IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

(EASTERN DIVISION)

Lisa Calvente )

Plaintiff, )

v. )

) 20–cv–3366

Salma Ghanem, and )

DePaul University )

Defendants. )

 _________________________________________)

Complaint And Jury Demand

Lisa Calvente alleges the following for her complaint against Salma Ghanem and DePaul 

University:

The Parties

1. Lisa Calvente (“Dr. Calvente”) resides in Cook County, Illinois. At all times relevant to this complaint, Dr. Calvente was a tenure–track assistant professor of Intercultural Communication and Performance Studies within the College of Communication (the “College”) at 

DePaul University (“DePaul” or the “University”). Dr. Calvente is an American of African, Latinx,

and Asian descent. 

2. Salma Ghanem (“Dr. Ghanem”) is the former dean of the College of Communication at DePaul, the former acting provost of DePaul, and the current interim provost of DePaul. 

Dr. Ghanem maintains an office in Cook County, Illinois and, on information and belief, is also a 

resident of Cook County, Illinois.

3. DePaul is a not–for–profit corporation and is the largest Catholic university in the 

United States. At all times relevant to this complaint, DePaul employed over five hundred people

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 1 of 188 PageID #:1
2

and was an employer as defined in 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). DePaul’s principal place of business is in 

Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

Jurisdiction and Venue

4. This Court has jurisdiction over Dr. Ghanem and DePaul because each of them 

committed the acts and omissions that are the subject of this litigation in Cook County, Illinois, 

which is in this district. Alternatively, this Court has jurisdiction over the defendants because they

are (on information and belief) both residents of Cook County, Illinois, which is in this district.

5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) because Dr. 

Ghanem and DePaul are residents of this district. Alternatively, venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts and omissions giving rise to 

this litigation occurred in this district.

6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 

because Counts I and III allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 and Counts II and IV allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et. seq. This Court has jurisdiction over the state law claim alleged in 

Count V pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 because that claim is so related to the federal claims that it

forms the basis for the same case or controversy.

Factual Allegations

7. This litigation seeks redress for significant abuses by Dr. Ghanem and DePaul University that were alternatively (i) in retaliation for Dr. Calvente’s complaints about racism within 

the College of Communication, and (ii) motivated by Dr. Calvente’s race, which abuses culminated in the denial of Dr. Calvente’s application for tenure and promotion from assistant professor to 

associate professor.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 2 of 188 PageID #:2
3

8. Dr. Calvente’s areas of research are the black diaspora, performance studies, and 

cultural studies with a particular interest in how performance and media ethnography can be used 

to interrogate discursive formations of racism, classism, and hetero/sexism in order to generate 

possibilities of belonging and social justice. She was hired to teach and to research, principally, the 

uncomfortable subjects of race and racism in the United States, a topic that scholarly research has 

described as impossible to teach to undergraduate students without causing discomfort. Dr. Calvente joined DePaul’s faculty at the start of the 2011/2012 academic year. 

The process for obtaining tenure at DePaul.

9. As is the case in many other universities in the United States, the grant of tenure at 

DePaul “creates the presumption of continuing employment . . . .” (DePaul University Faculty 

Handbook dated July 1, 2018 (the “Handbook”) §3.1, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1.) 

Indeed, the Handbook describes the rights and responsibilities of faculty at DePaul and also articulates the terms and conditions of faculty employment. In addition, the Handbook permits local 

academic units to articulate more specific guidelines with respect to their requirements for tenure

and promotion so long as those guidelines are consistent with the Handbook. 

10. Chapter 3 of the Handbook articulates a multi–step process for evaluating a faculty 

member’s application for tenure. As the first step, tenured faculty members of the local academic 

unit (in Dr. Calvente’s case, the College) vote on the candidate’s application for tenure. Then, the 

file is then sent to the University Board of Promotion and Tenure (the “UBPT”), which is comprised of seven tenured faculty members from across the University. The UBPT then makes an 

independent review of the tenure file and takes an independent vote to grant or deny tenure. 

