IV-7. Standards for Promotion, Review, and Tenure

Promotion, review, and tenure at the University of St. Thomas School of Law are based upon four broad categories of performance: teaching accomplishment; research and scholarship; service to the institution, to the profession, and to the community; and commitment to the mission and vision of the School of Law. Sections I, II, and III below articulate the standards on teaching, scholarship, and service. With respect to the category of commitment to the mission and vision, the University of St. Thomas School of Law Policy Governing Rank and Tenure emphasizes that “[t]o be promoted or tenured, a candidate must demonstrate that he or she has undertaken ongoing efforts, individually and in concert with others, to advance the mission and vision of the School of Law.” The policy offers the following as examples of demonstrated commitment to the mission and vision: “encouraging students to integrate their faith and values into their professional life, publishing scholarship that integrates faith and ethics into the study of law, or providing service to the disadvantaged.” While not every aspect of instruction, scholarly work, or service need be directly related to the Schoolof Law’s mission and vision, the candidate must demonstrate that commitment through some regular and ongoing element of his or her academic or professional life.

The individual statements below setting forth standards on teaching, scholarship, and service -must be interpreted in light of the significance of tenure. Recommendation for tenure is a recognition by the faculty and administration of the University of St. Thomas School of Law that the individual to whom it is awarded has demonstrated qualities and achievements that embody the ideals and mission of the School of Law and that continued excellence in professional performance may be anticipated. For that reason, in making promotion, review, and tenure evaluations, an attempt must be made to judge not only the quality of the candidate’s past teaching, existing scholarly production, history of service, and reported advancement of mission, but also the candidate’s commitment to and capability of achieving sustained teaching excellence, continuing and significant scholarly engagement, ongoing meaningful service, and enduring dedication to the mission, all as essential elements of academic life at this institution. The burden of persuasion remains always upon the candidate.

I.          Teaching

A.        General Expectations for Teaching

1. Expectation of Teaching Accomplishment. The University of St. Thomas School of Law Policy Governing Rank and Tenure provides that a candidate for tenure must demonstrate excellence in teaching. A candidate for associate professor must demonstrate that he or she is making reasonable progress toward becoming an accomplished teacher.
2. University Expectations for Teaching. The University of St. Thomas Policy Governing Rank, Tenure and Evaluations provides the following summary of teaching expectations: “Effective teaching presumes currency, breadth, and depth of knowledge. In addition, St. Thomas expects its faculty to communicate information, ideas and values by using teaching methods and techniques that recognize a variety of learning styles, cultural backgrounds, and instructional settings. Whenever possible, faculty should approach teaching with an intent to demonstrate the interrelatedness of disciplines and of learning. Instructional and curricular innovations that are directed to these goals should be developed. Likewise, faculty should provide ways for students to become actively engaged in the work of the discipline(s). Recognizing that much learning goes on outside of the classroom, faculty should also be effective and skillful formal and informal advisors to students.”
3. School of Law General Expectations for Teaching. In the School of Law, instruction should develop students’ knowledge, understanding, and critical appraisal of various substantive areas of law, the legal system as a whole including its institutions and decision-making processes, the interrelationships between the legal system and other social institutions, the ideas and historical events that have shaped the law and legal system, the integration of faith into an understanding of the law and professional life, and the moral obligations and professional responsibilities of lawyers, as well as essential skills in legal analysis, legal research and writing, oral and written advocacy, problem-solving, negotiation, and counseling.

B.        Specific Expectations for Teaching: Specific expectations concerning teaching excellence in the School of Law for Legal Studies faculty include the following components

1. Knowledge of the Subject Matter. The accomplished professor both will have a command of the subject, demonstrating breadth and depth of knowledge, and will remain current on developments in the field.
2. Integration of Faith and Values. The accomplished professor will in a manner appropriate to the course integrate faith and values by (1) facilitating discussion of the relevance of faith and values to the questions raised in class, (2) encouraging students’ integration of their faith and deepest ethical principles into their professional character and identity, (3) preparing students to become accomplished servant leaders in the practice of law, in the judiciary, in public and community service, in business, and in education, (4) and enhancing the professional responsibility of students.
3. Planning and Organization. The accomplished professor will be effective in organizing the study of the subject, including defining instructional objectives, being well-prepared for each class, preparing appropriate syllabi and materials, covering material consistently so that large amounts of material are not left for the end of the semester, and structuring the classroom discussion in a manner that facilitates learning.
4. Planning, Organization, and Supervision of Clinical Casework. The accomplished professor will be effective in acquiring client caseloads that balance the purpose of providing educational opportunities with the need to provide service to the larger community and the necessity of faculty research and scholarship. The accomplished professor will also be an effective supervisor of certified student work with clients, balancing professional obligation to clients with student responsibility for casework.
5. Creating a Learning Environment. The accomplished professor will create a classroom or clinical environment that is conducive to learning and motivates students to learn, making effective use of different teaching methods and technology as appropriate.
6. Fostering Student Development and Engagement. The accomplished professor will foster student engagement in the classroom, or for clinical legal education faculty in case team meetings and the clinical program as a whole, and stimulate critical analysis by students.
7. Effective Communication. The accomplished professor, by being organized and understandable in communication of concepts by lecture, questioning, or moderation of student discussion as appropriate, will effectively and clearly communicate with students.
8. Developing Student Communication Skills. The accomplished professor will assist students in developing oral and written communication skills through facilitating classroom participation, preparation of papers, client casework and representation, and other means as appropriate to the course. The accomplished professor will provide meaningful and appropriate critique of students’ papers, oral presentations, client casework, and classroom preparation, as pertinent.
9. Receptivity and Availability to Students. The accomplished professor will be reasonably available to students, including being receptive to student questions, maintaining regular office hours, offering advice to students on academic and professional matters, and reviewing student examinations and papers. The accomplished clinical legal education professor will be reasonably available to students by scheduling regular meetings for casework review and student evaluation, being receptive to student questions, maintaining availability for appointments with students not currently enrolled in clinical coursework, offering advice to students on academic and professional matters, and reviewing student casework and other clinical responsibilities.
10. Fairly Evaluating Student Performance. The accomplished professor will fairly evaluate student performance, including (as pertinent to the course) devising appropriate examinations; developing guidelines for student papers or presentations; impartially grading student examinations, papers, or presentations; or devising and using appropriate tools for reviewing and evaluating such areas of clinical performance as student goal definition and execution, professional responsibility, and case responsibility.
11. Diligence in Meeting Teaching Obligations. The accomplished professor will be diligent in meeting teaching obligations, including generally beginning and ending class on time; canceling classes only when necessary due to academic or professional conflicts, religious holidays, illness, or other exigent circumstances; generally scheduling a make-up class or other means of replacing a canceled class; and timely submission of grades.
12. Educational Innovation. A professor is encouraged to develop new courses or segments of courses, or prepare innovative teaching materials, such as clinical simulations, problems sets, skills exercises, computer-based materials, and audiovisual materials. Although these activities are not required, they will be considered as favorable evidence of superior teaching ability.

