Chapter 4A

Each spring, department chairs receive from the divisional/SEAS associate dean a list of faculty scheduled for review for promotion to tenured professor during the next academic or calendar year.

Note: Promotion reviews should ordinarily be completed by the end of the associate professor’s penultimate year of appointment.

Note: With the significant disruptions to professional life resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, the FAS instituted in Spring 2020 a policy of extensions, allowing then-current tenure-track faculty the option of extending their appointment and postponing their promotion review for one semester or a year, depending on their eligibility. Similarly, FAS faculty whose appointments began in the fall term of 2020 were offered the option to extend their initial appointment by one year. In Spring 2021, recognizing the ongoing impact of COVID-19, the FAS encouraged any interested tenure-track faculty to contact their divisional dean/SEAS dean if they wished to request an additional year of appointment and tenure-clock extension, for reasons of significant professional and/or personal disruption due to the pandemic. In January 2022, given the continuing impact of the pandemic, the FAS provided the option of a third appointment extension, for any interested tenure-track faculty who have not yet had their review for promotion to tenure and who feel that an extension would help them to address Covid-related impacts on their professional lives.

In addition, the FAS stated in Spring 2021 that it will grant relief from teaching one course for any interested tenure-track colleagues (regardless of dependent-care circumstances) who were on the FAS tenure-track during the 2020-21 academic year and who teach in departments/areas that have a typical teaching load of two courses or more per year. These eligible tenure-track faculty can take this course relief any time before they come up for tenure. Please see 3.E.3, “Additional Leave and Teaching Relief,” for more information on this one-time teaching relief. 

Moreover, effective July 1, 2023, tenure-track faculty who take a medical leave lasting eight weeks or longer (including medical leave associated with childbirth) will have the option to take a one-year extension to their current appointment as well. If the faculty member opts to take the one-year extension, the faculty member will also be eligible for one semester of teaching relief. The semester of teaching relief must be used during the faculty member’s current appointment (i.e., the appointment they hold during the time of their leave) and before their next promotion review year. The only exception to this policy is if a faculty member takes a medical leave during their associate review year; in that case, they can use the term of teaching relief during their associate professor term and before their tenure review year, assuming the associate review is successful. Faculty may not, ordinarily, be out of the classroom for more than one year at a time. If a faculty member comes up for promotion review early and has not yet made use of this term of teaching relief, the teaching relief will not carry over into their subsequent appointment if successfully promoted or into the last year of their appointment if not promoted. (For more information, please see Chapter 3H, “Other Leaves (Family [including Parental], Medical, and Personal) and Extensions.”)

Internal and external evaluators in tenure reviews should evaluate candidates by using the standard criteria for tenure provided in Chapter 4A (the “Description” of tenured professors). Evaluators should assess a faculty member’s aggregated scholarship, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship without any penalty if the faculty member received teaching relief and/or appointment extension(s) due to the pandemic, medical, or parental leave. For example, if a candidate for tenure was given a one-year clock extension and thus came up for tenure in the eighth (rather than the ordinary seventh) year after their initial appointment date, their body of work should be evaluated as if they had had seven years to work towards tenure. Similarly, and for example, if a tenure-track faculty member was given one course of teaching relief, they should be evaluated for tenure as if they had taught the course for which they received relief. Clock extensions and teaching relief related to the pandemic, medical leave, or parental leave should not be counted against candidates in any way.

Note: Following completion of the steps below, departments submit promotion recommendations no later than March 1 (for “academic-year” appointments ending in June) or October 1 (for “calendar-year” appointments ending in December). If these dates fall on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is the next business day.

Note: This “Steps” table shows suggested timing for tenure-track faculty whose appointments end in June. The “Suggested Timelines” at the end of this chapter also show timing for appointments that end in December.

Proximate to July 1 (for academic-year appointments), the divisional associate dean sends a letter to the candidate informing them of the official start of their review.

This letter, sent to the candidate close to July 1, informs the candidate that this is the year of their tenure review, that July 1 constitutes the official start of their review process, that the next step is for the candidate to meet with their department chair to discuss the review process and necessary materials, that the candidate’s materials are due to the department by September 1 (for academic-year appointments), and that the steps of the entire review process are available in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook.

Note: If September 1 falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline for the candidate to submit all of their dossier materials to the department is the next business day. In addition, September 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) is the deadline for eligible candidates to notify their divisional associate dean that, due to the pending birth or adoption of a child, they would like to receive the FAS’s automatic one-year appointment extension and review postponement that are granted to expecting parents. In particular, expecting parents whose birth- or adoption-date falls no later than one month after September 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) must notify their divisional/SEAS associate dean by September 1 (or the next business day) that they wish to have this automatic appointment extension and review postponement. For more on this policy, please see Chapter 3.H.3. (“For Tenure-Track Faculty: Childcare Appointment Extension and Postponement of Review Policies”) in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook.

