DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
BYLAWS
Department of Philosophy and Program in Religious Studies
College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Florida
Prepared in Fall 1999 as adapted from the bylaws of the erstwhile and now defunct
Department of History, Philosophy, and Religious Studies. Amended fall 2000. Reamended March 2001, December 2001, April 2002, May 2004, December 2004 and March
2005. Approved by the Provost and Academic Vice President September 2005.
Preamble: This document is a collection of policies and procedures that have evolved over the
years. Henceforth these bylaws will serve as the fundamental governing document for UNF's
Department of Philosophy and UNF's program in Religious Studies, whose administration is the
department's responsibility. Amendments will be by a majority vote of the regular full-time faculty,
subject to the review of the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and the Vice President for
Academic Affairs.
Mission: The mission of the department is to facilitate the delivery of high quality instruction and
research in philosophy and religious studies and to provide professional, community, college, and
university-wide service.
Membership: The "department" shall consist of all tenure-line faculty in philosophy and religious
studies, including phased retirees who teach full-time one semester and are off the next. All
tenure-line faculty may vote on all issues, except as specified below. Emeritus/a faculty are not
considered full-time faculty and hence do not vote. Voting membership on search committees will
be determined on a case-by-case basis and will be specified in individual search plans. The
quorum for a regular department meeting is fifty percent plus one. No votes may be taken without
a quorum.
Chairperson: The chairperson is the chief administrator of the department, as well as its budget
officer. He or she shall, in a collegial manner, administer and coordinate the activities of
department faculty and any ad hoc or regular committees and perform all other duties specified in
Article V.3 of the UNF Constitution.
The chairperson is responsible for convening department meetings. He or she will schedule
meetings at convenient hours but not during class times for full-time faculty except on an
emergency basis. Any time a third of the full-time faculty request a special meeting on any issue
the chair must schedule the meeting. The chair will not vote on matters before the department at
any regular or special meeting except in the event of a tie or as specified below.
The chair will serve a four-year term unless he or she resigns or is removed from the position by
the "President or her/his designee" as per Article V.3. A secret retention ballot will be held at least
four months before the termination of the year, if the chairperson seeks reappointment. (A
majority of the full-time faculty or the dean may call for a secret retention vote sooner). Full-time
faculty will have an opportunity to evaluate the chair annually.
When a vacancy or resignation occurs in the office of chair a successor shall be selected by the
Dean of Arts and Sciences from a list of tenured faculty approved by a majority vote of full-time,
tenured or tenure-line faculty. Nominations and self-nominations will be solicited by the outgoing
chair or his/her designee, who will submit the names to the faculty and then arrange for formal
interviews followed by a secret vote. Faculty (including the outgoing chair) will vote each
candidate either "acceptable" or "unacceptable." If more than one candidate is deemed
acceptable, the outgoing chair will arrange for a second secret vote to rank the candidates. The
chair will then forward to the Dean the ranked names of the candidates whom a majority deemed
acceptable, along with the vote totals. The Dean may also convene a meeting to discuss the
candidates with those faculty who are not seeking the office.
If the Dean of Arts and Sciences or any other higher-level administrator decides that none of the
names on the forwarded list is acceptable and decides to mount an external search, he or she will
consult with all full-time members of the department on the job description. The full-time, nonvisiting department faculty will constitute, together with at least one extra-departmental appointee,
the external chair search committee.
Committee Structure: The department has no standing subcommittees per se. Any full-time
faculty at any time may organize meetings to address specific concerns and draft
recommendations for the department and chair.
If the recommendations involve minor changes, such as a small alteration in the schedule, the
committees (or individual faculty) will make their requests directly to the chair for decision and
action. However, if the changes are of a permanent curricular nature and involve new courses or
requirements or other catalogue changes, they must be approved by the full-time faculty of the
department as well as the chair. That is, the committee of the whole acts as the department's
curriculum committee.