However, as a practical matter, the recommendation of the UBPT is rarely different from that of 

the local academic unit. After the UBPT vote, the tenure file goes to the University provost for a 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 3 of 188 PageID #:3
4

final decision on the grant or the denial of tenure. Because section 3.5.6.3 of the Handbook requires the provost to overturn the decision of the UBPT “[o]nly in rare instances and for compelling reasons,” the decision of the UBPT to grant or deny tenure is typically final.

11. The standards evaluating candidates for tenure and promotion are articulated in 

Chapter 3 of the Handbook. As section 3.4.2 of the Handbook states, faculty are to be evaluated 

based on teaching and learning (collectively “teaching”) (Handbook §3.4.2.1); scholarship, research, or other creative activities (collectively “research”) (id. at §3.4.2.2); and service (id. at

§3.4.2.3). Expressly prohibited in evaluating a candidate’s tenure application—both under Chapter 

6 of the Handbook and also under state and federal law—are a faculty member’s race or her opposition to racism within her academic unit or the broader University.

12. A candidate who is unsuccessful in her application for tenure at DePaul is offered a 

one–year terminal contract that starts the at the beginning of the academic year following the denial. That candidate is then dismissed from faculty at the end of the terminal contract. 

13. Prior to a faculty member’s formal application for tenure, that faculty member is 

periodically and formally reviewed by the tenured faculty, or a subset thereof, in her academic unit. 

(Section 3.3.3.1 of the Handbook refers to these as probationary reviews.) The purpose of these 

probationary reviews is to report on the faculty member’s progress towards tenure and to determine whether the faculty member will be renewed. Accordingly, the untenured faculty member is 

reviewed based on her teaching, research, and service to her academic unit and the University. In 

the College, the Personnel Committee (a subset of the tenured faculty) conducts these reviews every two years.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 4 of 188 PageID #:4
5

14. Probationary reviews are among the only methods of terminating the employment 

of a tenure–line faculty member. The other methods of terminating a tenure–line faculty member’s employment include (i) the denial of tenure following a tenure–line faculty member’s application for tenure and promotion, and (ii) the process articulated in Chapter 4 of the Handbook.

Dr. Calvente’s probationary reviews.

15. Dr. Calvente received her probationary reviews in the winter of 2013, in March 

2015, and in November 2017. Although the Personnel Committee lodged no objection to Dr. 

Calvente in 2013, it is extremely rare for a tenure–track professor at DePaul to be recommended 

for non–renewal after one review cycle. In both 2015 and 2017, following changes in its composition, the Personnel Committee recommended Dr. Calvente’s contract not be renewed.

16. The March 7, 2015 report from the Personnel Committee recommending Dr. Calvente’s termination is attached as Exhibit 2. 

17. The Personnel Committee’s March 2015 evaluation was problematic for several 

reasons. First, with respect to Dr. Calvente’s teaching, the evaluation (willfully) ignored the (i) supermajority majority of her qualitative student evaluations, which praised Dr. Calvente’s teaching, 

and (ii) her quantitative scores, which surpassed the average scores for all College faculty in several 

areas. Indeed, the Personnel Committee’s review of Dr. Calvente’s teaching was so inconsistent 

with her file, that a January 15, 2020 report from an independent (i.e., not affiliated with the College) Faculty Appeals Committee opined that it approached a “willful distortion.” (See infra paragraph 31.) The Personnel Committee, however, did not so unfairly evaluate white faculty during

their probationary reviews.

18. Notwithstanding the Personnel Committee’s March 2015 recommendation, the 

then–dean of the College, Dr. Ghanem, reappointed Dr. Calvente to the College’s faculty.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 5 of 188 PageID #:5
6

19. Following the Personnel Committee’s 2015 recommendation of non–renewal, Dr. 

Calvente filed a complaint with DePaul’s Office of Institutional Diversity and Equity (“OIDE”) in 

June 2015. (As per then–current University policy, OIDE was tasked with investigating claims of 

discrimination or harassment on the basis of status protected by federal, state, or local law.) The 

complaint highlighted, among other issues, that tenured faculty at the College (i) ignored the majority of both Dr. Calvente’s qualitative and quantitative teaching evaluations that state that she is 

an excellent instructor, which evaluations were not ignored for white tenure–track teachers, (ii) 

ignored her evaluation scores, which surpassed all of the faculty averages in various areas, which it 

did not do for white tenure–track teachers, (iii) focused on the super minority of qualitative evaluations labeling her as hostile, which it did not do for white tenure–track teachers, and (iv) that her 

mistreatment was similar to mistreatment suffered by another (former) faculty of color in the College, Lisa Pecot–Hebert, who was ultimately forced out of the College. 

