I've been full-time faculty for over twenty years. At least half of those years have been spent on a 4-4 teaching load with no pre-tenure research leave and no sabbatical. I get how hard it is to produce meaningful research/creative work on a 4-4 load, a load many if not most NTT professors carry, a load that has us memorizing approximately 100 student names each semester and grading around the clock. But when I manage to produce research/creative work, it makes my teaching better and I am glad to work around childcare to give my summers, weekends, and holidays to making that happen. Sad to see that faculty are being pitted against faculty such that anyone tenured or tenure-track, who understands the mortal fear of "up or out" when one makes one’s case to Rank and Tenure, would not see the equity of setting up a system whereby full-time non-tenure track faculty who teach the same load as VAPs but without the research expectations (and often with significant reductions in load) and without term limits will be compensated the same and enjoy the same job security as colleagues who have shown conspicuous excellence in teaching, research, and service and have been vetted by external experts in their field. To be clear: if we pass this as it currently stands, the first six years on the job are FAR more insecure for a colleague in a TT position than for one who is NTT. Where is the equity in that? We might as well cancel “up or out” for TT colleagues and allow them the same opportunity to apply for promotion as frequently as they wish. Also confusing is why we are continuing to hire for positions that do not carry research/creative expectations while at the same time celebrating faculty-sponsored research/creative work so emphatically with our annual symposiums and our discussions about elevating our status to a research-two institution. For anyone paying attention, the initiative seems to be an attempt to do away with tenure altogether. I can't think of a faculty colleague who doesn’t believe in rewarding and promoting those who do conspicuously excellent work. I certainly do and I will not be supporting this motion as it currently stands. I trust that when this comes down to a vote—and it feels far too early for that--it is a secret ballot. People need to be able to vote their conscience.

Boston University, Syracuse, Saint Louis, UNLV, UTEP, Rutgers, Georgia Tech, Duke, Penn State, Memphis, Indiana, and Drexel are just a FEW of the prestigious, nationally ranked universities with policies for promotion and advancement of NTT faculty. While I understand the concerns regarding the impact of NTT faculty on tenure-track positions, these outstanding universities have found ways to successfully implement policies that support NTT faculty through clear promotion pathways and long-term employment safeguards. These initiatives not only enhance job security and professional development for NTT faculty but also contribute positively to the academic community as a whole. These examples demonstrate that with thoughtful policy development and institutional commitment, universities can address concerns related to NTT faculty by providing robust support systems. Such measures not only benefit NTT faculty but also enrich the academic environment, promoting excellence in education and research. Let's do this.

No, simply no. This initiative diminishes research faculty, who have worked long and hard on research initiatives while teaching a 3-3 load plus other overloads. I am concerned with all the attention on NTTs we are losing sight of the importance of research. If I were a tenure track faculty member and I had trouble publishing, why wouldn't I slide into these new NTT categories without a requirement for research and publication and stay forever? This proposal obviates the purpose of tenure track while elevating NTTs. The Board is trying to break tenure. This is how they can do it. I also object to the comment about Fairfield U being in the forefront of this initiative. There is a reason why other universities have not taken up this cause.

I oppose this proposal. While I acknowledge the need for a clear path to promotion for NTT, I disagree with the specific details outlined in this proposal. Notably, I am against the promotion of associate professors to full professors, which I believe is an overly challenging requirement for tenure-track faculty. There are currently associate professors who are not being promoted due to the stringent research requirements, and I believe that these faculty members would likely obtain promotion to full professor if they were PoPs.

I oppose the proposal in its current form for two main reasons. 1) Scholarship is the biggest hurdle for promotion in my field and likely in your field too. Many highly productive members of our community get "stuck" at Associate for decades simply because it's challenging to produce the level of research needed to reach full. Under the current proposal, NTT faculty will have a MUCH easier time making full than TT faculty. The fact that we're trying to keep the job titles and pay bands equivalent all while having dramatically different hurdles to clear doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 2) As others have noted, the administration has not yet shown a commitment to restoring the 75/25 TT/NTT ratio. While this issue may seem somewhat separate, I personally don't want to make it so that the NTT positions offer considerably better terms (see 1 above), as this effectively devalues research. Per Oct 2024 AC, the growth rates in TT faculty for the past 4 years have been -2.12%, 1.73%, 1.70%, 3.77%. Growth rates for NTT faculty during the same 4 years have been 20.51%, 8.51%, 23.53%, 7.14%. I can't speak for you, but to me this is troubling. NTT faculty need a pathway for promotion, but we need to be careful with this issue as it will have long-lasting consequences. If the University does move to Carnegie R2 status in the coming years, the expectations for scholarship will likely only increase over time. The current proposal fails to adequately value scholarship.