II.        Scholarship

A.        General Expectations for Scholarship

1. University Expectation for Professional Engagement. The University of St. Thomas Policy Governing Rank, Tenure and Evaluation includes the following general statement on engaging the profession: “Since the primary professional responsibility of the St. Thomas faculty member is the creation and enrichment of the university’s learning community, it follows that a corollary expectation is engagement with the discipline. The vital center of any university is the expression of the life of the mind that results from engaging the profession. That engagement is the source of the community’s intellectual vitality and connects it with the national and international world of scholarship. That connection means, too, that it is from peers at St. Thomas and at institutions around the world that we receive evaluation of our achievements as teacher/scholars.”
2. School of Law Expectation for Professional Engagement. TheSchool of Law expects that its faculty members will engage in research and will disseminate that research through published scholarship. The process of research and scholarship is particularly important to the professional growth and development of untenured faculty members for four reasons. First, as expressed in the Vision Statement of the University of St. Thomas School of Law, scholarly engagement “expand[s] knowledge about law and society and [contributes to] the improvement of legal institutions and other organizations.” Second, research activities and the publication of scholarship contribute to a faculty member’s expertise and can enhance the quality of his or her teaching. Similarly, through the dissemination of his or her scholarship, a faculty member can extend the reach of his or her teaching to a new and larger audience. Third, the quality of scholarship is a significant indication of the quality of the mind that produces it. Therefore, evidence of scholarly ability and continual productivity are indications that a faculty member is capable of, and committed to, a career of intellectual and professional engagement. Fourth, as stated in the May 13, 1999 Resolution of the University of St. Thomas Board of Trustees which authorized reopening of the School of Law, the University was committed, inter alia, to “establish[ing] a national law school of the highest quality.” No law school can attain national prominence without being comprised of faculty who regularly are producing significant and influential scholarship.
3. General Quantitative Expectation for Scholarship. For these reasons, theUniversity of St. Thomas School of Law Policy Governing Rank and Tenure provides that a candidate for tenure must demonstrate accomplishment in engaging the profession. At each stage of the evaluation process, the Law School Policy defines an expected amount of scholarly contribution in terms of “an article or its equivalent.” Thus, a candidate for associate professor “must demonstrate that, by the spring of his or her third year on the faculty of theSchool ofLaw, he or she has published or had accepted for publication at least one article or its equivalent. The candidate must also demonstrate that he or she has made progress toward completing a second article or its equivalent.” Further, “[t]o be granted tenure, a candidate must demonstrate that, by December 1 of his or her sixth year on the faculty of the School of Law, he or she has published or had accepted for publication at least three articles or their equivalents.” Finally, to be promoted to full professor of law, the candidate must have “had two articles or their equivalents published or accepted for publication within any three-year period after being granted tenure.”
4. General Qualitative Expectation for Scholarship. As general statements for each stage of review, the University of St. Thomas School of Law Policy Governing Rank and Tenure provides that (1) the scholarship of the candidate for promotion to associate professor must “demonstrate[] the potential to have a substantial impact in the field,” (2) the scholarship of the candidate for tenure “must provide evidence of significant and influential scholarship accomplishment and the promise of continued achievement in scholarship, and (3) the scholarship of the candidate for promotion to full professor of law “must provide evidence that the candidate has achieved a national reputation in his or her field.” The quality of the candidate’s research and scholarship will be evaluated both (1) by external reviewers, whose expertise in the field and lack of direct connection to the School of Law ordinarily assure an independent and informed evaluation of the scholarship and its impact in the field, and (2) by the Committee on Promotion and Tenure of the pertinent department.
5. Promise of Continued Achievement in Scholarship. The candidate must demonstrate evidence of a continuing and serious commitment to the scholarly enterprise. The award of tenure is a long-term commitment of the institution to the faculty member and therefore should be awarded only if there is substantial reason to believe that significant and influential scholarly work will continue. Three factors may be taken into account in making this evaluation. First, the pattern of scholarship during the untenured period is important. A faculty member who works steadily on research and writing during the untenured period is usually considered more likely to continue scholarly activity than the faculty member who is inactive for long periods of time. Second, consideration will be given to the number and scope of completed projects and works in progress. Although the minimum quantitative expectation is three articles or their equivalents during the untenured period, a candidate’s submission of additional works or documentation of additional works in progress strengthens the conclusion that the candidate is inclined to future scholarly efforts. Third, concrete evidence of a thoughtful research agenda, in which present and future planned works are tied together within a theme or plan to achieve a national reputation in a field, suggests the faculty member will continue to work on scholarship.