20. OIDE ultimately closed its investigation into Dr. Calvente’s June 2015 complaint 

on July 6, 2016, finding insufficient evidence of a violation of the University’s Anti–

Discrimination and Anti–Harassment Policy and Procedures.

21. On November 17, 2017, the Personnel Committee again recommended that Dr. 

Calvente’s contract not be renewed, again citing alleged deficiencies with Dr. Calvente’s teaching 

and her record of service. With respect to Dr. Calvente’s teaching, the Personnel Committee again 

emphasized the qualitative experience of a super–minority (2.5% during academic year 2017) of 

students who reported feeling uncomfortable in Dr. Calvente’s class due to the manner in which 

Dr. Calvente taught race and American racism, and it again ignored that (i) Dr. Calvente’s quantiCase: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 6 of 188 PageID #:6
7

tative scores were superior to most of her colleagues within the College, and (ii) the supermajority 

of Dr. Calvente’s qualitative scores were very positive.

22. The November 17, 2017 report from the Personnel Committee recommending Dr. 

Calvente’s termination is attached as Exhibit 3. 

23. Notwithstanding the Personnel Committee’s November 2017 recommendation, 

Dr. Ghanem reappointed Dr. Calvente to the College’s faculty.

Sydney Dillard is tenured and promoted while Dr. Calvente is given a terminal contract.

24. In the fall of 2018, Dr. Calvente and Dr. Sydney Dillard (an untenured member of 

the College’s faculty and an American of African Descent) presented a joint complaint to Dr. 

Ghanem concerning patterns of racial harassment, bullying, marginalization, and microaggressions 

within the College. This fall 2018 meeting was the first claim of racism and racial harassment that 

Dr. Calvente made directly to Dr. Ghanem.

25. Consistent with then–current DePaul policy concerning complaints of discrimination, Dr. Ghanem forwarded the concerns raised by Dr. Calvente and Dr. Dillard to DePaul’s office of Human Resources (“HR”). On information and belief, it was widely known within the College that (i) Dr. Dillard and Dr. Calvente complained about racism within the College to Dr. 

Ghanem, and (ii) HR would be investigating these complaints.

26. HR attempted to schedule a meeting with both Dr. Calvente and Dr. Dillard to 

discuss their concerns. Dr. Calvente, Dr. Dillard, and a representative from HR ultimately set a 

meeting for November 20, 2018; however, Dr. Dillard never showed up for the meeting as she 

withdrew her complaint at some unspecified time. 

27. Both Dr. Calvente and Dr. Dillard applied for tenure and promotion from assistant professor to associate professor during 2018/2019 academic year. Moreover, Dr. Calvente’s 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 7 of 188 PageID #:7
8

tenure dossier was at least as strong as Dr. Dillard’s in the areas of research and service, and stronger 

than Dr. Dillard’s in the area of teaching. Nevertheless, the vote by the College faculty on Dr. Calvente’s tenure application was 19–2 against the grant of tenure. (A copy of the dean’s summary of 

the College’s vote on Dr. Calvente’s application is attached as Exhibit 4.) With respect to Dr. 

Dillard’s application, the College recommended that she receive tenure. Dr. Ghanem—who had 

been since been appointed to serve as acting provost (see infra ¶29)—then tenured Dr. Dillard.

28. Following the College’s vote on Dr. Calvente’s tenure application, the UBPT conducted its independent review of the file. And after that review, the UBPT (which, at the time, had 

one member from the College, Bruno Teboul, on it) recommended that Dr. Calvente receive tenure by a vote of 4–3. On information and belief, had Dr. Teboul abstained from voting, as he 

would have been required to do at many other universities, the vote would have been 4–2 in Dr. 