In July of the candidate’s penultimate year as an associate professor, the chair and the candidate meet to discuss the tenure review process and materials needed for the review. The chair reminds the candidate to provide all of their materials by September 1.

Note: By the time the candidate comes up for promotion, the department should have had ample opportunities to hear the candidate present his/her/their research. If this has not recently occurred, the candidate should give a talk presenting his/her/their research to the department.

As a general principle in promotion reviews for tenure-track faculty, there is no formula at the FAS for the relative weights of research, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship in promotion decisions. The FAS is looking for high-impact contributions in each of these areas, and “impact” can take many forms.

Teaching, advising, and mentoring:

Teaching, advising, and mentoring are distinct categories of activity and assessment. In particular:

• Teaching: refers to classroom teaching of undergraduates and graduate students.
• Advising: refers to the many ways that faculty provide intellectual guidance to undergraduates and graduate students outside of the classroom, and to postdocs. This includes, and is not limited to, such things as (for undergraduates) senior thesis advising or concentration advising and (for graduate students) dissertation advising, advising on Ph.D. oral exams, etc.
• Mentoring: in contrast to the intellectual advising described above, refers to faculty efforts to support the professional development and career development of undergraduate students, graduate students, TFs, and postdoctoral fellows.
• The FAS endorses a developmental view of the candidate’s teaching, advising, and mentoring—that these activities are learned over time, and as important as “achievements” in these areas are the effort, thoughtfulness, and willingness to improve that a faculty member demonstrates. 

The candidate should submit:

1. Curriculum vitae, including a complete bibliography. Note: Candidates who opted in Spring 2020, Spring 2021, and/or Spring 2022 for an extension of their tenure clock due to the COVID-19 pandemic and/or parental leave and/or have thereafter extended their clock due to medical leave and/or parental leave, may include the following language in their c.v.s, if they wish: “Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences grants appointment extensions and teaching relief to tenure-track faculty, in keeping with policies related to the COVID-19 pandemic, medical leave, and parental leave. Accordingly, Harvard delayed my tenure review by [INSERT NUMBER OF YEARS OR, IF LESS THAN ONE YEAR, NUMBER OF MONTHS] [INCLUDE IF APPROPRIATE: and gave me [INSERT NUMBER] course[s] of teaching relief].”
2. Copies of all publications (including forthcoming) or other scholarly materials, and all significant reviews (in book fields). In art-making fields, copies, as appropriate, of all creative works, and all significant reviews. In all cases, indicate which items the candidate would like sent to external reviewers.
3. A teaching/advising/mentoring statement:
   • Just as the summary teaching chart provides a summary of the candidate’s teaching portfolio (see Step 5), similarly the candidate should, in the teaching/advising/mentoring statement, provide a summary description of the advising and mentoring work they did with undergraduate and graduate students, TFs, and postdoctoral fellows.
   • The candidate should not just describe, but also assess and reflect on their efforts in teaching, advising, and mentoring. Because the FAS takes a developmental view of teaching, advising, and mentoring, the candidate should reflect on aspects of their professional progression and on how they have addressed any areas of concern. In the statement, they may discuss:
     • their philosophy/approach to teaching, advising, and mentoring
     • how the candidate defines effectiveness in each of these areas, and the methods and approaches they use to achieve these
     • their reasoning and process in forming their teaching portfolio
     • how they engage with students, advisees, and mentees at various levels (e.g., first-years, concentrators, graduate students, TFs, postdoctoral fellows)
     • their approach to creating a learning environment in which students are encouraged to ask questions and share their ideas.
     • any challenges the candidate faced and any modifications made to courses, teaching, advising, and mentoring in response to feedback
     • any ways the candidate has actively worked to improve their teaching, advising, or mentoring 
   • Given the often interconnected nature of teaching, advising, and mentoring individuals, the candidate is not obligated to discuss these three topics in rigid separation from, and in sequence with, each other. However, regardless of how the candidate organizes their statement, their discussion should still clearly maintain the distinctions between these activities, as noted in the definitions above.
4. Teaching, advising, and mentoring materials:
   • This includes teaching awards, representative course syllabi, and a list of past and present undergraduate, graduate, and (as relevant) postdoctoral advisees and mentees (including those who have moved to another research group). The candidate may include informal advisees and mentees.
5. A research statement, which succinctly summarizes the work the candidate has accomplished, articulates the impact they have had on their field, and lays out their future research goals.
6. A service/citizenship statement that describes efforts to strengthen academic communities, e.g., department, institution, and/or professional societies.
7. A statement addressing overlap in publications and joint authorship. This statement should make clear: 1) In book fields, in what specific instances the candidate’s publications are partial or significant reiterations of scholarship covered in others of the candidate’s publications (such as articles) and 2) In all fields, in jointly-authored publications, what the candidate’s unique scholarly contribution was. The purpose of this statement is to provide a clearer picture of the candidate’s body of work and, where applicable, the nature of their collaborations with others.
8. As applicable, a list of current and pending funding.
9. Other relevant materials, such as a list of experts in the field whom the department may wish to consult about the review or any experts the candidate feels should not be consulted, with an accompanying explanation. If the candidate prefers, the candidate may provide this explanatory information to the department chair. The candidate may also consult with the associate dean. The committee takes into consideration the suggestions of the candidate, but the committee has final authority, in consultation with the divisional dean, in deciding who should be consulted.