Syllabus review policy: For tenured, tenure-track, and visiting faculty, all courses new to UNF
will be announced at the time that the upcoming-course schedule is composed. Corresponding
syllabi will be made available in the department office. For new part-time faculty, the syllabus of
each course he or she will teach will be reviewed at the time of the hiring interview by the
department chairperson and those department members involved in the interview process. For
continuing part-time faculty, the department chairperson and one other department member will
review the syllabus of any course new to that part-time faculty member.
Student grading policy: Philosophy and Religious Studies courses at the University of North
Florida will require that at least fifty percent of the final grade be determined by student
performance on written examinations, essays or term papers. Student participation in class
discussion is encouraged but it cannot be the single determining factor in the final grade.
Adjunct hiring policy: From time to time it is necessary and desirable to recruit adjunct faculty to
teach courses. The following rules are designed to insure that the hiring process is democratic
and open but also workable.
1. New adjuncts will be interviewed by as many colleagues as possible and will, if an appropriate
course is available at the time of the interview, be viewed by faculty in a classroom teaching
situation. The chair may not hire the adjunct if a majority of those who interviewed him or her
and/or who witnessed the classroom presentation disapprove. If the chair, who is the adjunct
hiring officer, has serious reservations he or she may decline to hire the applicant even if a
majority of the faculty interviewers judge the performance acceptable.
2. Experienced adjuncts will be hired and scheduled by the chair as needed, with the
understanding that he or she will discuss the matter as appropriate and inform all department
members of the proposed course(s) when drafts of the schedule are distributed. However, any
full-time faculty member at any time prior to the signing of the contract may challenge any
proposed adjunct and the chair's offer may be overturned by a majority vote of the department.
3. Exceptions. The chair is also authorized to make hires of new adjunct faculty in the event of
emergency cancellations, late additions to the schedule, etc. It often happens that adjuncts get
jobs elsewhere or have problems necessitating last-minute personnel changes; it also happens
that the dean's office will request additional sections just before classes begin. In such cases the
chair will make an attempt to consult as many colleagues as possible. However, the needs of
students and the exigencies of scheduling must come before the niceties of consultation; if
interviews with everyone are impossible or the appropriate colleagues are out of town, the chair
will proceed on the basis of his or her own judgment. The "check" is that in the ensuing semester
any full-time department member may challenge a particular adjunct hire and ask for a full review
and vote. If a majority disapprove, the adjunct may not under any circumstances be rehired.
Foundation Account: This account is controlled by the chair with the understanding that any
expenditures for special projects will be reviewed and approved by the faculty. Expenditures of
less than $150 are at the chairperson's discretion.
Any faculty member may request foundation support for any special project from the chair at any
time; however, foundation funds will not ordinarily be used for expenses, such as travel or
duplicating, for which other sources of money exist.
Promotion and Tenure
1) The committee shall consist of all tenured members of the department with the exception of the
chairperson. Only tenured faculty will vote on tenure decisions. Only tenured faculty who hold the
rank of associate professor or above shall vote on promotion decisions. Tenure and promotion
committees shall consist of at least three voting members. Until such time as the department is
able to form from its own ranks committees with at least three voting members, the required
minimum will be reached by including eligible colleagues from the Department of History, as
selected by members of that department.
2) The department chairperson may be consulted by the committee but shall not be a voting
member.
3) A committee member must withdraw from voting when her/his candidacy is being considered.
4) The committee shall elect a chairperson, who shall be a voting member.
5) Recommendations shall be decided by majority vote in a secret ballot. In case a tie vote is
reached, the entire case will be reopened. If a majority vote can not be reached, the committee
shall report the various positions and the vote to the department chairperson.
6) By the designated deadline (usually the first week of October), the department chairperson
shall forward promotion and tenure dossiers to the committee. The committee's function is to
review these dossiers and to provide a written report to the department chairperson with regard to
promotion and tenure candidates. These reports, to be submitted by the designated deadline
(usually late October), shall become part of the candidate's dossier. This dossier, upon
completion of the promotion and tenure process will be returned to the candidate.