B.        A Statement on Scholarship for Legal Studies Faculty

1.   Specific Quantitative Expectation for Legal Studies Scholarship. In terms of the quantitative expectation of scholarship, for faculty in the Legal Studies Department, “an article” means a substantial article in a law review or law journal. A substantial article is one that is approximately 40 published pages or more in length.

In defining what is “equivalent” to a substantial “article” in a law review or law journal, the vehicle for publication must be a university press book, a book in another press (including treatises, text or case books, and monographs), or an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Publication in a bar or professional journal, general-circulation journal, or newspaper ordinarily will not be considered of sufficient scholarly standing to qualify as the equivalent of an article. To be equivalent to an article, the work should be of the same total length as a substantial article in a law review or law journal as defined above.

In certain circumstances, depending upon the significance and impact of each such work, publication of multiple smaller works may satisfy the expectation of one article or its equivalent, but the candidate for tenure must present at least two full-length articles or their equivalents. Depending upon length, publication of a book may qualify as the publication of more than one article or its equivalent.

The School of Law encourages tenured faculty when appropriate to collaborate with other scholars here, at other law schools, or in other disciplines in conducting research and co-authoring scholarship. However, given the difficulty of evaluating the separate contributions of each scholar to co-authored works and the importance of being able to determine that the candidate individually is capable of completing important scholarly work independently, at least two of the articles or their equivalents submitted by the candidate for tenure should be authored solely by the candidate. If the candidate presents a co-authored work to be considered as one of the required articles or its equivalent, the burden is on the candidate to demonstrate clearly his or her contribution and to what degree that contribution is equivalent to an article.

2.   Specific Qualitative Expectation for Legal Studies Scholarship. Beyond submitting at least the minimum quantitative expectation for published scholarship, the candidate in the Legal Studies Department must present scholarly work of excellent quality. As stated in the University of St. Thomas School of Law Policy Governing Rank and Tenure, the candidate for promotion to associate professor must demonstrate that he or she “has undertaken an important research agenda and is making reasonable progress on that agenda.” The candidate for tenure must demonstrate that his or her scholarship “is significant and influential.” The candidate for promotion to full professor must demonstrate that his or her scholarship has gained “a national reputation” in the field. The quality of the candidate’s research and scholarship will be evaluated for the following elements.

a.         Worthiness of the Topic. Identification of a legal or law-related subject worthy of intellectual exploration.

b.         Appropriateness of Research. Indication of careful, accurate, and thorough research in legal and relevant non-legal materials.

c.         Quality of Analysis. Thoughtful and comprehensive analysis and synthesis, that is, going beyond mere description or explication of the law to offer new insight on a legal problem or issue such as by identifying and reconciling inconsistencies or apparent inconsistencies in the law; critically evaluating positions, rules, or developments in an area of the law; developing a new organizing principle or frame of reference for a set of legal materials or a field of law; or presenting and defending a solution to a legal problem through a proposed statute, legal rule, or legal theory.

d.         Nature of Subject. Difficulty or complexity of the subject matter undertaken.

e.         Originality. Originality of the ideas expressed.

f.          Clarity of Communication. Clear articulation of the findings and conclusions reached through the candidate’s research and analysis.

g.         Impact of the Work. Probable impact or significance of the work, which may be demonstrated by, for example, citations, published reviews, scholarly comment in other publications, documented comments from professionally respected readers, inclusion of the work in solicited symposia, and documented effect on law reform

h.         Integrity of Scholarly Activity. Demonstration of integrity in scholarship, by acknowledging the contributions of others, making proper attribution to sources, and making appropriate use of research assistants.           

Although not required, scholarship that explores the intellectual integration of religious faith into the study of law, professional ethics, public policy, and social justice is particularly valued and also is evidence of the required commitment to the mission and vision of theSchoolofLaw.

C.        A Statement on Scholarship for Lawyering Skills Faculty.

1.    Specific Quantitative Expectation for Lawyering Skills Scholarship. For tenure, Lawyering Skills faculty are expected to have published or accepted for publication three articles or their equivalents. Of the articles, at least one must be substantial, approximately 40 published pages long. The remaining two articles must be approximately 20 pages long.

In defining what is “equivalent” to an “article” in a law review or law journal, the vehicle for publication must be a university press book, a book in another press (including treatises, text or case books, and monographs), or an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Publication in a bar or professional journal, general-circulation journal, or newspaper ordinarily will not be considered of sufficient scholarly standing to qualify as the equivalent of an article. To be equivalent to an article, the work should be of the same total length as one of the three law review or law journal articles described above as required for tenure in Lawyering Skills.

In certain circumstances, depending upon the significance and impact of each such work, publication of multiple smaller works may satisfy the expectation of one article or its equivalent of approximately 20 pages. However, a candidate for tenure in Lawyering Skills must present at least one article or its equivalent of approximately 40 pages and one article or its equivalent of approximately 20 pages. Depending upon length, publication of a book may qualify as the publication of more than one article or its equivalent.