The department chair should inform the candidate that the candidate should not solicit letters from students (or postdocs) for inclusion in these materials.

The chair requests divisional dean approval of a proposed review committee and, following this approval, appoints the committee.

• The committee consists of tenured colleagues who will evaluate the case. The committee should include a tenured faculty member from another department/SEAS area or Harvard school. The request should name the committee chair and other review committee members. Former undergraduate, graduate, or postdoctoral advisors of the candidate should not chair the committee. 
• When there is an overlap in research interests, the chair should ask a representative of the appropriate center, institute, or initiative to serve on or consult with the review committee. 
• Ordinarily, chairs should also include on the committee a faculty member from any degree/curricular standing committees in which the candidate has at least a half-time appointment. 
• In addition, the review committee chair should seek an evaluation(s) from the chair(s) of the undergraduate degree/curricular standing committee(s) of which the candidate is a member. The evaluation(s) should be embedded verbatim into the case statement, accompanied by the review committee’s reflections on the evaluation(s). 
• To the extent possible, departments should strive for some overlap in membership between the candidate’s associate review committee and tenure review committee. There should not be complete overlap, to ensure fresh views at the tenure review stage and to also encourage more tenured-faculty engagement with tenure-track colleagues.

The department compiles a summary teaching chart and gathers information on the candidate’s performance as an adviser and mentor of undergraduates, graduate students, and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows.

• The summary teaching chart summarizes, in reverse chronological order, the candidate’s teaching portfolio: i.e., all courses the candidate has taught, including course titles, enrollments, and overall course and instructor scores. (Note: In the teaching chart, please indicate which, if any, courses were taught remotely, whether partially or in full, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.)
• To gather advisee and mentee feedback on advising and mentoring, the department chair (or their designee) solicits feedback from the candidate’s current and former undergraduates, graduate students, and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows, including those who have moved to another research group. This feedback is solicited using a Qualtrics survey (see these instructions). The survey questions and accompanying email can be found here [Advisee/Mentee Feedback Email and Questionnaire]. Advisee/mentee responses will be kept confidential and advisee/mentee names will be redacted (although the dean or their designee may request any information regarding the case if questions arise). 
  • The review committee receives the redacted advisee and mentee responses and includes a summary of them in the case statement (see Step 11). 
  • The advisee and mentee responses, with the names redacted, are shared in their entirety with the divisional/SEAS office and the Office for Faculty Affairs. These complete responses should not be included in the dossier, nor shared with the candidate.
• The chair or other designated members of the department are strongly encouraged to attend the candidate’s classes sometime during the candidate's tenure-track appointment.

The committee considers all the gathered materials and the department decides whether to proceed with the case.

• If, after preliminary review of the candidate’s materials (including teaching evaluations and confidential advisee/mentee feedback), the review committee wishes to seek clarification from the candidate on aspects of the candidate’s materials, the department chair is permitted to send written questions to the candidate on behalf of the review committee, with a date by which the candidate should send written answers back to the department chair. This must occur before sending the case to the department for initial review. Questions should be limited to matters that the review committee deems essential to clarify. The review committee’s questions and the candidate’s response will become part of the final dossier. 

The review committee is under no obligation to seek clarification from the candidate on their materials. 

• In addition to the materials described in the steps above, the committee should review the feedback letter that the candidate received after their review for promotion to associate professor. This letter provides a fuller context for understanding how the candidate has developed and also sheds some light on the mentoring they received. (For candidates who were externally appointed at the rank of associate professor, the feedback letter from their second-year review as an associate professor should be reviewed by the tenure review committee.) 
• After reviewing all the candidate’s materials (including any clarifications, as necessary), the committee reports its initial findings to the department. The department’s tenured members discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the case and decide whether it warrants further review. Departmental discussions of the case should be robust.
• If the case does not warrant further review, the department must affirm this decision by a recorded vote. The department chair then sends to the divisional dean the current dossier, including a record of the department vote, and a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the case that led to the vote. The divisional/SEAS associate dean provides the department chair with a draft letter to the candidate. 
• Notes: 
  • When a candidate opts, at any stage in the process, to withdraw their case from consideration, the candidate should state this in a letter to the department chair, which the chair shares with the divisional dean. Candidates who withdraw their case from consideration, at any stage in the process, will not subsequently be reviewed for internal promotion to tenure. 
  • When a tenure review is unsuccessful, whether or not it involves the candidate withdrawing at any stage in the process, the candidate cannot then be appointed instead to another FAS tenure-track position upon the conclusion of their existing FAS tenure-track appointment. An unsuccessful tenure review does not necessarily preclude the possibility of a later appointment as an FAS tenured professor, after, for instance, the candidate has spent time at another institution.
  • If a candidate chooses to undergo a review for promotion to tenure at an earlier time than in the ordinary timetable for tenure reviews, and if that early review is unsuccessful, the candidate’s tenure-track appointment will end one year after the review occurred, superseding the original end-date of the tenure-track appointment.