It has taken too long to establish a promotion path for PoP faculty. However, the current proposal is insufficient. The current proposal codifies yet another track of university faculty (teaching professors). The two long-term non-tenure track positions (newly designed POP positions and teaching professors) would not face the expectations of research publication (ultimately impacting classroom teaching and the university's research profile, at a time when Fairfield seeks to attain R2) nor would non-tenure track colleagues face the "up or out" challenges of the tenure stream. However, non-tenure track faculty would receive long-term positions and equal pay. To trade the up and out threat, the time-consuming commitment to research, and the uncertain market of academic publication for teaching only one more class a semester is a trade that many tenure-stream faculty might see as desireable. That is especially true when many individuals and departments see some work as inappropriate for non-tenure track faculty (e.g., chairing departments, etc.), so the service expectations of tenure track/tenured faculty will continue increasing. Meanwhile, the power of the administration grows while the prestige of the tenured/tenure track position shrinks. My remarks are not about the people currently in our non-tenure track positions but are about the purpose and health of the institution. I hope we can distinguish between the two during this important debate. If nothing else, the faculty should table this current proposal until the 75/25 split of tenured/tenure track v. non-tenure track faculty has been met.

I am very much in support of a path to promotion for our non-tenure track colleagues. It is long overdue. However, I feel that the proposed path passed by academic council, which would create equal ranks and salaries, does not possess the same level of rigor required for promotion of tenure track faculty to those same ranks/salaries. I believe that scholarly research and the requisite peer review for publication and dissemination that is required for promotion for tenure track faculty includes several unique barriers that are often invisible but greatly influence research productivity for faculty here at Fairfield. One such barrier is the amount of uninterrupted time required for such work outside of the classroom and often far beyond campus. Faculty research typically necessitates significant work in the summers, for which we are not on contract, as well as complex travel (sometimes international), collaborations with outside partners, inter-institutional agreements, permitting, IRB approval, IACUC approval, and a long list of other necessary co-factors that can impede research productivity. A second barrier, which pertains to some departments and disciplines more than others, is the past and current inadequacy of the space/infrastructure/equipment needed to accomplish research in those fields here at Fairfield. Many TT faculty have been unable to overcome these barriers, leading to an inability to achieve the necessary productivity for promotion or a necessary detour into new areas of research. Similarly, the prohibitively expensive cost of research supplies and reagents in the sciences, which has increased at a rate that far exceeds our operating budgets, has made it difficult and sometimes impossible to conduct research and generate the level of productivity necessary for promotion. These rising costs have also necessitated external grant-writing for some faculty, another rigorous and time-consuming process that can be an enormous barrier to the rate of productivity. In addition, publication costs in all disciplines have increased, and are not adequately supported by the university, influencing when, where and how often faculty can achieve the requisite peer-reviewed achievements. (Recent requests for budget increases to address this have been denied.) Collectively, these barriers for research productivity largely (if not entirely) do not exist for advancement in the proposed non-TT path to promotion based on its proposed criteria. This will contribute to an inequitable process for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor, but an especially inequitable process for promotion to the rank of Full Professor. Given the unique challenges of conducting scholarly research, it also seems particularly inequitable that the rank of Associate Professor for tenure track faculty has a defined and inflexible timeline of six years, requiring the faculty member to leave the university if denied. In contrast, the nonTT faculty have no pressure or timeline to apply for promotion, and no real consequence if denied. While nonTT faculty are on terminal contracts and are thus not “protected” by tenure, there seems to be little evidence here at Fairfield that that has resulted in a significant number of contract terminations. Finally, I would like to speak to an issue of administrative positions/appointments for nonTT faculty. Many of these positions have been appointed and have no term limits, and are not the result of an open and equitable application process. Since many of these positions are related to programs or teaching and are synergistic with criteria for promotion in the proposed nonTT path, those positions would help to facilitate advancement for the faculty holding them. -

--Concerned Science Faculty Member

This proposal is confusing. It makes an NTT job more attractive than a tenure track job, given equal pay and no risk of not getting tenure. Additionally, if the administration is forced to tenure anyone that takes an NTT job (which would now be tenure track), what is to stop them from only giving these jobs out? Or, alternatively, making none of these jobs available. They are only available now given their difference from the tenure track. They can expect a greater teaching load, and still expect that PhD faculty will provide sufficient research to maintain accreditation. This is a half-baked proposal.