To be promoted to Professor of Law, a candidate must present at least two articles or their equivalents within any three-year period after being granted tenure. One article must be substantial (approximately 40 pages long), and one article must be approximately 20 pages long.

The School of Law encourages tenured faculty when appropriate to collaborate with other scholars here, at other law schools, or in other disciplines in conducting research and co-authoring scholarship. However, given the difficulty of evaluating the separate contributions of each scholar to co-authored works and the importance of being able to determine that the candidate individually is capable of completing important scholarly work independently, at least two the articles or their equivalent submitted by the candidate for tenure should be authored solely by the candidate. If the candidate presents a co-authored work to be considered as one of the required articles or its equivalent, the burden is on the candidate to demonstrate clearly his or her contribution and to what degree that contribution is equivalent to an article.

2.    Specific Qualitative Expectation for Lawyering Skills Scholarship. Beyond submitting at least the minimum quantity of published scholarship, the candidate in the Lawyering Skills Department must present scholarly work of excellent quality. As stated in the University of St. Thomas School of Law Policy Governing Rank and tenure, the candidate for promotion to associate professor must demonstrate that he or she “has undertaken an important research agenda and is making reasonable progress on that agenda.” The candidate for tenure must demonstrate that his or her scholarship “is significant and influential.” The candidate for promotion to full professor must demonstrate that his or her scholarship has gained “a national reputation” in the field.

The quality of the candidate’s research and scholarship will be evaluated for the following elements:

a.         Worthiness of the Topic. Identification of a legal or law-related subject worthy of intellectual exploration.

b.         Appropriateness of Research – Indication of careful, accurate, and thorough research in legal and relevant non-legal materials.

c.         Quality of Analysis. Thoughtful and comprehensive analysis and synthesis, that is, going beyond mere description or explication of the subject to offer new insight on a problem or issue such as by identifying and reconciling inconsistencies or apparent inconsistencies in the area; critically evaluating positions, rules, or developments in the area; developing a new organizing principle or frame of reference for the subject; or presenting and defending a solution to a legal or law-related problem.

d.         Nature of Subject. Difficulty or complexity of the subject matter undertaken.

e.         Originality. Originality of the ideas expressed.

f.          Clarity of Communication. Clear articulation of the findings and conclusions reached through the candidate’s research and analysis.

g.         Impact of the Work. Probable impact or significance of the work, which may be demonstrated by, for example, citations, published reviews, scholarly comment in other publications, documented comments from professionally respected readers, inclusion of the work in solicited symposia, and documented effect on law reform.

h.         Integrity of Scholarly Activity. Demonstration of integrity in scholarship, by acknowledging the contributions of others, making proper attribution to sources, and making appropriate use of research assistants.

Although not required, scholarship that explores the intellectual integration of religious faith into the study of law, professional ethics, public policy, and social justice is particularly valued and also is evidence of the required commitment to the mission and vision of the School of Law.

D.        A Statement on Scholarship for Clinical Education Faculty.

1.   In addition to their teaching, Clinical Education faculty should contribute through the scholarship (1) to the development of the law, lawyering or legal education, or (2) to the improvement of legal institutions or procedures. Given the different nature of clinical faculty work and the year-round client responsibilities inherent in teaching in this setting, clinical faculty are expected to publish work of a different type and quantity than non-clinical tenure-track faculty.

Because of the nature of their teaching activities and professional engagement, Clinical Education faculty can find many outlets to pursue their areas of scholarship and research. Interests may range from the highly abstract to eminently practical contributions. Clinical Education faculty may seek to accomplish a wide range of purposes in their scholarship. Excellence in scholarship that contributes to the University of St. Thomas community, the community of legal scholars and professionals, and the wider academic community can be manifested in many forms.

However varied the purposes of scholarship and however diverse the forms in which scholarship is manifested, a work of scholarship must ultimately constitute an “article or its equivalent” – that is, it must appear in writing, be the result of thoughtful labor, and be disseminated to, and warrant recognition by, a significant audience, keeping in mind the special characteristics and purpose of the work. Illustrations of what constitutes an article or its equivalent include the following.

a.         A university press book or book in another press (including treatises, text or case books, and monographs);

b.         An article, essay, or book review in a legal periodical, law or multidisciplinary journal or law review. Contributions of this type can advance either the state of the law or the state of clinical teaching methodology or practice;

c.         A section, chapter, or portion of a legal treatise or encyclopedia (includes a major revision);

d.         A research project report, such as one under the auspices of an institute such as the American Bar Foundation or under research grant or contract;

e.         A publication of a learned society such as ALI-ABA, a national or state bar association, AALS, or a publication contributed as part of a judicial, CLE, or administrative conference;

f.          A manual for use by the judiciary, state or federal agencies, or the practicing bar.

g.         A brief, a technical report, policy recommendation, memorandum, or other document, submitted in conjunction with legal, legislative or administrative proceedings;

h.         A report or white paper stemming from a governmental appointment such as a presidential, gubernatorial or other executive commission, legislative committee, court appointment or administrative agency appointment ;

i.          A draft or enacted version (with written comments or testimony) of new or reforming legislation, rules, regulations or guidelines.

2.    Specific Quantitative Expectation for Clinical Legal Education Scholarship. For tenure, Clinical Legal Education faculty are expected to publish three articles or their equivalents as defined above. Of the articles, at least one must be approximately 40 pages long. The remaining two articles must be approximately 20 pages long.