7) The committee shall consider the candidate's performance during the entire term of
employment at the university. While principal attention shall be given to contributions to UNF,
consideration may also be given to performance at other institutions as it may be relevant to the
decision in question. If the candidate has received credit toward tenure, he/she must include
documentation of performance for those years credited.
8) The candidate may request and be granted an interview with the committee. The committee
may interview the candidate with reasonable advance notice.
9) At the candidate's request, some or all of the committee shall observe the candidate's
classroom teaching.
10) The candidate must submit to the department chairperson a list of at least three and no more
than ten qualified persons outside the university who could write concerning the quality of a
candidate's scholarly accomplishments. The correspondence with such outside persons will be
handled by the department chairperson. At the candidate's discretion, such outside letters may be
treated as confidential, not to be seen by the candidate. However, in keeping with Florida state
regulations, it is understood that a candidate may inspect anything in his/her dossier, including
external letters that he or she may previously have waived a right to review. Referees will be
informed of these conditions when asked to review a candidate?s accomplishments.
11) Any committee member or members may submit a minority report, to be placed in the
dossier.
12) The committee's written report to the department chairperson shall describe the committee's
procedure and shall include the results of all votes taken. Names and academic ranks of
committee members shall appear on the report. The numerical vote of the committee is open to
the candidate, but the individual votes are not.
13) This section of the by-laws shall be approved by the department chairperson and a majority of
the department faculty. They shall be approved by and filed with the Provost and Academic Vice
President.
14) This section of the by-laws may be amended by a majority vote of the Department at any time
prior to the beginning of the promotion and tenure process for the candidate. Amendments must
be approved by the Provost and Academic Vice President.
Peer Teaching Evaluations for Untenured Faculty
1) Evaluations will be made of all untenured faculty, including visitors and adjuncts as well as
those on tenure-lines. The purposes of these evaluations are mentoring, enhancement of
teaching proficiency, departmental self-assessment, and, in the case of continuing faculty,
assistance with hiring, annual evaluation and tenure appraisal. The goal of the peer evaluation is
to provide helpful information for the untenured faculty member as well as material for future
consideration of teaching skills.
2) In a single year, one class of each full-time untenured faculty member will be visited. With the
agreement of both evaluator and evaluatee, a second class may also be visited. Adjunct faculty
will be visited on a regular, though not necessarily annual, basis. Evaluators and evaluatees will
coordinate together which classes will be visited and when.
3) The department chairperson will coordinate/assign the peer evaluators.
4) Within two weeks after the visit, the peer evaluator will write a formal evaluation.
5) The formal evaluation will be presented to both the untenured faculty member and the
department chairperson.
6) The formal evaluation may be used by the department chairperson for formal evaluation of the
untenured faculty member, including tenure appraisal and assessment for (re)appointment. The
formal evaluation will become part of the untenured faculty member's record, and may be
submitted as part of a future tenure dossier.
7) An untenured faculty member has the right to request of the department chairperson a second
visit by the same or a different peer evaluator. This is to protect against the vagaries of an "off
day."
Individual and Committee Conduct in Department Recruitment Efforts
I.
Search committee members must evaluate candidates solely on the basis of criteria adopted by
the search committee. They may not invoke extraneous criteria or considerations that contravene
other stated University policies and objectives (e.g., those established by the Office of Equal
Opportunity).
Search committee members must fully disclose to the committee any conflict of interest that might
impair the member's objectivity and impartiality in evaluating candidates. Conflicts of interest
typically arise in cases where a special personal or professional relationship exists between a
committee member and a candidate. Conflicts may also arise when a committee member
assumes the role of a partisan advocate for a particular candidate.