If further review is recommended, the department requests authorization from the divisional dean to request external evaluation letters. With the request, the department should submit a draft of the tenure review letter, the recipient list (see Sample Table), and, if the department chooses to send an initial inquiry (see Step 7c) before the tenure review letter, a draft of the initial inquiry letter.

Note: This information should ordinarily be submitted to the divisional dean in October.

The tenure review letter (see the Sample Letters section of this handbook) should include: 

• A broad description of the candidate’s field. Care should be taken to define the field with sufficient breadth that the candidate’s contributions can be understood within an appropriately broad context. The field should not be defined as a narrow subfield specific to the candidate’s interests. Please see Step 11 for more information on the field definition.^[1]
• Identification of the candidate for promotion.
• The criteria for appointment to a tenured position at Harvard.
• The comparison list (see below).
• A request that the individuals named be compared, taking into account the career stages of the comparands and the candidate.
• Note: In rare cases where the candidate’s work is especially complex (e.g., at the convergence of several subfields) and where the comparand list may likewise be complex, the review committee will be allowed to add a brief sentence or two to the letter requesting external evaluations, more clearly explaining what aspect(s) of the candidate’s work the committee would like to hear about. Adding such language to the letter will be subject to divisional dean/SEAS dean approval. This proviso also applies to “internal external” letters (see Step 7b).
• A request for a recommendation of whether the candidate merits tenure within the FAS at Harvard.
• An indication that the University will make every effort possible to keep the response confidential and will make it available only to the senior members of the department and others directly involved in the formal review process.
• The deadline for receipt of responses and contact information. (Note: The department should give letter writers at least six to eight weeks to prepare their letters—dating from the mailing of the tenure review letter, not the initial inquiry—depending on the volume of materials under review.) 

The comparison list: 

• The comparison list includes four to five scholars in the candidate’s field who span a range of experiences from the strongest recently tenured scholars to full professors who are well-established leaders in the field; in some instances, it may be appropriate to include highly accomplished senior researchers, museum professionals, practicing artists, or others. The list must include at least two full professors. In addition to representing a range of career experience, the comparison list should reflect an appropriately broad definition of the field.
• The comparand exercise is a benchmarking exercise, to help the review committee understand the candidate’s current standing in and impact on the field, as well as their future trajectory. The candidate does not need to come out “on top” of the list of comparands, in order to merit tenure at Harvard; rather, the letter writers’ analyses shed light in a textured way on where the candidate stands in the field (and why) and where they may arrive in time. When leaders in the field, at more advanced career stages, are comparands, the expectation is less that the candidate has also attained that standing (though that may be the case); of interest is the candidate’s trajectory.
• The comparand list gives letter writers a sense of the caliber of comparand and the range of career stages that the department feels will help them gauge the candidate’s standing in and impact on the field. Letter writers are allowed to substitute different comparands if they think certain individuals would be more appropriate.
• In certain interdisciplinary cases where the department, with divisional/SEAS dean approval, writes to scholars in multiple fields, the same comparand list should be sent to all recipients, and the letter writer (as is standard practice in all cases) can substitute more appropriate comparands if necessary.
• The comparands listed are not candidates for the position and are listed solely as benchmarks for the candidate undergoing review.
• When a department, with divisional/SEAS dean approval, considers it important to seek an evaluation of the candidate from one of the comparands, the department is allowed to do so, but must first remove the comparand’s name from the letter soliciting their evaluation.
• The most useful comparison list consists of scholars who themselves meet the standards for tenure within the FAS. (However, no Harvard faculty—excluding the candidate—should be included on the comparison list.)
• The list should be in alphabetical order and include title/current rank, home institution, year of doctorate and institution, and a link to the scholars’ websites. 