Calvente’s favor. (A copy of the UBPT’s recommendation is attached as Exhibit 5.)

29. In October 2018, Dr. Ghanem was elevated to the position of Acting Provost of 

DePaul. This promotion meant that Dr. Ghanem—who had been dean of the College for much of 

Dr. Calvente’s professional life—would decide whether Dr. Calvente would remain employed at 

DePaul. Ultimately, Dr. Ghanem sided with her former colleagues and refused to grant tenure to 

Dr. Calvente even though Dr. Calvente’s file was at least as strong as that of a professor who complained about discrimination within Dr. Ghanem’s academic unit and who then retracted that

complaint. Following her decision to deny tenure to Dr. Calvente, Dr. Ghanem wrote that Dr. 

Calvente would receive a terminal contract and that her last day as faculty member at DePaul 

would be June 30, 2020. (A copy of Dr. Ghanem’s letter denying Dr. Calvente’s application for 

tenure and promotion is attached as Exhibit 6.)

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 8 of 188 PageID #:8
9

An independent Faculty Appeals Committee recommends that Dr. Calvente be awarded tenure.

30. Chapter 5 of the Handbook permits a faculty member to appeal the denial of her 

tenure application. Accordingly, following Dr. Ghanem’s decision to deny her application, Dr. 

Calvente appealed to the Faculty Committee on Appeals, which appointed three faculty unaffiliated with the College to serve as an Appeals Board. 

31. After preliminarily investigation, the Appeals Board dismissed two of Dr. Calvente’s grounds for appeal and investigated a third ground for appeal. Ultimately, the Appeals 

Board issued a thirty–four page report to the President of DePaul (copy attached as Exhibit 7) explaining how (i) Dr. Calvente was evaluated unfairly at multiple points in 2015 and 2017, and (ii) 

these unfair evaluations were material to the ultimate denial of tenure.

32. It is unusual for an Appeals Board at DePaul to recommend the overturning of the 

provost’s decision to deny tenure. However, notwithstanding the Appeals Board’s report and recommendation, DePaul ultimately decided against the award of tenure to Dr. Calvente, and her

employment at DePaul will end on June 30, 2020.

COUNT I

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981—retaliation against DePaul and Dr. Ghanem)

33. Paragraphs 1–32 are re–alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 

34. By refusing to grant her applications for tenure and promotion, and through the 

soon to occur termination of her employment, Dr. Ghanem and DePaul deprived Dr. Calvente of 

the same rights and privileges enjoyed by her colleagues who never complained about racial discrimination, harassment, or marginalization.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 9 of 188 PageID #:9
10

35. Dr. Calvente’s complaints about racial discrimination, harassment, and marginalization within the College were the “but for” factor that caused Dr. Ghanem and DePaul to terminate her employment. 

36. As a result of the denial of tenure and promotion, and as a result of the upcoming 

termination of her employment, Dr. Calvente has been denied, and will be denied opportunities 

to earn substantial compensation and benefits. Moreover, Dr. Calvente has suffered anguish, humiliation, distress, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life because of Dr. Ghanem’s and DePaul’s actions, thereby entitling her to compensatory damages.

37. In refusing to tenure and promote her, and through the upcoming termination of

her employment, Dr. Ghanem and DePaul acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to the 

rights of Dr. Calvente, thereby entitling Dr. Calvente to an award of punitive damages.

COUNT II

(Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et. seq.—retaliation against DePaul)

38. Paragraphs 1–32 are re–alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

39. By refusing to grant her applications for tenure and promotion, and through the 

soon to occur termination of her employment, DePaul deprived Dr. Calvente of the same rights 

and privileges enjoyed by her colleagues who never complained about racial discrimination, harassment, or marginalization.

40. Dr. Calvente’s complaints about racial discrimination, harassment, and marginalization within the College were the motivating factor that caused DePaul to terminate her employment. 