In cases of conflict of interest, the individual must abstain, or be asked to abstain, from evaluating
the candidate in question. In some cases the individual may withdraw, or be removed, from the
search committee by vote of the department.
Search committee members may not write letters on behalf of candidates in the pool. Such letters
already in a candidate's file must be removed.
II.
The committee will not consider letters of reference from administrators who at any level are
involved in the recruitment effort or who exercise authority over a member or members of the
committee.
No member of the university community may intervene in or interfere with the normal
deliberations and activities of the search committee. The input of non-search committee members
can be considered only when agreed to by the search committee itself.
In its evaluation process, the search committee shall solicit the input of non-committee faculty,
students, and other members of the university community. Typically, such individuals will be
encouraged to attend candidate presentations and provide feedback.
III.
Committee members will conduct themselves professionally when interacting with candidates.
The committee must assure that the process treats all applicants in a fair and uniform manner. All
candidates must be evaluated on the same criteria; at preliminary interviews they should be
asked roughly the same questions and be given roughly the same amount of time to meet with
the interview committee; they must be kept equally informed of the status of the process and their
applications.
The department shall maintain a uniform policy on deadlines. It should decide what material must
be received by the announced deadline and what material, if any, may be submitted
subsequently. If the department decides to accept material after the deadline, it should include
this information in public announcements concerning the position.
Communication with candidates regarding any matter pertaining to the search should be handled
exclusively by the committee chairperson unless the chairperson otherwise delegates such
responsibilities. Once the committee has concluded its deliberations and forwarded its
recommendation to the department chairperson, all communication will be conducted by the
department chairperson unless he or she otherwise delegates such responsibilities.
IV.
In line with Florida state statute, all committee deliberations are open to the public.
In line with Florida state statute, no committee member may abstain from a committee vote,
except in cases of conflict of interest (which must then be documented).
The search committee should strive to reach consensus in its recommendation(s). In cases
where unanimity is not possible, decisions will be based on majority rule. Committee members
should respect the integrity and good faith of other members and should abide by the will of
majority.
In general, committee members will conduct themselves professionally when interacting with
colleagues and with candidates. Committee members will treat the candidates and each other
with respect and will refrain from engaging in personal attacks.
V.
A committee member may question aspects of the process, including the vote or the conduct of
one or more committee members, or the committee's adherence to its own procedures or to
AA/EEO policy. In such cases, he/she shall discuss the matter first with the committee and the
committee chairperson and then, if necessary, with the department chair. Only thereafter should
he or she address the matter with other university officials.
Merit Pay Dispersal
Merit Pay Eligibility: All members of the department (defined above) are eligible for merit pay. In
addition, all continuing full-time, non-tenure-line faculty (e.g., visitors and instructors) are also
eligible for merit pay.
Merit Criteria: The purpose of merit pay is to reward meritorious faculty performance in teaching,
scholarship, and service. Priority will be given to performance by faculty in assigned activities
based on annual evaluations of the previous academic year as conducted by the department
chairperson. Special assignments, sabbatical leave activities, and other contributions may be
considered for merit pay. The following guidelines will be considered by the chairperson when
awarding merit pay.
Teaching: There is a common requirement that all faculty in the department will regularly meet
and teach their classes and maintain the number of office hours as recommended by the
chairperson. When evaluating a faculty member for merit pay the chairperson will consider
1. The nature and difficulty of courses taught;
2. The success of instruction as shown by student evaluations, classroom visitations, and
other appropriate evaluative procedures;
3. The appropriateness and quality of course topics, materials, syllabi, and instructional
techniques;
4. The development of new courses, degree programs, and other efforts to improve and
enhance the curriculum;
5. The extent to which courses taught regularly were revised and kept current;
6. The size, enrollment, and number of courses;
7. The nature and quality of independent studies, directed reading, theses supervision,
internships, and/or collaborative faculty/student research projects and mentorships
faculty members conduct.