The recipient list (see the Sample Table in this handbook): 

• The tenure dossier must contain a minimum of 10 arm’s length letters, with at least 5 of these letters from people who did not write for the associate review. “Arm’s length” means that the evaluator is not a past or present advisor, mentor, collaborator, co-teacher, or other role in close relationship to the candidate, as assessed by the divisional/SEAS dean’s office.
• The recipient list should include active scholars within the field (or fields, in interdisciplinary cases). The recipient list should reflect an appropriately broad definition of the field.
• All letter writers must be tenured, but all are not required to be tenured at the rank of full professor. Departments are encouraged to seek letters from tenured full professors, but up to half of the “arm’s length” letters may be from tenured associate professors. Letter writers do not themselves need to be viewed by the department as tenurable at Harvard, but they should be eminent scholars whose views of the candidate would be valuable to have.
• In science and engineering cases, some of the external reviewers may be prestigious senior researchers from corporations or research institutes, rather than universities.
• In certain arts and humanities cases, some of the external reviewers may be well-established museum professionals or practicing artists.
• As a general principle when soliciting “arm’s length” letters, where the goal is to get the best information as early as possible, departments should write to all external scholars whom they believe would be helpful to hear from and not try to “hold back” scholars for potential use at the ad hoc stage. Scholars who are invited to write letters but do not do so may be asked to sit on ad hoc committees.
• If necessary for certain interdisciplinary candidates, departments are allowed to solicit letter writers in multiple fields to ensure an informed assessment of the candidate’s work. In such cases, it would be expected that there would be more than ten arm’s-length letters. Conversations with the candidate should have occurred at or before the associate review stage to gauge whether their work is interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary and will likely require this wide range of evaluators.
• All of the arm’s length external letter writers who submitted letters for the associate review must be asked to write letters for the tenure review. As mentioned above, ultimately, at least five of the arm’s-length external letters in a tenure review must be from people who did not write external letters for the associate review.

Please use the template provided (see Sample Table) to ensure that all relevant information for each recipient is recorded.

(Optional step, for departments choosing to solicit letters from collaborators or mentors, and/or “internal external” evaluators)

The department submits to the divisional dean a draft of the solicitation letter(s) to mentors and collaborators and/or to “internal external” letter writers and adds these names to the recipient list that contains the arm’s-length external letter writers (see Step 7a).

Note: This information should ordinarily be submitted to the divisional dean in October.

In addition to the required ten arm’s length letters, the department has the option of soliciting letters from past or present collaborators and mentors (whether they are at Harvard or other schools).

In addition to the required ten arm’s-length letters, the department has the option of soliciting up to two “internal external” letters (i.e., from tenured faculty who are from other FAS departments, centers, or other Harvard Schools). “Internal external” letter writers, ordinarily, do not later serve on the ad hoc committee. 

As with the parameters for external letter writers, described in Step 7a, collaborators or mentors or “internal external” evaluators must:

• Be tenured, but all are not required to be tenured at the rank of full professor. Letter writers do not themselves need to be viewed by the department as tenurable at Harvard, but they should be eminent scholars whose views of the candidate would be valuable to have.
• In science and engineering cases, some of the reviewers may be prestigious senior researchers from corporations or research institutes, rather than universities.
• In certain arts and humanities cases, some of the reviewers may be well-established museum professionals or practicing artists. 

The solicitation letter: Please use the template in Chapter 15, for soliciting evaluations from collaborators or mentors, or “internal external” letter writers. 

The recipient list: When adding the names of any collaborators or mentors or “internal external” letter writers, please keep these names separate from the required “arm’s length” external letter writers.

Optional step, for departments choosing to send an initial inquiry.

In October, once the divisional dean has approved the review letter (for external letter writers) and/or solicitation letter(s) (for any collaborator/mentor or “internal external” letter writers), the recipient list, and initial inquiry letter, the department chair sends the initial inquiry to scholars on the recipient list.

The initial inquiry email (see the Sample Letter section of this handbook) asks recipients if they would be willing to write a letter, requesting their answer by a specific date.

• For external letters, the department writes to a number of scholars sufficient to elicit at least 10 “arm’s length” letters for inclusion in the final dossier (with at least 5 letters from people who did not write for the associate review). Please take into account that 10 affirmative responses to the initial inquiry may not ultimately result in 10 evaluations of the candidate.
• The inquiry email and all responses from scholars should be included in the final dossier.
• Any initial inquiries conducted by phone (and scholars’ responses) must be documented for inclusion in the final dossier.

The chair sends the tenure review letter (for external letter writers) and/or solicitation letter(s) (for any collaborator/mentor or “internal external” letter writers), along with the candidate materials, to all scholars who have replied affirmatively to the initial inquiry email (see Step 7c). If the chair has chosen not to send any initial inquiries, the letter(s) and candidate materials are sent directly to the scholars on the recipient list. In both cases, the chair requests receipt of letters by the end of December.

