At its meeting Friday, the Faculty Senate debated changes, proposed by the General Faculty Council, to "PROV-004" — the policy governing the employment of Academic General Faculty. The proposal seeks to reverse a 2017 provision which requires faculty to achieve promotion to associate or senior rank in order to receive an employment commitment — a protection against arbitrary termination — from the University. If faculty are not promoted, they are left without long-term employment protections.
AGF are non-tenure-track professors who hold roles primarily focused on teaching, research, academic librarianship and clinical service. Employment policies for AGF are defined by PROV-004, which establishes the terms of their employment, including hiring, contract renewals, performance evaluations and promotion requirements. Proposed revisions to the policy would allow AGF to automatically earn employment commitments after six years of service, provided they meet performance standards and their role remains necessary to the University.
The General Faculty Council, who proposed the changes, is a governing body representing AGF across the University, and collaborates with the Senate as an advisory body but does not work directly with the Board of Visitors and University President. Prior to Friday's meeting, members of the GFC voted to bring this proposal to the Senate. At the meeting, GFC Chairperson Ian Mullins urged the Senate to move ahead with a vote without further delays — he noted that the University has already delayed responses to negative faculty feedback on this revision since 2017.
Prior to 2017, AGF earned long-term "employment commitments" after completing six years of service and passing a contract renewal review. These commitments guaranteed against arbitrary dismissal as long as faculty met performance standards and their role remained necessary. Contract renewal reviews, conducted every three to five years, evaluate performance to determine whether a faculty member's contract will be extended.
The University revised PROV-004 January 2017, tying employment commitments directly to promotion. Under this revision, AGF undergo a promotion review after six years to secure long-term job security. Faculty who achieve promotion gain employment commitments, ensuring future contract renewals unless there is cause for dismissal or a lack of need for their role. However, AGF who fail to achieve promotion — even if they meet performance expectations — are left without long-term job protections according to the GFC.
The GFC also said the policy from 2017 conflicts with the American Association of University Professors' guidelines — standards that outline professional protections in higher education — which recommend granting long-term employment commitments after a six-year probationary period, regardless of promotion.
The GFC's proposal restores the pre-2017 system and grants employment commitments after six years without requiring promotion. Faculty would still be subject to ongoing performance reviews every three years and could have their contracts terminated for poor performance or if their role was no longer necessary.
William Keene, former GFC member and representative for the University’s AAUP chapter, said that the pre-2017 policy was in effect for over 30 years, which mitigates concerns about significant negative impacts. Moreover, he said that the policy aligns with the AAUP guidelines that maintain a fair process in employment practices.
“In terms of hypothesized impacts, [the University] has 30 plus years experience with [the GFC] policy,” Keene said. “Like the AAUP national statement on academic freedom, employment commitments [should be] based on duration of employment, not whether [faculty] are promoted or not. [AAUP standards] are the underpinning of academic freedom.”
The primary opposition to the proposal centered on concerns about flexibility for junior faculty — AGF who have not yet undergone the six-year review for promotion or employment commitments. Under the current system, undergraduate and graduate departments can renew contracts for junior faculty every three years without making long-term commitments. Some senators said that the GFC's proposal would force departments to make definitive decisions after six years and prohibit flexibility.
Assoc. Commerce Prof. Jeri Seidman said the proposal could disproportionately affect junior faculty still working to demonstrate their potential. Under the GFC proposal, long-term commitments would likely go to junior faculty with clear strengths, while those still developing might face dismissal. Seidman said that the shift could discourage departments from retaining and supporting promising but developing faculty.
“It’s going to hurt our junior faculty, who have not been able to prove that they are of excellent quality yet,” Seidman said.
Keene said that even with employment commitments granted after six years, faculty contracts would still be subject to performance reviews every three years, as they were prior to 2017. If performance declined or a role was no longer needed, departments could still opt not to renew a faculty member's contract. Keene also said that junior AGF members provided input on the proposal through the GFC and supported the change.
Assoc. Education Prof. Walt Heinecke, on behalf of the GFC in a written statement, said that delays in voting on the proposal would undermine their role in shared governance with the Senate.
"To ignore the GFC vote supporting these changes would undermine our faculty governance values," Heinecke stated. “GFC has done its due diligence, and it is patronizing to treat them like they are not an integral part of the system of shared governance capable of determining what is best for their constituency.”
At the end of the proposal discussion, the Senate agreed to hold an online vote on the GFC proposal sometime in the three-day period after the meeting. If the senate votes in favor of revising the policy, the change will still require subsequent approval from the President and Board of Visitors.
Friday’s meeting also involved discussion on the University’s institutional neutrality policy passed Sept. 13, which prohibits University leadership from voicing political opinions unrelated to University operations. Early in the meeting, University President Jim Ryan addressed questions regarding the University’s recently adopted “institutional neutrality policy.” Approved Sept. 13 by the Board of Visitors, the policy asserts that University leaders should refrain from expressing political opinions unrelated to University operations, as such statements could compromise academic freedom and inhibit open discourse.
Ryan said that there is complexity in applying the neutrality principle to non-administrative faculty — particularly when it comes to department chairs and academic center heads, who are often perceived as representatives of their departments or institutes. He said that the topic ultimately requires judgment rather than legislation, as implementing a restrictive policy on faculty speech would conflict with the University’s commitment to free speech and academic freedom.
“Part of the reason why this is a statement of principle and not policy is because I don't think that you can legislate with any degree of precision … it's a matter of judgment,” Ryan said. “I think you leave it to the leaders to decide whether to exercise self restraint.”
One senate member asked Ryan about how to safeguard academic freedom and faculty autonomy in the face of potential political interference — particularly during transitions in presidential administrations. Ryan said that — given the declining trust in higher education — engaging professionals outside of academia to advocate for the importance of academic independence could be effective. He noted that he hoped to have further discussions on this topic at future senate meetings.
The senate’s executive committee will meet Jan. 10, and the full senate will reconvene Jan. 24 at 2 p.m. in Bavaro Hall.
Read More
Olympic gold, a golden goal and more: The top five Virginia sports highlights of 2024
By Ben Istvan | 3 days agoThe Cavaliers enjoyed success on the conference, national and world stages during the last 12 months.
Honor Committee, Class Councils offer resources for students during exam season
By Lidia Zur Muhlen and Brandon Kile | 4 days agoEvery semester, the Honor Committee utilizes a portion of its roughly $5 million endowment to fund its finals season initiatives.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