8. Any other relevant information concerning teaching ability and accomplishment, such as
awards or other formal recognition for meritorious teaching, grants, financial aid for
innovations and experimentation in teaching, etc.
Evaluation instruments to be considered by the chairperson:
 Instructional Satisfaction Questionnaires [ISQ] (and/or any officially mandated student
evaluations of instruction;
 "narrative" or "discursive" forms administered by instructor preference--but only if the
results are reviewed by the chairperson before they are returned to the instructor (see
UFF/FBOE Collective Bargaining Agreement);
 and departmentally sanctioned peer reviews.
Research and Scholarship: When evaluating for merit pay, the chairperson will consider whether
the faculty member
1. Authored a book that was published during the previous year;
2. Co-authored a book that was published during the previous academic year;
3. Edited or co-edited a book that was published during the previous academic year;
4. Authored a chapter or article that appeared in a scholarly publication, including legitimate
on-line scholarly venues;
5. Presented a paper or paper commentary at an international, national, or regional
meeting;
6. Presented a scholarly paper at another college or university by invitation;
7. Published a review essay in a scholarly journal, including legitimate online journals;
8. Published an entry in an encyclopedia or reference book;
9. Published a book review in a scholarly journal, to include legitimate online journals
10. Received funding on an external research grant;
11. Otherwise documented an active, productive research program, e.g.: documented
progress on an article, chapter, or book; completion of scholarship that has been
accepted but not published; completion of a grant proposal that has not received final
review.
12. Any other relevant information concerning scholarly accomplishment, including awards
and other forms of recognition.
The chairperson is expected to exercise judgment concerning the relative scholarly
merits of books, chapters, articles, paper presentations, and other scholarly contributions
by department faculty. Among other things, the chairperson will consider whether the
contributions were peer reviewed/refereed and the reputation of the various journals,
scholarly association and meeting, and presses. It is further understood that the
chairperson must occasionally use his/her discretion to address unique circumstances.
Service: When evaluating for merit pay the chairperson will determine whether and to what extent
the faculty member
1. Serves the university on active departmental, college, or university committees;
2. Serves the university through organizing and/or expediting colloquy, conferences,
workshops, and symposia;
3. Chairs a college or university committee;
4. Serves the profession by reviewing manuscripts for professional journals;
5. Serves as a reviewer for a research manuscript for a national or international journal or
publisher
6. Serves as a chair or moderator for a panel at a professional conferences
7. Serves as a reviewer for a proposal from a federal granting agency
8. Serves the profession by serving on committees or as an officer for a discipline-related
professional organization
9. Serves the community by serving on committees or as an officer for a local, regional, or
state professionally related organization
10. Serves the community by giving professionally related talks to local or regional groups or
organizations or schools
11. Serves as an invited consultant to or spokesperson for a state or national organization
12. Serves the community by writing articles for non-juried, non-scholarly publications in
areas related to one's disciplines.
Merit Pay Decisions:
The chair will rate the faculty member in each of the three areas of teaching, research, and
service using the following scale: Unsatisfactory = 0; Satisfactory = 0; Good = 1; Very Good = 2;
Excellent = 3; Outstanding = 4.
In determining the overall rating, the following minimum weights should be applied to each
category: Teaching = .50; Scholarship = .25; Service = .10. The remaining .15 will be allocated,
subject to the review of the chairperson, to the categories by the faculty member toward the end
of the academic year and will be included by the faculty member in his/her annual self-evaluation.
The rating system here detailed is conceived principally for faculty with assignments in all three
areas. Exceptions to the above weighting system may be made, with the approval of chair, when
consistent with the individual's assigned activities. Faculty with assignments in the area of
teaching alone (e.g., visitors) will receive a rating only in that area, and that rating will normally be
weighted at the level of .8 (rather than the 1.0 for regular faculty). Faculty with assignments in the
area of teaching and service (e.g., instructors and lecturers) will weighted at .9.