• With the letter, the department should include the candidate’s CV, research statement, teaching/advising/mentoring statement, service/citizenship statement, statement on overlap and joint authorship on publications, selected publications and all significant reviews (in book fields)—or, in art-making fields, copies, as appropriate, of selected creative works and all significant reviews—and a link to the candidate’s website.
• For external letters, the department writes to a number of scholars sufficient to elicit 10 “arm’s length” letters for inclusion in the final dossier.
• The names of scholars declining to write an evaluation should be noted in the case statement. Any explanatory emails/letters from these scholars should be included with the other evaluations.

Note: On an exceptional basis, subject to divisional/SEAS dean approval, and only in rare instances where it is essential that the committee hears from someone who is unable to provide their evaluation in a written letter, the committee may gather that person’s evaluation by phone or Zoom. The committee chair will conduct the conversation with a representative from the Office of Faculty Affairs present following a script of questions that is reviewed and approved by the divisional/SEAS associate dean. The notes from this conversation will be included in the dossier.

After discussing all of the letters, the review committee drafts a case statement; the tenured members of the department review all materials, discuss the case, and vote (January or February).

• The draft case statement for the candidate summarizes the committee’s conclusions, including the strengths and weaknesses of the case with regard to teaching, advising, mentoring, research, and service/citizenship (see Step 11 for all of the necessary elements of the final case statement). 
• The department reviews the draft case statement, the evaluative letters, and all of the candidate’s materials, and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the case. This discussion should be in-depth and rigorous. Faculty should share their views, so that questions or concerns can be openly addressed in the departmental forum. The department should assess whether the candidate has met the criteria for tenure within the FAS. As part of this discussion, the department should assess the impact the candidate has had on the field (e.g., whether the candidate is setting the agenda in the field), the candidate’s trajectory (whether the candidate has distinguished themself from their cohort and is emerging as among the most influential figures in the field), and the candidate’s potential for future contributions. The candidate’s impact in teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship should also be assessed.
• The tenured members of the department vote on whether the case is strong enough to proceed. A favorable vote does not have to be unanimous but must comprise affirmative votes by a significant majority of the tenured faculty in the department. If the department does not believe that the candidate warrants tenure at Harvard, the department chair sends to the divisional dean the current dossier, including a record of the department vote, a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the case that led to the vote, and a draft of the letter to the candidate. After divisional dean approval, the department gives the letter to the candidate. 

After a favorable vote, the chair asks each tenured member of the department, including those on the review committee, to write a confidential letter to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS.

These letters express the tenured faculty members’ views on the promotion and will be included in the candidate’s dossier to be reviewed by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) and the ad hoc committee, as appropriate.

(For inclusion in the dossier, letters should be sent electronically to the ad hoc coordinator in the Office for Faculty Affairs, ryoung@fas.harvard.edu.)

The case statement is finalized by the department chair, for review by the divisional/SEAS dean.

The finalized case statement, prepared and signed by the department chair and the chair of the review committee, for review by the divisional/SEAS dean (see Step 12), should include the following sections. Please use the Case Statement Template and Case Statement Checklist to ensure that the case statement is complete. 