41. As a result of the denial of tenure and promotion, and as a result of the upcoming 

termination of her employment, Dr. Calvente has been denied, and will be denied opportunities 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 10 of 188 PageID #:10
11

to earn substantial compensation and benefits. Moreover, Dr. Calvente has suffered anguish, humiliation, distress, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life because of Dr. Ghanem’s and DePaul’s actions, thereby entitling her to compensatory damages.

42. In refusing to tenure and promote her, and through the upcoming termination of

her employment, Dr. Ghanem and DePaul acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to the 

rights of Dr. Calvente, thereby entitling Dr. Calvente to an award of punitive damages.

COUNT III

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981—racial discrimination against DePaul and Dr. Ghanem)

43. Paragraphs 1–32 are re–alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 

44. By refusing to tenure and promote her, and through the upcoming termination of 

Dr. Calvente, Dr. Ghanem and DePaul deprived Dr. Calvente of the same rights and privileges 

enjoyed by her non–mixed race colleagues as to the performance, enjoyment, and all of the benefits and privileges of her contractual employment relationship with it.

45. Dr. Calvente’s race was the “but for” cause in DePaul’s and Dr. Ghanem’s decision 

with respect to the refusal to tenure and promote her, and with respect to the upcoming termination of her employment.

46. As a result of DePaul’s and Dr. Ghanem’s discrimination, Dr. Calvente has been 

denied employment opportunities and the opportunity to earn substantial compensation and benefits. Moreover, Dr. Calvente has suffered anguish, humiliation, distress, inconvenience, and loss 

of enjoyment of life because of Dr. Ghanem’s and DePaul’s actions, thereby entitling her to an 

award of compensatory damages. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 11 of 188 PageID #:11
12

47. In refusing to tenure and promote her, and through the forthcoming termination 

of Dr. Calvente’s employment, Dr. Ghanem and DePaul acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to her rights, thereby entitling Dr. Calvente to an award of punitive damages.

COUNT IV

(Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et. seq.—race discrimination 

against DePaul)

48. Paragraphs 1–32 are re–alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

49. By refusing to tenure and promote her, and through the upcoming termination of 

Dr. Calvente, Dr. Ghanem and DePaul deprived Dr. Calvente of the same rights and privileges 

enjoyed by her non–mixed race colleagues as to the performance, enjoyment, and all of the benefits and privileges of her contractual employment relationship with it.

50. Dr. Calvente’s race was the motivating factor in DePaul’s and Dr. Ghanem’s decision with respect to the refusal to tenure and promote her, and with respect to the upcoming termination of her employment.

51. As a result of DePaul’s discrimination, Dr. Calvente has been denied employment 

opportunities and the opportunity to earn substantial compensation and benefits. Moreover, Dr. 

Calvente has suffered anguish, humiliation, distress, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life 

because of DePaul’s actions, thereby entitling her to an award of compensatory damages. 

52. In refusing to tenure and promote her, and through the forthcoming termination 

of Dr. Calvente’s employment, Dr. Ghanem and DePaul acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to her rights, thereby entitling Dr. Calvente to an award of punitive damages.

COUNT V

(Breach of contract against DePaul)

53. Paragraphs 1–32 are re–alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 12 of 188 PageID #:12
13

54. Through the Handbook and other documents referenced therein, DePaul defined 

the procedures and criteria for tenure and promotion, and thereby created the terms and conditions of an employment contract between it and Dr. Calvente.

55. By accepting her appointment as a tenure track faculty member at DePaul, Dr. Calvente and DePaul agreed that her applications for tenure and promotion were to be governed by 

the Handbook’s tenure criteria and procedures.

56. The Handbook requires that a candidate for tenure and promotion be given fair 

consideration and evaluation in the areas of teaching, research, and service at all levels.

57. The Handbook further requires that tenure and promotion decisions not be based 

on racial discrimination or based on retaliation for complaining about racial discrimination.

58. In denying Dr. Calvente’s applications for tenure and for promotion, the University failed to evaluate Dr. Calvente fairly by, among other things, (i) willfully distorting her record 

with respect to her teaching, and (ii) failing to provide clear and consistent guidance concerning 

expectations for service during formal reviews.

