AAUP JMU

JMU Faculty Handbook Revision

From the Office of the Provost email of June 20, 2024 9:08 AM with subject “Faculty Handbook Revision”

“During the spring 2024 semester, the Joint Senate/Provost’s Task Force on Shared Governance recommended a comprehensive review and substantive edit of the Faculty Handbook.”

“During this initial stage, which lasts until September 30, 2024, we are soliciting suggestions for the comprehensive review of the Faculty Handbook. Suggestions related to the organization of the Handbook and its substantive content would be especially helpful. If you would like to make a suggestion, please send it to the following email address: handbookrevision@jmu.edu.”

Please feel free to post any suggestions that you  submitted to the committee reviewing the handbook on this website, too! You can comment as well with threaded replies.

 

aaupjmu Avatar

Published by

aaupjmu
Categories:

3 responses to “JMU Faculty Handbook Revision”

  1. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Another recommendation:

    To III.A.2.a, add

    Academic freedom and faculty governance are inextricably linked. In order to participate effectively in governance, faculty members must be free to speak without fear of censure or reprisal, and in order to protect academic freedom and the academic mission of the university, faculty must be empowered to participate fully in  the governance of the university, as befits their special status as the primary implementors of the academic mission of the university – research and teaching.

    And 

    Academic freedom applies to the extramural speech of faculty members: it requires that faculty members be free from institutional censorship or discipline when they speak or write as citizens.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Re:

     III.F.4.b. (2) The decision to reduce or eliminate a program or department of instruction shall be based on the judgment that

    the educational mission of the institution will be enhanced by the reduction or elimination.

    And   “III.F.4.b.(1) In the absence of financial exigency, before a faculty member can be terminated because of 

    program reduction or elimination, a determination shall be made by the president and the provost that such

    reductions or eliminations are consistent with institutional goals and needs. In

    considering such matters, the president and the provost shall consult with the

    university community including the Faculty Senate.”

    As you’ll remember, Radford’s BOV passed, in 2020, a resolution that ran roughshod over what their Handbook says about financial exigency.  It had disastrous consequences for Radford faculty.

    In that connection, it seems clear that the JMU Handbook’s   requirement that the president and the provost shall “consult with the university community, including the Faculty Senate,” is overly, and dangerously,  vague and unspecific.

     JMU faculty need to preempt the possibility of merely token “consultation with  the university community, including the Faculty Senate.”  This provides only grossly inadequate protection. 

    The AAUP has a laid out a set of specific recommendations about financial exigency, and something analogous is needed for the other case – the elimination of a program or department of instruction as well.   Here are some specific recommendations that could and should be adapted to both cases:

    1. Before any proposals for program discontinuance on financial grounds are made or entertained, the faculty should have the opportunity to render an assessment in writing on the institution’s financial condition.
    2. Faculty bodies participating in the process may be drawn from the faculty senate or elected as ad hoc committees by the faculty; they should not be appointed by the administration.
    3. The faculty should have access to, at minimum, five years of audited financial statements, current and following-year budgets, and detailed cashflow estimates for future years.
    4. In order to make informed proposals about the financial impact of program closures, the faculty needs access to detailed program, department, and administrative-unit budgets.
    5. The faculty should determine whether “all feasible alternatives to termination of appointments have been pursued,” including expenditure of one-time money or reserves as bridge funding, furloughs, pay cuts, deferred-compensation plans, early-retirement packages, deferral of nonessential capital expenditures, and cuts to noneducational programs and services, including expenses for administration.
    6. Faculty members in a program being considered for discontinuance because of financial exigency should be informed in writing that it is being so considered and given at least thirty days in which to respond. Tenured, tenure-track, and contingent faculty members should be involved.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I submitted a few suggestions – one of them is below.

    ——————————

    There is a lack of clarity in the current handbook in the definition of instructional and administrative & professional faculty. This set of three suggestions would more clearly define the distinction, with the amendment to III.B.2.a. most essential.

    III.B.2.a. Instructional Faculty

    Currently: A faculty member whose primary responsibility includes teaching, scholarly achievement and professional qualifications, and professional service.

    Policy #2 implies that an instructional faculty member spends at least 50% of their time in teaching and scholarship, and that this excludes service. This can be folded into the description with a phrase such as “with teaching and scholarly achievement and professional qualifications making up at least 50% of their effort”.

    The new statement would then be:

    A faculty member whose primary responsibility is teaching, scholarly achievement and professional qualifications, and professional service, with teaching and scholarly achievement and professional qualifications making up at least 50% of their effort.

    Section III.B.2.b Administrative and Professional (A&P) Faculty

    Currently:“Administrative Faculty positions are generally administrators who perform work related to the management of the educational and general activities of the university, for at least fifty percent (50%) of their work.”

    The proposal is to remove the mollifying phrase “generally”. The new statement would then be:

    Administrative Faculty positions are generally administrators who perform work related to the management of the educational and general activities of the university, for at least fifty percent (50%) of their work.

    This change would remove ambiguity about the role of Administrative faculty. Section III.B.2.d. Academic Unit Head
    Currently:

    “Academic unit heads are considered instructional faculty members.”

    The proposal is to add the qualifying phrase “when teaching and scholarship/professional qualification efforts constitute greater than 50% of their work”.

    The new statement would then be:

    “Academic unit heads are considered instructional faculty members when teaching and scholarship/professional qualification efforts constitute greater than 50% of their work.”

    As currently written, academic unit heads whose work is primarily administrative are erroneously classified as instructional faculty.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Anonymous Cancel reply