• A one-paragraph executive summary of the candidate’s contributions and the department’s recommendation.
• Background and context:
  • A description of the candidate’s field.
    • The field definition should be sufficiently broad that the candidate’s impact beyond their own specialization can be determined. For instance, the field definition may situate the candidate’s area of specialization within a broader field; or the definition may speak to the “Venn diagram” of the candidate’s impact, i.e., not only the immediate subfield in which they work, but the adjacent subfields and fields affected by this work.
  • Discuss how the candidate’s field fits into the department’s academic plan. Discuss how this appointment would relate to FAS/SEAS faculty working in similar or adjacent intellectual fields. Describe the teaching needs that the appointment would address.
• Summary of the review process.
  • List of key dates, such as and not limited to:
    • The date that the department chair/SEAS dean met with the candidate to discuss the review process and materials that the candidate should submit by the September 1 (for academic-year appointments) or March 1 (for calendar-year appointments) deadline.
    • The dates of review committee meetings and departmental meetings about the case.
    • The date that the department sent requests for the required arm’s length external letters and for any letters from collaborators or mentors or “internal external” letter writers.
  • Summary of measures that the department took to foster appropriate continuity between the candidate’s associate review and tenure review (e.g., overlap in external letter writers; the encouraged overlap in review committee membership; progressive development of the field definition over the course of successive reviews; efforts to reach a developmental understanding and assessment of the candidate’s teaching, advising, mentoring, etc.).
• Comparands sent to letter writers:
  • Provide the list of comparands that the department sent to letter writers: names, home institutions, and links to each comparand's home page, with a brief rationale for each comparand. Explain how this comparand list reflects an appropriately broad definition of the field and represents a range of career experience conducive to shedding light on the current standing and future trajectory of the candidate.
  • If any letter-writers have opted to substitute different comparands, indicate who made substitutions and what substitutions they made.
  • If any comparands (as infrequently occurs) were also asked to write an external letter (with their name removed from the comparand list in the letter that requested their evaluation), please note that here.
• Letter writers:
  • In each of these three categories—a) required arm’s- length external letters; b) optional letters from collaborators or mentors); and c) optional “internal external” letters—describe how many letters were solicited, how many requests were declined, how many letters were received, and any inferences from the pattern of responses.
  • Describe the logic underlying the composition of the letter-writer group (especially in cases where the candidate is multidisciplinary).
• The intellectual case for the candidate:
  • A summary of the candidate’s scholarly contributions.
  • An analysis of whether these contributions meet the intellectual criteria for tenure, including the impact the candidate has had on the field (e.g., whether the candidate is setting the agenda in the field), an indication of the candidate’s trajectory (how the candidate has distinguished themself from their cohort and is emerging as among the most influential figures in the field), and the candidate’s potential for future contributions. This analysis should clearly draw on both the required arm’s-length external letters (including comparison of the candidate with the comparands), any optional “internal external” letters or letters from collaborators or mentors, and the considered judgments of departmental faculty. Short quotes from the letters may be included but should not substitute for robust analysis of the letter contents and their relation to the department’s deliberations. Please directly address any letters that provide negative evaluations of the candidate.
• Teaching, advising, mentoring:
  • An evaluation of teaching, advising, and mentoring effectiveness and impact in a variety of settings with both undergraduate and graduate students (and postdocs, as relevant). In particular:
  • Please provide 1) an explicit statement of what the department’s teaching expectations are/were for the tenure-track faculty member, 2) a discussion of how the faculty member was mentored in developing their teaching portfolio, 3) how the faculty member’s offerings contribute to the department’s stated goals, 4) for context, how this teaching portfolio compares to others in the department or field, to help calibrate the candidate’s contributions, and 5) an assessment of the candidate's effectiveness and impact through their teaching. As mentioned in Step 3, the FAS endorses a developmental view of the candidate’s teaching, advising, and mentoring. With this in mind, please assess and reflect on aspects of their professional progression and on how they have addressed any areas of concern.
  • Please describe how many undergraduates, graduate students, and (as relevant) postdoctoral fellows the department contacted for advisee and mentee feedback, how many in each category declined to respond, and how many sent feedback.
  • Please provide a summary of advisee and mentee feedback solicited by the department chair (or their designee) from current and former advisees and mentees. You may include quotes from the advisee or mentee feedback as long as the quotes do not reveal the identity of the advisee or mentee.
  • Please provide an assessment of how the candidate has made an impact through their advising and mentoring.
  • To help calibrate the candidate’s contributions, please indicate how the candidate’s  advising and mentoring responsibilities compare to others in the department or field.
• Service/citizenship:
  • Please provide an evaluation of the candidate’s service/citizenship in the department, School, University, and broader academic community. In particular: 

Please provide a) a discussion of the guidance that the department gave the candidate in developing as a citizen, b) an indication of how the candidate’s service load compares to others in the department or field, to help calibrate the candidate’s contributions, and c) a discussion of the candidate’s impact in this realm.

• As mentioned in Step 4, please include any verbatim evaluation(s) from the chair(s) of the undergraduate degree/curricular standing committee(s) of which the candidate is a member, accompanied by the review committee's reflections on the evaluation(s).
• If available, a link to a videotaped talk (ideally, a talk the candidate gave before coming up for tenure).
• A summary of the department's discussions of the case.
• Strengths and weakness: A discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate’s case as noted in the letters and in the internal conversations of both the review committee and the department. This analysis of strengths and weaknesses should reflect in-depth and rigorous committee and departmental deliberations of the candidate’s entire dossier.
• Departmental vote: A record of the department vote, by name, with an “as of” date for the vote tally.
• Signatures: An indication of the primary author of the statement and the signature of the department chair. 

Note: The finalized case statement should be made available to the faculty in the department involved in the review.

The candidate’s dossier is prepared by the department and sent to the associate dean for the division/SEAS by March 1.

Please securely send one digital copy of the following materials to the associate dean. Please follow HUIT’s recommended practices for secure document transfer, which can vary by user platform. For a full checklist of what the dossier should include, please see the dossier checklist.

• 1 digital PDF of the dossier
• As part of the dossier, but as an additional, distinct digital PDF, student teaching evaluations
  • For evaluations prior to Fall 2019, please see Harvard FAS Course Evaluations.
  • For evaluations from Fall 2019 onward, please follow these instructions.
• As part of the dossier, but as an additional, distinct digital PDF, publications and (in book fields) all significant reviews. (Articles, reviews, etc. should be included in this PDF. If available, digital copies of books should also be included.) In art-making fields, please include 1 digital PDF (if available) of creative works and all significant reviews.
• 1 digital Excel document (see Sample Table of Suggested Ad Hoc Committee Members) containing ad hoc committee membership recommendations
• Separate from the dossier, as an additional, distinct digital PDF, advisee and mentee responses with names redacted

The divisional dean/SEAS dean and associate dean will review the dossier, including close attention to the case statement. If the case statement needs further work, the associate dean will convey feedback to the department, along with any questions or feedback about the other materials. 

