Skip to main content
Jaguar Logo

Provost

Select Language

3.10 Loss of Academic Tenure and Dismissal

Demonstrated incompetence or demonstrated dishonesty in teaching or research on the part of a tenured faculty member are considered adequate causes for dismissal, according to Section 5.9.1 Dismissal Procedures. Other causes for dismissal include substantial and manifest neglect of duty and conduct involving moral turpitude or otherwise grossly in violation of the ethics of the national university community. Dismissal shall "not be used to restrain faculty members in the legitimate exercise of their academic freedom or civil rights.”

3.10.1 Discipline and Dismissal of Faculty and Administrators Holding Academic Tenure

Annual performance evaluations will be conducted according to the policies in Section 3.10 of the Faculty Manual. A faculty member will be subject to abrogation of tenure or other appropriate disciplinary action if incompetency, neglect of duty, or other good cause is determined to be present.

  1. Initial Indication of Unsatisfactory Performance: Tenured faculty members whose evaluation places them below levels of performance expected in teaching or whose combined scholarly activities and service evaluation places them in the lowest overall category shall be informed in writing by their college dean that their performance is unsatisfactory.
  2. Peer Review: Every year the University Promotion and Tenure Committee will review the performance evaluations of all faculty under review for unsatisfactory performance, work in concert with the college deans in determining any needed development plans, monitor these plans, and recommend further actions to the provost.
  3. Development Plan: When a faculty member receives an evaluation of unsatisfactory performance, the University Promotion and Tenure Committee will implement a comprehensive performance review of the area of unsatisfactory performance in the context of the prior three years of If the committee members concur that the faculty member’s performance is significantly below levels expected, they may recommend to the dean that a professional development plan is in order. If the Promotion and Tenure Committee recommends a professional development plan, the following actions are applicable:
    1. The plan may be prepared by the dean of the college in consultation with the faculty within the discipline or program area and the faculty member. The dean may submit the plan for the endorsement of the Promotion and Tenure Committee and the approval of the provost. The plan shall be specific as to resolution of the professional deficiencies.
    2. The plan shall specify the amount of time to address the deficiencies. Resources will be made available to assist the faculty member to correct the deficiencies.
    3. The college dean shall monitor the tenured faculty member’s progress in meeting the conditions set forth in the plan and submit periodic progress reports to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee. If the performance is not satisfactory, the dean may recommend abrogation of tenure or other appropriate action to the provost. If progress is acceptable but performance is still not satisfactory, the committee may recommend extension of the professional development plan for up to one additional year with the approval of the provost.

In cases in which a faculty member is placed on a written development plan or directed in writing to improve performance in given respects, the following Faculty Development Plans and Principles (1998) shall guide the process:

  1. The plan shall state the general expectations regarding the faculty member’s performance in keeping with standards that apply to all faculty members, for example, “Institutional service is expected.” Specific expectations regarding the faculty member’s performance shall also follow from those standards, for example, “You are expected to earn at least a three on service in your next annual performance review.”
  2. Faculty members will be responsible for presenting the steps to make the needed improvements for discussion and approval by the dean.
  3. Communication on progress in carrying out the plan may occur between the faculty member and dean to the extent that the time frame and opportunities for observation or review allow. However, a lack of communication on progress does not remove the responsibility of the faculty member for meeting the expectations with the allotted period of development.
  4. Assessment of faculty performance shall be based on objectively acquired evidence, such as actual observation or recorded statements of identifiable observers, rather than on unconfirmed or anonymous reports.
  5. The dean shall set, and the plan shall include, a terminal point for the assessment of evidence and determination of the faculty member’s success or failure in meeting the stated expectations. (Unless otherwise stated, the terminal point would be the next annual performance review.) In addition, a statement of potential consequences of failure to meet expectations shall be included in the written plan.
  6. The faculty member, the dean, and the provost shall receive copies of the written plan, in the case of the faculty member, the written copy shall be delivered by hand or registered mail.

These guidelines do not pertain to decisions regarding the reappointment of non-tenured faculty members. The only process due in such cases is notification by the stipulated date and access to grievance procedures.

3.10.2 Due Process and Grievance Procedures

Faculty grievance procedures are described in the Section 5.9: Grievance Procedures. Additionally, if abrogation of tenure is recommended through this comprehensive review process, the faculty member shall be given the opportunity to refer the matter to a non-binding alternative dispute resolution process (ADR) as described in Chapter 154, Civil Practice and Remedies Code. If both parties agree, another type of alternative dispute method may be elected.