59. Further, in denying Dr. Calvente’s applications for tenure and for promotion, the 

University (i) failed to treat her in the same manner as similarly situated persons who did not 

complain about racial harassment within the College, and (ii) failed to treat her in the same manner as similarly situated persons who were not of mixed race.

60. DePaul’s denial of Dr. Calvente’s applications for tenure and promotion breached 

its contract with her.

61. As a result of DePaul’s decision to deny Dr. Calvente’s applications for tenure and 

promotion, Dr. Calvente has suffered damages including lost wages and benefits. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 13 of 188 PageID #:13
14

WHEREFORE, Dr. Calvente respectfully prays that this Court:

A. Order DePaul and Dr. Ghanem to pay compensatory damages including lost wages

and for emotional distress;

B. Order DePaul and Dr. Ghanem to pay punitive damages in an amount sufficient to 

punish it and to deter others from acting in a similar manner;

C. Order DePaul and Dr. Ghanem to pay pre–judgment interest;

D. Order DePaul and Dr. Ghanem to pay costs; 

E. Order DePaul and Dr. Ghanem to pay her attorney’s fees; 

F. Order DePaul to grant her the rank of associate professor; 

G. Order DePaul to reinstate her employment or, in the alternative, to order front pay 

in lieu of reinstatement; and

H. Award any other relief that the Court deems just and/or equitable.

Jury Demand

Dr. Calvente demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

June 8, 2020

/s/ Fitzgerald T. Bramwell

Fitzgerald T. Bramwell

Law Offices of Fitzgerald Bramwell

225 West Washington, Suite 2200

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312–924–2884 (voice)

bramwell@fitzgeraldbramwell.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 14 of 188 PageID #:14
Exhibit 1

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 15 of 188 PageID #:15
July 1, 2018

1

1 CHAPTER 1. FACULTY GOVERNANCE AND PARTICIPATION IN 

2 GOVERNANCE

3

4 1.1 Principles of Governance .......................................................................................................... 2

5 1.2 Governance Structure................................................................................................................ 2

6 1.2.1 Primary Responsibilities of the Faculty ............................................................................. 3

7 1.2.2 Participatory Responsibilities............................................................................................. 3

8 1.3 The Faculty Council and Its Delegated Authority .................................................................... 4

9 1.3.1 Members of the Faculty Council........................................................................................ 4

10 1.3.2 Officers of the Faculty Council.......................................................................................... 5

11 1.3.3 Meetings of the Council ..................................................................................................... 6

12 1.3.4 Notice to the Faculty of Council Meetings ........................................................................ 6

13 1.3.5 Conduct of Meetings.......................................................................................................... 6

14 1.3.6 Communication of Decisions............................................................................................. 6

15 1.3.7 Responsibility to the Faculty.............................................................................................. 7

16 1.3.8 Conduct of Meetings of the Council of the Whole ............................................................ 7

17 1.4 Committees of the Faculty Council .......................................................................................... 7

18 1.4.1 General Duties of Committees........................................................................................... 8

19 1.4.2 Standing Committees of the Faculty Council..................................................................... 8

20 1.4.3 University Committees with Faculty Representation......................................................... 9

21 1.5 Amendment of the Faculty Handbook.................................................................................... 10

22

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 16 of 188 PageID #:16
July 1, 2018

2

1 CHAPTER 1. FACULTY GOVERNANCE AND PARTICIPATION IN 

2 GOVERNANCE

3

4 1.1 Principles of Governance

5

6 Within general university norms and specific regulations of the Board of Trustees and the university 

7 President, faculty members participate in governance on an institution-wide basis and in the particular 

8 academic units with which they are affiliated.

9

10 Faculty initiative and participation in governance are a vital part of academic life. Moreover, the general 

11 well-being of the university is dependent on the time and talents the faculty contribute in the roles of 

12 decision makers and consultants.

13

14 Faculty participate in all areas of university governance. They have primary responsibilities over 

15 academic and scholarly activities, faculty personnel matters, and education interests and policies. They 

16 have participatory or advisory responsibilities in other areas.