I am a full time, tenured faculty member. I support instituting a means by which Professors of the Practice, defined as originally conceived, could achieve promotion. Professors of the Practice were meant to be faculty who have experience in professional settings that gives them value in the classroom. They bring their "real world" experiences to our students, and presumably their continued engagement in their fields through their professional networks would continue throughout their teaching careers. We value the POPs who teach in our department. I do not support the creation of a new category of Teaching Professor with no expectations of research or professional contributions. Engagement in scholarship/research and attendance at conferences in one's field in order to keep up with recent work and trends is essential to being the best possible teacher. Students taught by faculty with no research expectations will not have the same quality of instruction as classes taught by tenure-track or tenured faculty. Faculty are often told by administrators, and prospective students are told at admissions events, that Fairfield distinguishes itself from other schools by virtue of the amount and quality of our faculty-led undergrad research. Faculty-led undergrad research is key to our goal of becoming an R2 institution. With the ever increasing administrative loads of tenured and TT faculty resulting in less time available to devote to student mentoring, we need more TT lines to lead these research experiences, not more FTNTT lines. We are not a large state university that runs hundreds of sections of classes to require this new category. This initiative seems intended to reduce the number of tenure track/tenured faculty and save money by increasing the total number of courses taught (4/4 load for FTNTT) while not giving research support via facilities or travel grants, which does make sense from a budget standpoint but not from one of the teaching excellence upon which Fairfield prides itself. Another issue is the imbalance of the workload between the two positions. I know a 4/4 is difficult with regard to grading and class prep; I taught for 5 years as a Visiting Assistant Professor at Fairfield on a 4/4 load, with no sabbaticals or research support, before applying for and being offered a tenure track position 20 years ago. Teaching 4/4 is hard but it is not close to the pressures and time required to achieve tenure and promotion, even when taking into account research leaves. In order to obtain a tenure track job and then achieve tenure, I gave up every summer and break to do research, as teaching and then service as an Assistant Professor took up the majority my time during the contractual year. I dropped my infant children at daycare at 7:45 am every morning and picked them up at 4:30-5 pm every afternoon, all year until they were old enough for grade school (at which point they required after-care until 5 pm). Preparing dossiers for tenure/promotion took months. I certainly would have preferred a full time teaching position where I would not have had to research/write or prepare dossiers when off-contract and had been able to spend more quality time with my family. And if I had not been successful, I would have lost my position. The Teaching professors will be able to apply for promotion but if unsuccessful, they will hold their jobs? This inequity will create tension within departments. Becoming an established scholar in my field was worth the sacrifices and hard work, as contributing to human knowledge is the point of the professoriate and the university, and engaging with the most recent discoveries in my field consistently invigorates my teaching. Fairfield is known to be a school that values teaching, but doing so at the expense of our academic excellence is short-sighted. I will not support the proposal in its current iteration.
​

How can Fairfield justify the need for a new teaching faculty track and continue to hire more and more NTTs than ever while Fairfield is not even able to get into the Research Colleges and Universities list? How about separate salary scale for NTT vs TT? How about 6 years probationary period for NTTs (i.e. 2 contracts), at the end of 2nd contract required to apply for promotion, and either promoted and given a 5-year contract or not being re-contracted, but with no other 3rd option? Only fair, because I hear the administration is in favor of NTT hiring and promotion. How about NTT faculty’s ability to maintain multiple jobs at the same time? How about a proposal on how the university will be meeting the cap on NTTs first, as a precondition?