In certain circumstances, depending upon the significance and impact of each such work, publication of multiple smaller works may satisfy the expectation of one article or its equivalent of approximately 20 pages. However, a candidatefor tenure in Clinical Legal Education must present at least one article or its equivalent of approximately 40 pages and one article or its equivalent of approximately 20 pages. The 40 page work must be drawn from any of categories 1 through 6 above, and no more than one of the 20 page works can be drawn from categories 7 through 9 above.

To be promoted to Professor of Law, a candidate must present at least two articles or their equivalents within any three-year period after being granted tenure. One article must be substantial (i.e. approximately 40 pages long) and be drawn from any of categories 1 through 6, and one article must be approximately 20 pages long.

The School of Law encourages Clinical Legal Education faculty to collaborate with other scholars, practitioners, judges, and policy makers, and members of other disciplines. However, given the difficulty of evaluating the separate contributions of each scholar to co-authored works and the importance of being able to determine that the candidate individually is capable of completing important scholarly work independently, at least two of the articles or their equivalent submitted by the candidate for tenure should be authored solely by the candidate. If the candidate presents a co-authored work to be considered as one of the required articles or its equivalent, the burden is on the candidate to demonstrate clearly his or her contribution and to what degree that contribution is equivalent to an article.

3.    Specific Qualitative Expectation for Clinical Legal Education Scholarship. Beyond submitting at least the minimum quantity of published scholarship, the candidate in the Clinical Legal Education Department must present scholarly work of excellent quality. As stated in the University of St. Thomas School of Law Policy Governing Rank and tenure, the candidate for promotion to associate professor must demonstrate that he or she “has undertaken an important research agenda and is making reasonable progress on that agenda.” The candidate for tenure must demonstrate that his or her scholarship “is significant and influential.” The candidate for promotion to full professor must demonstrate that his or her scholarship has gained “a national reputation” in the field. The quality of the candidate’s research and scholarship will be evaluated for the following elements.

a.         Worthiness of the Topic. Identification of a legal or law-related subject worthy of intellectual exploration.

b.         Appropriateness of Research. Indication of careful, accurate, and thorough research in legal and relevant non-legal materials.

c.         Quality of Analysis. Thoughtful and comprehensive analysis and synthesis, that is, going beyond mere description or explication of the subject to offer new insight on a problem or issue such as by identifying and reconciling inconsistencies or apparent inconsistencies in the area; critically evaluating positions, rules, or developments in the area; developing a new organizing principle or frame of reference for the subject; or presenting and defending a solution to a legal or law-related problem.

d.         Nature of Subject. Difficulty or complexity of the subject matter undertaken.

e.         Originality. Originality of the ideas expressed.

f.          Clarity of Communication. Clear articulation of the findings and conclusions reached through the candidate’s research and analysis.

g.         Impact of the Work. Probable impact or significance of the work, which may be demonstrated by, for example, citations, published reviews, scholarly comment in other publications, documented comments from professionally respected readers, inclusion of the work in solicited symposia, and documented effect on law reform.

h.         Integrity of Scholarly Activity. Demonstration of integrity in scholarship, by acknowledging the contributions of others, making proper attribution to sources, and making appropriate use of research assistants.

Although not required, scholarship that explores the intellectual integration of religious faith into the study of law, professional ethics, public policy, and social justice is particularly valued and also is evidence of the required commitment to the mission and vision of the School of Law.

III.       Service

A.        University Expectation for Service. TheUniversity ofSt. Thomas Policy Governing Rank, Tenure and Evaluation includes the following general statement on service: “St. Thomas faculty are members of the university community and of communities beyond the boundaries of the campuses. As members, they have responsibilities to each, responsibilities that result from a particular discipline, but also from the special commitment to people that motivates them as educators. Because the faculty ofSt. Thomas expects those who are part of it to use their energy, knowledge and values to enrich the quality of life in their communities, it includes evaluation of performance in them among the criteria of professional achievement.”

B.        School of Law Expectation for Service. The University of St. Thomas School of Law Policy Governing Rank and Tenure provides that to be promoted to associate professor, the candidate must have provided “service to the University, the legal profession, or the community.” To be granted tenure, the candidate must demonstrate that he or she provided “significant service to the University, the legal profession, or the community.” To be promoted to full professor, the candidate must demonstrate that he or she “has continued to provide significant service to the University, the legal profession, or the community.”

C.        Basic Expectation of Service to the School of Law. While recognizing that each faculty member brings his or her own values and understandings to the responsibilities of service, there are basic expectations of faculty involvement, including service on School of Law committees, participation in the processes of School of Law governance, and assistance to the School of Law in creating an environment that promotes academic achievement and professional responsibility. Faculty teaching Lawyering Skills classes are expected to participate in the development and policymaking of the Lawyering Skills program as part of their service to the Law School and to comply with overall program policies and goals. Clinical legal education faculty are expected to participate in the development and policymaking of the Clinical Legal Education program as part of their service to the Law School and to comply with overall program policies and goals.

D.        Service to the University. While service to the School of Law is one integral means of providing service to the University, additional service to the University as a whole, such as through university committees, mentoring of faculty outside the School of Law, or membership in bodies of university governance, is encouraged, especially for faculty who have achieved tenure.