In cases where an evaluation is contested, either the chair or the faculty member involved may
submit the contested matter(s) to an Appeals Committee consisting of three faculty. The
Committee will hear both sides of the case, review appropriate evidence, and issue a
recommended resolution to the chair based on majority vote.
Summer Rotation; General Principles. The intention of this policy is to establish an equitable and
orderly process for allocating summer teaching opportunities within the department. The basic
premise is that the chair will try to offer every colleague who wants to teach one course before
any other colleague gets two. In the event that there are insufficient funds for everyone who
wants to teach to do so, the chair will follow the rotation, provided that there is no compelling
curricular or enrollment reason to have lower-priority persons teach. This represents a
continuation of past practice and is consistent with A & S policy.
Weights. A person's place in the rotation is determined by the assignment of weights that
correspond to various activities during the previous three summers. The lower the score, the
higher the person is on the list.
For every course taught by a nine-month faculty member paid from the departmental summer
teaching allocation, the weight assigned is .375.
People on twelve-month administrative contracts (e.g., associate deans) are assigned a weight of
.375 for each summer whether they actually teach or not.
New faculty, including those hired within the last two years, are assigned a weight of .375 for the
three previous summers. This is done so that they will neither be privileged nor penalized. They
will not be at the top of the rotation list, but neither will they necessarily be at the bottom.
Exceptions. Nine-month faculty who receive UNF non-teaching appointments, including
administrative stipends and summer research grants, equivalent to 25% or more of their ninemonth contract salary ( .375 on the summer assigned activity form), will not be counted in the
weighting scheme. However, these individuals will go to the bottom of the rotation list for that
summer in which they actually receive the money. The intent is that faculty who are receiving
significant non-teaching UNF funding should not get a first course until everyone else has a first
course, nor should they get a second course until everyone else has a second course. (Non-UNF
money -- e.g., from the NEH or FHC -- does not figure in this, although colleagues who receive
this sort of funding probably will not plan on teaching anyway and in fact may be forbidden from
teaching under the terms of their grants)
People who are coming off administrative contracts of more than a single year's duration also go
to the bottom of the list, but only for the first summer. If it should happen that a nine-month person
with a current UNF administrative stipend or research grant and a person who is teaching
elsewhere in UNF and a former twelve-month administrator are all sent to the bottom of the list for
the same summer, they are considered tied.
In the event that the chair has insufficient funds to pay the salary of the next faculty member of
the list, he or she will first approach the dean to request the increment necessary to pay the full
salary. (Example: The next person on the list earns $5,000, but the chair has $4,700 left. The
chair would then request an additional appropriation of $300.) If the additional money is
unavailable, then the chair will proceed down the list until he finds a person who can teach for the
amount remaining.
Ties. In the event of a numerical tie, the chair will break the tie by means of some random device,
provided that the tied individuals are willing and able to teach something that fits in the schedule
and that, as stated above, there is no compelling curricular or enrollment reason to favor one
person over another.
Note also that ties need not be broken by random devices if insufficient funds are available for all
but one person. (Example: There is $3,700 left. Three people are tied. One earns $6,000, the
second $5,500, the third $3,500. The third person gets the course.)
Second courses. If money is left over after everyone has one course, the chair assigns second
courses on the basis of the system outlined above.
Updating. At the end of each summer the chairperson will update the list, adding weights where
appropriate and recomputing the rankings. The revised list will then be given to all faculty so that
they will know where they stand for the next summer.
Professional Development Money:
I. When the money is received or set aside from OE, it will be divided by the number of tenureline faculty members unless there are superceding conditions set by the dean and/or provost
and/or department. This number will include the chair, unless the dean provides separate
professional development funding for chairs, in which case the chair is out of the department
pool.
II. Each faculty member can claim up to that amount of the money simply by documenting
professional development expenses and getting the chair's signature.