Note: The divisional dean/SEAS dean and/or their designee and the Dean for Faculty Affairs and Planning can ask for changes to the dossier at any time. After submission of the dossier, the divisional/SEAS office, the Office for Faculty Affairs, and the FAS Dean reserve the right to request additional information, including internal and/or external letters of evaluation should it be deemed necessary to obtain more information relevant to the review process.

• Once the associate dean confirms that the dossier and materials are complete, the department then sends 1 digital PDF of the dossier to the ad hoc coordinator in the Office for Faculty Affairs. 

Note: All digital materials must be sent securely. Please follow HUIT’s recommended practices for secure document transfer, which can vary by user platform.

The Committee on Appointments and Promotions reviews the dossier.

The Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) reviews the dossier and advises the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS on the next step for the dossier, which can include the following: 

1. The case is sufficiently strong to forward to the President 
2. CAP needs further information or the department needs to modify the case statement before the Dean decides whether to forward the case to the President, or 
3. The case is not strong enough, and CAP advises the Dean to turn down the tenure case. In the latter instance, the Dean (or their designee) notifies the department in writing within a reasonable timeframe. 

The President or Provost reviews the case.

This review usually, but not exclusively or necessarily, takes the form of an ad hoc committee, presided over by the President, the Provost, or the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty. An ad hoc review is one aspect of the decision-making process. The President or Provost may also consult with internal and external scholars who are not involved in the ad hoc review to provide greater context for the President’s deliberations. In order to protect the candidate and the integrity of the process, all aspects of the President’s deliberations, including the timing and the type of ad hoc, are strictly confidential. 

If the President decides to convene an ad hoc committee, it is assembled by the divisional dean and the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty. The committee ordinarily consists of two to three active, full professors from outside Harvard, two to three active, tenured professors at Harvard (from a department other than the one making the recommendation), the President or Provost, the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS, the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty, and the divisional dean responsible for the case. When appropriate, an external member may be a prestigious senior researcher from a corporation or research institute, a well-established practicing artist, or a renowned museum professional. The committee ordinarily hears from three to four faculty witnesses, including the department chair, the search committee chair, and other faculty. The candidate’s former undergraduate or graduate thesis advisors or postdoctoral advisors should not ordinarily serve as witnesses. 

Note: As noted in Step 7a, external letter writers who sent no, or little, response to a department’s request for a letter may be considered to serve on the ad hoc committee.

The President decides whether to approve the promotion to tenure and announces his decision.

After evaluating all of the information gathered throughout the process, the President makes the final decision regarding all tenure appointments that are forwarded to him for review and writes a letter with his decision to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS.

Note: If, at any point in the review process, the department, the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS advised by CAP, or the President determines that the case should not proceed, the department chair must notify the candidate in writing, with the draft letter to the candidate first approved by the divisional dean. 

If the decision is favorable, the tenure letter is issued by the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS.

The tenure letter contains information on title, appointment, salary, benefits, responsibilities, research funding, leave policies, and limitations or conditions and special arrangements (including joint or affiliate appointments). The tenure letter will be sent to the candidate following a successful review. 

Following a successful tenure review, the divisional/SEAS dean will also meet with the faculty member to congratulate them and to share feedback from the review process. Among other things, the insights gained during the review process can help the divisional/SEAS dean and faculty member to think together about ways that the faculty member can best contribute to Harvard’s mission, moving forward.

Unless the candidate informs the deans of their intention to leave, the appointment is processed in the Aurora system by the Office for Faculty Affairs.

The Office for Faculty Development provides all documentation for processing.

As mentioned at the start of Section 4A, some of the tasks in tenure reviews are performed by different individuals in, respectively, SEAS and the FAS divisions. Specifically:

• In SEAS, the John A. Paulson Dean of SEAS appoints the review committee (see Step 4 in the “Steps” table above).
• The SEAS review committee chair prepares the case statement (Steps 9 and 11) and signs the final case statement (Step 11).
• After a favorable vote on the candidate, all tenured faculty in SEAS are invited to write confidential letters to the Edgerley Family Dean of FAS (Step 10). Mentoring committee members who are not in SEAS are also invited to submit a confidential letter.
• If, at a point in the tenure review process, it is determined that the case will not proceed, the John A. Paulson Dean of SEAS notifies the candidate in writing. 

Please consult SEAS for more details on SEAS procedures.