E.         Service to the Profession and the Community. Faculty members are expected, in a manner consistent with their own values and understanding of the responsibility of service, to participate in the community, professional organizations, or institutions that comprise the legal system, especially when performed in a manner that draws upon the professional expertise of the faculty member. As examples, the faculty member may participate in programs designed to improve the level of knowledge, competence, and ethical behavior within the legal profession; may participate in efforts to improve the effectiveness or fairness of the law, legal institutions, or the legal system as a whole; may provide educational opportunities for members of the public or for faith-based or other non-profit organizations about the law and legal institutions; or may provide legal services to the poor and disadvantaged or non-profit organizations. Service that integrates faith and the law in the profession and that addresses the needs and improves the condition of the disadvantaged and underserved is particularly valued and also is evidence of the required commitment to the mission and vision of theSchool ofLaw.

F.         Recognition That Teaching and Scholarship are Primary Activities for Untenured Faculty. The School of Law expects all of its faculty members to be engaged in service to the university, to the community, or to the profession. Because of its value to the academic, professional, and larger community, as well as its potential to enhance one’s teaching and scholarship, every faculty member should be engaged in service. At the same time, it is contemplated that a faculty member’s principal focus should be on teaching and scholarship during the years preceding consideration for tenure. This statement is not intended to discourage greater service on the part of untenured faculty, but is made in recognition of the tremendous commitment of time and energy required to meet expectations for teaching and scholarship, as well as the expectation that the contribution of each faculty member to service outside the School of Law will increase as he or she progresses in the academic vocation.

G.        Non tenure-track Clinical Faculty. The School of Law expects all of its faculty members to be engaged in service to the University, to the community, or to the profession. Expectations with respect to teaching, service, and professional engagement will be specified for each clinical faculty member at the time of appointment. (UST Faculty Handbook, Chapter 2.I.B.1.h.)

Adopted by Tenured Faculty of Pertinent Department, May 17, 2004
Amendments Adopted by the Law Faculty, February 7, 2011

School of LawPromotion and Tenure:
Timetable and Operating Guidelines

To provide further direction to law school faculty members who are anticipating promotion or tenure and to tenured faculty members and deans participating as decision-makers in the promotion and tenure process, as well as triennial/third-year review this document sets forth a timetable and operating guidelines for actions to be taken by the candidate, the Promotion and Tenure Committee, tenured faculty members, the Department Chair, and the Dean. This timetable and operating guidelines are intended for guidance only in the implementation of the approved promotion and tenure policy. Accordingly, the timetable and guidelines set forth below must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the governing “Policy Governing Rank and Tenure of Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty” approved by the Faculty, Law School, and University, which is included as Part IV-5 of the School of Law Policies.

Spring Semester, Academic Year Before Candidacy

Peer Review Panel Observes Teaching. In the Spring Semester of the academic year before the academic year in which a faculty member will be a candidate for promotion, tenure, or third-year review, the candidate’s teaching will be observed by a peer review panel of three faculty. See Sections IV-5.B.2(a), 3(a), and 4(a).

Summer

Beginning Preparation of Candidate Portfolio. The candidate for promotion, tenure, or third-year review should begin preparing a portfolio in support of his or her application, with particular attention given to preparing a personal statement or narrative. The appendix to this document provides further guidance on the contents of the portfolio.

Appointment of Promotion and Tenure Committee. The Dean shall appoint the Chair and members of the Promotion and Tenure Committees for each Department (Legal Studies, Lawyering Skills, and Clinical Education) after consultation with the pertinent Department Chair. The Committee shall consist of at least three members. In the event that fewer than three members of the Department faculty are tenured, the Dean shall appoint tenured faculty members from other Departments in theSchool ofLaw or from allied disciplines elsewhere in the University, again after consultation with the Department Chair.

Appointment of Faculty Mentors. Before the beginning of classes for the first semester in August, the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee shall appoint a tenured faculty member as mentor for each untenured faculty member in the Department.

October

Scholarship for External Review. By October 1, the candidate for promotion, tenure, or third-year review shall provide copies of scholarship to be submitted to external reviewers for independent evaluation.

Candidate’s List of Acceptable/Unacceptable External Reviewers. By October 1, the candidate for promotion, tenure, or third-year review shall submit a list of six experts who are acceptable to the candidate, from which two of the external reviewers will be selected. The candidate may also submit a list of up to three experts who would not be acceptable, and no expert on that list will be selected. See Sections IV-5.B.2(b)(iii), 3(b)(iii), and 4(b)(iii).

Selection of External Reviewers. By the end of October, the Dean and the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will select external reviewers (at least four in cases of promotion to associate professor or full professor and at least five in cases of tenure). As delegated such responsibility by the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the Dean will contact the selected external reviewers and arrange for preparation of an evaluation of the candidate’s designated scholarship. Within a reasonable time after receipt, the Dean shall provide to the candidate copies of the evaluations by external reviewers, with identifying information redacted. See Sections IV-5.B.2(b)(iii), 3(b)(iii), and 4(b)(iii).

Submitting of Portfolio by Candidate for Tenure. By October 15, the candidate for tenure must submit his or her portfolio. (Candidates for promotion and/or third-year review have until December 1 to submit the portfolio.)

November

Discussion Meeting and Invitation of Evaluations on Candidate for Tenure. In cases of tenure, by approximately November 15, the tenured faculty of the pertinent department will meet to discuss the candidate’s application for tenure (the Dean shall not attend this meeting). The Committee also will invite untenured faculty and faculty from other departments to share their evaluations of the candidate with the Committee by e-mail, memo, or conversation with Committee members. Unless otherwise agreed, all such contributions shall be confidential. In the interest of fairness, the Committee will not include a negative factor arising from this faculty input process in its final report and recommendation without allowing the candidate to respond, whether or not the source of the negative evaluation is revealed.

