Enhancement Committee’s recommendation, and in consultation with the chair. In cases of joint or adjunct appointments, all chairs or program directors involved in funding the equity adjustment will be involved in this process.

If an equity adjustment is granted, the adjustment can be made over a period of years, normally not more than three. If a petition for an equity adjustment is denied, the faculty member must wait twelve months before filing a new petition.

3. Adjunct Faculty

3.1. Description
The term “adjunct” is used by the campus to refer to three distinct types of adjunct faculty:

  • Part-time faculty (AC2 appointments) who are appointed on a semester-by-semester basis only to teach courses, and who do not hold other appointments within the IU system; in Liberal Arts, we also call them "Associate Faculty." Associate faculty adjunct appointments are governed by the policies given in the IUPUI Supplement of the IU Academic Handbook: “IUPUI Policies Concerning Adjunct Academic Appointments” (p. 67-68) http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil/committees/handbook/supplement_final.pdf
  • Full-time faculty (AC1 appointments), as well as other full-time university employees who have primary non-teaching appointments in one unit (e.g., PAE appointments, research associates), who provide supportive faculty roles in a second (adjunct) unit.
  • Individuals, either faculty at another university or those who have other professional qualifications, whose principal employments are outside the university and who have expertise beyond teaching useful for the accomplishment of the unit’s mission.

According to the IU Academic Handbook:

  • The term "adjunct" may modify titles in any appointment classification, but constitute distinct appointment classifications.
  • The qualification "adjunct" is appropriate for teaching appointments of individuals, whether compensated or volunteer, whose career paths lie primarily in another position or employment. That is, the appointment is "adjunct" ("auxiliary") to the career of the appointee as well as to the faculty of the unit.
  • Adjunct appointments are appropriate for individuals who have expertise useful for the accomplishment of the unit's mission where that expertise is not available in the unit's regular faculty.
  • Adjunct appointments are non-probationary appointments.
  • Adjunct appointees do not participate in faculty governance in the unit in which adjunct appointments are held. (Note, however, the following.)

Within the School of Liberal Arts, for the purposes of this policy, academic “units” are defined as “departments.” Consequently, adjunct faculty do not have voting privileges within departments to which they have adjunct appointments. However, faculty who have adjunct
appointments within independent programs (i.e., programs not housed in departments) in the School are afforded the same voting privileges in faculty governance that they otherwise hold within their primary appointment.

  • Faculty who are voting members of a department in the school retain the same voting privileges with programs in the school for which they hold adjunct appointments.
  • Faculty who are voting members of a department in another IU school may be granted the same voting privileges within a school program as Liberal Arts Faculty, upon approval by the majority of the Liberal Arts faculty with an appointment in the program. (For example, a faculty member in the IU School of Education may be appointed by the Dean as an adjunct faculty member of the Native American Studies Program and be granted the right to vote on issues related to program curriculum and program policies.)
  • Part-time “associate faculty” as well as adjuncts who have their primary appointments off campus have no voting privileges within departments and so have no voting privileges within programs.

Typically, school faculty with adjunct appointments still retain their full responsibilities for teaching, service, and research (as appropriate) within their home departments, unless otherwise negotiated with a Memorandum of Understanding. In situations where MOUs are drafted, it should be considered whether a joint appointment is more appropriate.

The School P&T Guidelines provide additional guidance with regard to adjunct appointments for faculty who are seeking promotion and/or tenure.

3.2. Adjunct Appointments

The request for an adjunct appointment for a full-time IU employee to a department or program must include:

  • A nomination letter to the Dean by the chair/director of the unit to which the candidate is being appointed describing the professional interests and expertise of the individual that relates to the mission of the department or program as well as expected involvement of the adjunct faculty member; the letter should be copied to the head of the unit where the candidate has his/her primary appointment.
  • Indication of faculty approval in the department or program; some departments have procedures in their by-laws that require faculty vote on the offering of adjunct status in the department.
  • A CV. It is recommended that adjunct appointments to departments and programs be reviewed every three years to evaluate whether the adjunct appointment should be maintained.

Passed by the Faculty Assembly by electronic ballot on December 12, 2014

APPENDIX 1

IUPUI Civility Statement

The IUPUI community has dedicated itself to creating an environment where each individual is valued and can succeed. Our institutional ethic compels us to foster the best possible environment for doing our work as educators, learners, and supporters of the educational process. When our members are prevented from doing their best, the entire community is diminished. Our commitment to be a diverse and inclusive campus relies on all community members to do their part. While no set of rules or policies can wholly govern human conduct, civility requires respect and a thoughtful and careful balancing of differing points of view.

As members of an institution of higher learning, we must periodically reaffirm the fundamental ethics and values that form the framework for our university. This means fostering a climate of acceptance, mutual respect, academic freedom, and civil discourse. Civil discourse is a form of dialogue that acknowledges and gives voice to one another’s ideas, experiences, and beliefs. Civility and respect should be extended to all persons regardless of their role, status, or social identity. We encourage everyone to speak and act thoughtfully and judiciously and with respect for one another. We may not always agree with one another, but when we disagree, we are called to respond with civility.

Reference Code of Student Conduct -http://www.indiana.edu/~code/ and the International Learning Guidelines

Reference the policy on Academic Freedom http://policies.iu.edu/policies/categories/academic­faculty-students/conditions-academic-employment/Academic-Freedom.shtml.

Reference Principles of Ethical Conduct http://principles.iu.edu/

Endorsements:

Equal Opportunity Council – endorsement December 5, 2013
Faculty Council Executive Committee – present/review January 23, 2014
Faculty Council Executive Committee – endorsement December 18, 2014
Faculty Council – endorsement January 6, 2015
Women’s Advisory Council – endorsement February 24, 2014
Common Theme Committee – endorsement April 2, 2014
Staff Council – present/review June 18, 2014
Staff Council – endorsement January 21, 2015
Staff Council Executive Committee – endorsement December 10, 2014

Final Rev. February 4, 2015