As a tenured faculty member who began in a non-tenure-track position, I understand and support the need of crafting a policy for a path to promotion for NTT faculty. However, the current proposal raises several red flags that cannot be ignored. My comments below come from personal experience in both NTT and TT faculty roles. First, the current title changes for NTT faculty will force an equalizing of salary levels between NTT and TT faculty at each rank. This will severely undermine the importance of research and the significant time, effort, and work hours it takes to complete quality, peer-reviewed, publishable research by TT faculty. Research is a job requirement for TT faculty, it is one of several avenues of professional development for NTT faculty. From my own experience, I can affirm that the workload going from NTT to TT role increases tremendously. In most fields, the time it takes to execute such research goes far beyond the equivalent time of teaching one extra class per semester. Moreover, many TT faculty dedicate their entire summers just to get ahead of research expectations. NTT can use that time to either teach extra classes (and receive overload paid that is more than the summer research grants awarded to TT faculty) or engage in other professional, paid activities, or do nothing at all. Equalizing pay across these categories based on the way the ranks for NTT are currently described in this proposal states that Fairfield University does not care about research and scholarly endeavors. The impact on hiring and retaining quality TT faculty will be profound, and moves the university in the opposite direction of any aspirations for R2 rankings. Second, the rigor for promotion must be equivalent across NTT and TT faculty. That is not clear in the current proposal. If the current promotion guidelines push NTT faculty into leadership roles that are critical for the long-run operations of the institution to meet the “service” expectation, there should be a significant concern about the ability to push back on policies or initiatives proposed by the administration that go against the interests of faculty and students. Simply put, NTT faculty will not have the same ability to stand up for the interest of faculty and departments in leadership roles when there is concern about their job security. With the two-level promotion criteria of teaching and service, many will be incentivized to take on leadership roles in which the administration may take advantage of their untenured status to push ahead with policies that do not serve the overall interests of faculty and students. The ability to stand up to administrative overreach and ensure crafting of policies that serve the long-term interest of the institution are fundamentally different for NTT versus TT faculty. Third, any proposal put forth for the promotion of NTT faculty should only be considered after the 75/25 TT/NTT ratio is achieved and sustained across the schools and College of Arts and Sciences, preferably within each department. It is in the administration’s interest to continue increasing the overall share of NTT faculty compared to TT faculty, and until there is a concrete change that maintains the 75/25 ratio, no other policies regarding NTT faculty should be considered.

I support the idea of introducing a path to promotion and a salary structure that rewards good and effective work for non-tenure track (nTT) faculty. I also believe that a reform in this sense can benefit the larger university community. However, the current proposal is a non-starter. It falls short of providing the right incentives, and, while it benefits substantially nTT faculty, it does so at the detriment of the university at large. I leave considerations about fairness of this proposal to others. Instead, I want to make the case that the current proposal is a strategic mistake that sets the university on a path that deviates from the goal of increasing its research profile. Faculty that devotes their attention primarily to teaching and service is essential in a place that strives for excellence in research without compromising its long-standing commitment to teaching. These people take some teaching responsibilities away from faculty that has a particularly strong predisposition to research. This is why I believe that a reform of nTT positions is in line with the goal of the university to increase its research focus. However, among the various problematic aspects of this proposal, equating salaries and path to salary increase with different research expectations is not the way to achieve this goal. The research expectations for TT faculty that are not existent for nTT faculty ensure that the two positions are fundamentally different. Hence, even if it was possible to provide a credible estimate of the exact pay per hour for the two positions (the research effort requires much more time and energy than an additional course to teach per semester and a semester away from teaching every 5/7 years), the pay per hour could not be compared. TT and nTT people compete in two fundamentally different markets, although related but not enough to eliminate salary differences. The proposal to equate salaries comes from an argument of perceived (and debatable) fairness, while disregarding the labor market reality. In fact, some professional associations offer annual survey data about the job market outcomes. The pay gap between the average tenure track job and non-tenure track jobs for the same type of institutions is existent, and large. Specifically, the one I am looking at shows a 40% gap among non-PhD awarding institutions. Meanwhile, at Fairfield University, the minimum for assistant professor is 27% higher than for instructor, while the average is only 22% higher. Meanwhile, my understanding is that TT and nTT at the same rank have the same minima. The current salary scheme is already overly generous to nTT. Fairfield University does not exist in an insulated world where it can attract the people it wants at any salary. Furthermore, financial resources are limited. Fairfield University needs to compete for the best teaching and research talent with other universities in the region, to a lesser extent in the country, and increasingly more in the world. Furthermore, it needs to allocate resources to competing goals. Equating salaries is a strategic mistake: either one position is paid way above market, or the other position is paid way below market, or a combination of the two. In the former case, we devote more resources than necessary to attract the desired nTT faculty (thus diverting them from other pursuits, including research). In the latter case we get outcompeted for the best candidates for TT positions. In addition, if this were to move forward as is, we provide a signal that research is not prioritized, thus discouraging people who care about it from staying. Moving in this direction is a mistake that we will notice in the long-run, when we find out that other universities will have outperformed us in terms of research. With all due respect to the people who framed the proposal, I see the current proposal as lacking consideration of its overall impact and misaligned with the direction that many of us faculty within the university want to pursue; the strategic direction for our future. I am also inclined to believe that it relies on a lack of understanding of the fundamental functions of a modern university, where quality research is an important component. Therefore, while agreeing with the idea of reforming the nTT status, I will strongly oppose this and other proposals that start from the same premises. I suggest a new (sub)committee to frame a new proposal. The new (sub)committee necessitates: some nTT faculty as they are best aware of their situation and desires; some TT faculty that started as nTT faculty at Fairfield because they have direct experience of both worlds; a majority that includes senior faculty with a strong research record because they bring institutional knowledge and would ensure that research is not devalued in the process; finally, people who have served in the Rank & Tenure committee.