December

Submitting of Portfolio by Candidate for Promotion/Review. By December 1, the candidate for promotion and/or third-year review must submit his or her portfolio. If the candidate so notifies the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the candidate may have until the first day upon which classes begin in the second semester in January to submit drafts of scholarly works-in-progress. 

Confirmation by Candidate for Tenure of Publications. By December 1, the candidate for tenure shall confirm to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee that he or she has published or had accepted for publication at least three articles or their equivalents.

Committee’s Recommendation on Candidate for Tenure. By approximately December 15, the Promotion and Tenure Committee shall deliberate and complete its report and recommendation on the candidate for tenure, including any minority view. The Committee’s deliberations shall be confidential. (The Dean shall not attend deliberation meetings of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, but may meet with the Committee to further discuss its report and recommendation after it has been submitted.) The report and recommendation shall be given to the candidate, be circulated to all tenured members of the faculty in the pertinent Department, and be submitted to the Department Chair and the Dean.

Response to Committee Report by Candidate for Tenure. After receiving the Committee’s report and recommendation, the candidate for tenure shall have one week (seven calendar days) to submit to the members of the tenured faculty in the pertinent Department, the Department Chair, and the Dean any response by the candidate to the Committee’s report and recommendation.

Faculty Vote on Candidate for Tenure. By approximately December 31 (but not earlier than eight days after circulation of the Committee’s report and recommendation, unless the candidate waives the right to respond), in cases of tenure, the members of the tenured faculty in the pertinent Department shall meet, deliberate, and vote on whether tenure should be granted to the candidate. Tenured faculty members who have not reviewed the candidate’s portfolio shall not vote on that candidate’s tenure. The Department tenured faculty’s deliberations shall be confidential. (The Dean may attend this meeting as an observer but may not participate in the discussion or vote.) When the Dean subsequently submits his report and recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, he shall include a report of the Department tenured faculty vote, along with the separate reports and recommendations of the Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Department Chair.

Discussion Meeting and Invitation of Evaluations on Candidate for Promotion. By approximately December 15, in cases of promotion and third-year review, those faculty of the pertinent department who hold the rank to which the candidate seeks promotion will meet to discuss the candidate’s application for promotion (the Dean shall not attend this meeting). The Committee also will invite faculty not yet having achieved that rank and faculty from other departments to share their evaluations of the candidate with the Committee by e-mail, memo, or conversation with Committee members. Unless otherwise agreed, all such contributions shall be confidential. In the interest of fairness, the Committee will not include a negative factor arising from this faculty input process in its final report and recommendation without allowing the candidate to respond, whether or not the source of the negative evaluation is revealed.

January

Department Chair Recommendation on Candidate for Tenure. By approximately January 1, the Department Chair shall submit a report and recommendation to the Dean on the candidate for tenure. In the event that the Department Chair was a member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the Department Chair may either prepare a separate report and recommendation or may simply state that he or she endorses the report and recommendation of the Promotion and Tenure Committee. The candidate for tenure shall receive a copy of the Department Chair’s report and recommendation.

Dean’s Recommendation on Candidate for Tenure. By approximately January 15, the Dean shall write a report and recommendation on the candidate for tenure and shall provide a copy to the candidate. The Dean shall forward to the Vice President for Academic Affairs the following: the candidate’s portfolio, the Dean’s report and recommendation, the Department Chair’s report and recommendation, the Promotion and Tenure Committee’s report and recommendation, and the vote of the tenured faculty in the Department.

Submission of Work-in-Progress by Candidate for Promotion/Review. By the first day of classes for the second semester, the candidate for promotion and/or third-year-review may provide the Chair of the Committee with the latest draft of any scholarly works-in-progress.

Committee’s Recommendation on Candidate for Promotion/Review. By approximately January 30, the Promotion and Tenure Committee shall deliberate and complete its report and recommendation on the candidate for promotion and/or third-year-review, including any minority view. The Committee’s deliberations shall be confidential. (The Dean shall not attend deliberation meetings of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, but may meet with the Committee to further discuss its report and recommendation after it has been submitted.) The report and recommendation shall be given to the candidate, be circulated to all tenured members of the faculty in the pertinent Department, and be submitted to the Department Chair and the Dean.

February

Response to Committee Report by Candidate for Promotion/Review. After receiving the Committee’s report and recommendation, the candidate for promotion or review shall have one week (seven calendar days) to submit to the Department Chair and the Dean any response to the report and recommendation of the Promotion and Tenure Committee. In addition, any tenured faculty member in the Department (who was not on the Promotion and Tenure Committee) who disagrees with the report and recommendation of the Promotion and Tenure Committee may submit a comment to the Dean. The candidate shall receive a copy of any comment so submitted by another faculty member.

Department Chair Recommendation on Candidate for Promotion/Review. By approximately February 15, the Department Chair shall submit a report and recommendation to the Dean on the candidate for promotion and/or third-year-review. In the event that the Department Chair was a member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the Department Chair may either prepare a separate report and recommendation or may simply state that he or she endorses the report and recommendation of the Promotion and Tenure Committee. The candidate for promotion and/or third-year-review shall receive a copy of the Department Chair’s report and recommendation.