Professional development expenses include:
 travel to conferences (includes presenting paper, commenting, discharging professional
duties, or simply attending)
 travel to research sources, including car mileage
 xeroxing or microfilming at archives and research libraries
 publication costs, e.g., index preparation, camera-ready copy
 inter library loan related to research
 special software, books, microfilm, and other items, if directly related to research
Professional development funded at the department level would not include expenses related to
grant preparation (because there is a separate "seed" account)
III. Faculty on sabbatical or research leave are eligible for this money.
IV. At the end of the year money not spent will be swept up and given to those who have spent
more than the allocated amount. Example: everybody spends more than $200 except for three
people who only spend $150 apiece. That leaves $150 (3 x $50) to be swept up. The $150 is
divided 10 ways (=$15). The ten people who each had more than $200 in documented expenses
get an additional $15, assuming they spent at least $215. If anyone didn't spend $215 (say they
spent $205), then the difference gets thrown back in the pool and divided among the others who
were over $215. The algorithm repeats until the money is gone. At the chair's discretion
remaining funds may also be allocated to full-time, non-tenure-line faculty (e.g., visitors) who are
pursuing a program of professional development.
Honors Rotation: General Principles
The intention of this policy is to establish an equitable and orderly process for assigning honors
courses within the department. All requests to teach honors courses must be submitted to the
department chairperson (as well as to the honors program director) and are subject to veto if, in
the chair's judgment, they compromise the regular course offerings. Example: retirements,
leaves, or illness thin the ranks in specialty X, so the chair cannot spare a course in X that year.
It may also happen that the number of faculty who want to teach honors courses exceeds the
number of available slots. First, the chair determines if any of the proposals are ineligible for
scheduling reasons. If there is still a surplus after he or she has done this, then a rotation
scheme, analogous to summer teaching, will be applied.
Example: The chair has allocated six courses to honors. Eight proposals are submitted. One
proposal, submitted by a faculty member in understaffed area X, is ruled out for scheduling
reasons. Seven remain. All seven are approved by both the chair and the honors program
director. In that case highest priority is given to those who have taught the fewest honors courses
in the last three years.
Weights. A person's place in the rotation is determined by the number of honors credit hours
taught during the previous three years, including summers. The lower the score, the higher the
person is on the list. This includes people on twelve-month administrative contracts (e.g.,
associate deans) who are also eligible to teach honors courses.
New faculty, including those hired within the last two years, are assigned a weight of 3 credit
hours for each of the three previous years. They will not be at the top of the rotation list, but
neither will they necessarily be at the bottom.
Ties. In the event of a numerical tie, the chair will break the tie by means of some random device,
provided that, as stated above, there is no compelling curricular or enrollment reason to favor one
person over another.
Second courses. If slots are left over after everyone has one course, the chair assigns second
courses on the basis of the system outlined above.
Updating. Prior to scheduling requests for the next academic year, the chair will update the list,
adding weights where appropriate and recomputing the rankings. The revised list will then be
given to all faculty so that they will know where they stand.
Honors director. This policy not withstanding, the honors director and honors council have
independent veto power over all proposals.
Philosophy Graduate Program Coordinator
This colleague is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the MA in Practical Philosophy
and Applied Ethics program and the Certificate in Applied Ethics program: advertising, recruiting,
admissions, and advising students as they progress through the program. He or she will consult
with the chair on the scheduling of graduate courses and with the entire philosophy faculty if a
graduate student makes a special appeal. The graduate coordinator will also be the department's
ex officio representative for college or university committees or events related to graduate
studies.
The graduate program coordinator will serve a three-year term. When a vacancy or resignation
occurs, the chair will select a replacement from a list approved by a majority vote of full-time
department faculty. Nominations and self-nominations will be solicited by the chair, who will
submit the names to the department faculty for a vote. Faculty (including the chair) will vote each
candidate either "acceptable" or "unacceptable." The chair will then choose a director from those
candidates whom a majority deemed acceptable. (The chair need not appoint the top "votegetter," though he or she may wish to consider such quantitative information.) The chair may also
convene a meeting to discuss the candidates with those faculty who are not seeking the office. In
short, the graduate program coordinator election process is designed to parallel that of chair
elections.