Dear Colleagues, I write in strong support of the proposed Handbook revisions, which establish clear promotion pathways for current PoPs and future FTNTT faculty. I support the proposal as written and am optimistic that our vote on February 28th will both (a) lead to its adoption and (b) foster greater faculty unity. I endorse this policy because I have carefully reviewed Academic Council and relevant Handbook Committee minutes to follow the evolution of this discussion. I have also shared my concerns with these committees and trust that they were heard and considered, even if not all could be directly addressed. While no policy can perfectly align with every individual preference, I recognize the necessity of balancing the diverse perspectives of our 330+ General Faculty members. I respect the years of dedicated effort that have gone into shaping this policy and, as such, will be voting “In Favor” on the 28th. There seems to be fairly broad agreement that FTNTT faculty deserve promotion pathways, though disagreement remains over the specifics. Many concerns I have heard focus on future issues that may arise. While some of these concerns have merit, I believe it is crucial to stay focused on the real and pressing problem at hand: 25% of our General Faculty have little to no opportunity for promotion or the economic stability that comes with it. Promotions are not just about salary increases; they serve as vital recognition of accomplishments and contributions, providing motivation, a sense of self-worth, status, and respect. They also strengthen our faculty culture – I feel joy and a sense of shared pride each time I watch a colleague achieve tenure or promotion. Few, if any, among us believe this policy is flawless. But perfection is not a reasonable standard. Existing Rank and Tenure policies are not perfect, nor are many other university policies. Faculty workloads are undoubtedly unclear, yet we have confidence that our R&T processes (and the individuals who graciously serve on R&T) strive to ensure fair treatment across different years and wildly different disciplines. I trust that the same professional, rigorous approach will apply to FTNTT faculty seeking promotion. These revisions thoughtfully acknowledge the distinct roles of TT and NTT faculty, taking into account differences in responsibilities, resources, and privileges. The proposed Handbook revisions may not be perfect, but they are very very good and represent a significant step forward. I also see benefits for all faculty, TT and NTT alike. Clearly defined ranks for Teaching Professors and Professors of the Practice will clarify service, pedagogical, leadership, and professional practice expectations. This shift is likely to ease service burdens on TT faculty, allowing greater focus on scholarship. Additionally, it may prompt a broader discussion on faculty workloads, promoting even more transparency and equity in how faculty contributions are evaluated. While change brings uncertainty, it also presents opportunities for progress. Finally, I encourage us all to consider the impact of our words. Open dialogue is essential, but some comments seem to be moving beyond policy debate and into a realm of personal judgment about the competency, motivation, or ethics of PoPs. I believe that all members of the General Faculty act in good faith, upholding high standards with mutual respect – I hope our discussion at the General Faculty meeting reflects this shared commitment to professionalism and civility. Very respectfully, Katie Tomlin, PhD Associate Professor of the Practice Graduate Program Director, Industrial/Organizational Psychology Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences

The great thing about the 2023 rank and tenure guidelines, as they currently stand, is that their flexibility offers a path to promotion for NTT faculty. The rank and tenure guidelines provide a method to attain greater stability, and to make the case for one's record of service, teaching, and scholarship, either in pedagogy or in one's field.