March

Dean’s Recommendation on Candidate for Promotion/Review. By approximately March 1, the Dean shall write a report and recommendation on the candidate for promotion and/or third-year-review and shall provide a copy to the candidate. The Dean shall forward to the Vice President for Academic Affairs the following: the candidate’s portfolio, the Dean’s report and recommendation, the Department Chair’s report and recommendation, and the Promotion and Tenure Committee’s report and recommendation.

January-May

University’s Academic Council Recommendation and President’s Decision on Candidate for Tenure. After deliberation in January and February, the University’s Academic Council makes a recommendation to the President regarding candidates for tenure, with the final decision being reserved to the President.

Vice President for Academic Affair’s Evaluation and Meeting with Candidate for Promotion/Review. By the end of May, the Vice President for Academic Affairs shall meet with the candidate for promotion and/or third-year-review and then prepare an evaluation narrative, which is added to the portfolio and the candidate’s personnel file, a copy of which shall be given to the candidate.

University’s Academic Council Recommendation and President’s Decision on Candidate for Promotion. After deliberation in April and May, the University’s Academic Council makes a recommendation to the President regarding candidates for promotion, with the final decision being reserved to the President.

Appendix: Contents of Portfolio for Seeking Promotion and Tenure

Faculty who are anticipating promotion or tenure in the next several years understandably have requested guidance on what items should be included in the “portfolio” that is submitted by the candidate and will eventually be passed along to the central administration. The following is intended as general guidance, and is not exhaustive (that is, the candidate should feel free to submit other documentation of teaching, scholarship, and service beyond that listed here):

1.         Personal Statement. As perhaps the most important element of the candidate’s submission, the central administration expects each candidate to present a narrative case for promotion or tenure. To make the most effective and persuasive case for promotion or tenure, the candidate should forthrightly address difficulties or challenges, along with steps taken toward improvement, as well as strengths. With the substantive standards and expectations in mind (as set out in the law school’s standards), this Personal Statement should explain how the candidate has met the expectations in each of the three traditional areas:

Teaching (explaining one’s educational philosophy and how it has been implemented in instruction including any innovations),

Engaging the Profession/Scholarship (explaining how one is engaging the profession through scholarship, the intellectual substance and significance of each work, how scholarship has been received by the pertinent professional audience, and the candidate’s continuing scholarly agenda),

Service (describing service to the university, law school, profession, and community, including areas of particular interest or emphasis in service), and

Commitment to Mission (describing the candidate’s commitment to the mission and vision of the School of Law as set forth in Section V of the School of Law Policies).

Although the Personal Statement need not be unduly lengthy, neither should it be terse and abbreviated. For promotion (or third-year review), the narrative may be relatively brief, only four or five single-spaced pages. For tenure, a more substantial description and argument is appropriate, likely somewhere between 8 and 15 single-spaced pages.

2.         Updated Curriculum Vitae. This should be included in the portfolio immediately after the Personal Statement.

3.         Copies of Annual Faculty Reports and Reviews. The Dean’s office should be responsible for ensuring that copies of these documents are prepared for submission in the portfolio.

4.         Copy of Triennial Review (for those later seeking tenure or promotion to full professor. The Dean’s office again should be responsible for ensuring that a copy of this document is prepared for submission in the portfolio.

5.         Copy of Initial Appointment Letter (and any later modifications). The Dean’s office again should be responsible for ensuring that a copy of this document is prepared for submission in the portfolio.

6.         Documentation of Teaching. Copies of syllabi for each course taught (which the Dean’s office has been collecting)

Copies of annual mentor written reports of teaching (the Dean’s office again should be responsible for ensuring that copies of these documents are prepared for submission in the portfolio)

Copies of student questionnaires for each class taught (the Dean’s office again should be responsible for ensuring that copies of these documents are prepared for submission in the portfolio)

Any other materials the candidate may wish to submit that reflect curricular or teaching innovation

7.         Documentation of Engaging the Profession/Scholarship. Copies of all articles published or accepted for publication

Copies of articles in progress if a completed draft or completed draft section is available

Copies of presentations made at conferences

Copies of other significant presentations or publications (i.e., continuing legal education materials, general periodical articles, opinion-editorial pieces, etc.)

Copies of scholarly commentary on articles, books, or conference/symposia presentations (e.g., citations in other scholar’s works, letters regarding an article, comments on an article by commentators at conferences or symposia)

8.         Documentation of University, Law School, Professional, or Community Service. Itemization of all university and law school committees on which candidate served, including brief description of committee’s nature and work performed on committee

Letters from chairs of university and law school committees documenting candidate’s service

Description of service as advisor to student organizations

Description of other service to university or law school

Description of professional service or leadership, preferably supported by letters from those in a position to evaluate that service or leadership

Description of community service or leadership, preferably supported by letters from those in a position to evaluate that service or leadership

Adopted by Promotion and Tenure Committee, January 2004
Revised, January 2007

Other Policies in this section

• Mission and Vision Statements
• Admissions Policies
• Academic Standards Policies
• Faculty Related Policies
  • Faculty Meetings
  • Standing Committees
  • Department Structure of School of Law Faculty
  • Appointment Process: Tenure Track Faculty
  • Appointments Process: Dean
  • Promotion, Tenure and Evaluation
  • Standards for Promotion, Review, and Tenure
  • Teaching Course Loads
  • Unpaid Leaves of Absence
  • Outside Employment and Consulting by Full-time Fac
  • Outside Employment and Consulting by Full-time Fac
  • Faculty Office Hours
  • Adjunct Faculty
  • Reimbursements
• Other Policies