Graduate Studies Committee
The Graduate Committee has primary responsibility for oversight of the Graduate Program. It
discusses and recommends to the department on substantive matters such as curriculum and
applications to the graduate program. It is composed of three faculty members in addition to the
department chair and the graduate coordinator, who chairs the committee. Committee members
will be appointed by the department chair in consultation with the graduate coordinator, to serve
two-year staggered terms. The Graduate Committee will establish its own schedule of meetings
to discuss and act on applications to the program. Names of applicants will be announced and
applications will be on file for consultation by all faculty before a meeting, so that interested
faculty can provide input to the committee.
Religious Studies Program Coordinator
The Religious Studies coordinator advises and assists the chair on matters pertaining to the
administration of the religious studies program. Duties include taking primary responsibility for the
following agenda, either taking on the duties him or herself or working with the chair of the
department for appropriate assignment of them.
 Report to the Philosophy Department chair.
 Chair the Religious Studies steering committee.
 Coordinate development and modification of the program and the curriculum in conjunction
with chair and colleagues.
 Supervise APC paperwork and, as needed, represent the program in college and university
curriculum and other relevant committees.
 Work with the department chair in identifying potential part-time faculty; coordinate
interview and review of their candidacy.
 With the department chair, establish a (multi year) curricular schedule
 Assist the department chair in scheduling courses.
 Assist the department chair in evaluating possible transfer credit for courses from other
schools.
 Advise current and potential religious studies students.
 Direct recruitment of students.

Direct the distribution of information to RS students and promote/publicize religious studies
courses.

Administer the Religious Studies Speakers Series.


When appropriate, organize and host an annual Open House.
Optional: Serve as faculty advisor of a Religious Studies student club, should one be
developed.
The Religious Studies Program Coordinator will serve a three year term. When a vacancy or
resignation occurs, the chair will select a replacement from a list approved by a majority vote of
full-time department faculty. Nominations and self-nominations will be solicited by the chair, who
will submit the names to the department faculty for a vote. Faculty (including the chair) will vote
each candidate either "acceptable" or "unacceptable." The chair will then choose a coordinator
from those candidates whom a majority deemed acceptable. (The chair need not appoint the top
"vote-getter," though he or she may wish to consider such quantitative information.) The chair
may also convene a meeting to discuss the candidates with those faculty who are not seeking the
office. In short, the Religious Studies Program Coordinator selection process is designed to
parallel that of chair selections.
Religious Studies Steering Committee
The Religious Studies Steering Committee has primary responsibility for oversight of the
department?s Religious Studies program. It discusses and recommends to the department on
substantive matters such as curriculum and program development. Members of the committee
will also review the credentials of candidates for part-time faculty positions and make appointment
recommendations to the chair.? The committee is composed of at least two faculty members in
addition to the department chair and the religious studies coordinator, who chairs the committee.
Committee members will be appointed by the department chair in consultation with the religious
studies coordinator.
Emeritus Faculty
All retiring tenured faculty holding the rank of either full or associate professor are eligible for
emeritus status. During the final year of an eligible colleague?s regular employment, the
department chairperson will convene a meeting of senior department faculty to decide whether
the colleague should or should not be recommended for emeritus status.? Following
deliberations, committee members, the chairperson included, will cast a written vote for or against
the colleague?s candidacy.? The chair will then report the results to the college dean.? If the vote
is positive the chair will also prepare and deliver to the dean for his/her approval a formal
nomination of the colleague for emeritus status.? The dean will in turn submit the nomination,
together with his/her own assessment, to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs for
final approval and action.