17

18 Full-time faculty members who are not on special appointment are expected to participate in governance 

19 as a normal faculty obligation. Consequently, only for sufficiently serious reasons may they refuse 

20 appointments or active service on various committees or in their departments. Part-time faculty members

21 and full-time faculty members on special appointment may be invited to participate in certain governance 

22 processes to the extent that their time and other responsibilities permit.

23

24 As a general rule, full-time faculty members are entitled to participate and vote in decisions made in the 

25 academic departments, schools, and colleges with which they are affiliated. Some matters before a 

26 department, school, or college such as promotion and tenure, may be restricted to the deliberation of a 

27 limited number of faculty. 

28

29 1.2 Governance Structure

30

31 The faculty of DePaul University shall bear its share of responsibility of shared governance according to 

32 the following principles.

33

34 1. DePaul University is a community sharing a common interest in the welfare of the institution.

35 2. DePaul is a university community which has adopted this country’s tradition of collegial 

36 governance. The university’s own philosophy encourages faculty and staff to be concerned with 

37 university-wide issues, to prevent barriers from separating different divisions of the university, 

38 and otherwise to work for a type of unity that the term “community” implies.

39 3. As a corporation, the university has a formal structure of governance described principally by its 

40 Charter and Bylaws. The latter document assigns certain responsibilities and authority to the 

41 Board of Trustees and to particular officers of the university, but it assumes that much of the 

42 authority will be shared by a process of delegation.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 17 of 188 PageID #:17
July 1, 2018

3

1 4. For the university to be well governed, the diverse interests and perspectives of faculty, staff, 

2 students, and administration must be considered and incorporated in a timely fashion in the 

3 decision making processes of the institution.

4 5. By tradition and training, the faculty are expected to make judgments about the academic 

5 integrity of the curriculum and the professional requirements of faculty status. Therefore, 

6 curriculum, academic programs, and faculty status questions shall be considered primary 

7 responsibilities of the faculty. It is understood that in order to carry out these responsibilities, the 

8 faculty will work closely with the academic administrators and the officers of the university. 

9 They will also seek the advice of students, part-time faculty, and staff. While the President and 

10 the Board of Trustees have the authority to reverse the decision of the faculty regarding their 

11 primary responsibilities, it is expected that they would do so only in exceptional circumstances 

12 and would communicate the reasons to the faculty.

13 6. Faculty governance regarding academic programs, curriculum, and faculty status regularly takes 

14 place through departments, programs, colleges, and schools. Primary governance of those bodies 

15 shall reside within the bodies. Some institutional mechanism is required for university faculty to 

16 make decisions on all educational matters and policies regarding faculty status which concern 

17 more than one college or school or which are otherwise of general interest.

18 7. Needed, too, is a mechanism for the university faculty to make recommendations to the president 

19 and the provost regarding matters outside the primary responsibilities of the faculty.

20 The Faculty Council has been established to ensure full and equal participation of faculty in university 

21 governance.

22

23 1.2.1 Primary Responsibilities of the Faculty

24

25 The faculty is vested with primary governance responsibility of academic and scholarly activities and 

26 faculty personnel matters within the university, including the following:

27

28 1. Curriculum matters, including establishment, dissolution, and substantial changes of degree 

29 programs; and reorganization of the general university academic structure.

30 2. Academic freedom, including rights and responsibilities.

31 3. Standards and procedures concerning faculty promotion, tenure, appointments, retention, and 

32 performance.

33 4. Adjudication of grievance and disputes in all matters involving a faculty member or members.

34 5. Standards and procedures concerning instruction.

35 6. Regulations regarding attendance, examinations, grading, scholastic standing, honors, and general 

36 admission and graduation standards.

37 7. Matters pertaining to research, and to scholarly and creative activities.

38 8. Academic principles underlying the academic calendar.

39 9. In general, any educational interests and policies.

40

41 1.2.2 Participatory Responsibilities

42

43 The faculty will advise or otherwise participate regularly with the administration and other appropriate 

44 bodies in university matters including the following:

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 18 of 188 PageID #:18
July 1, 2018

4

1

2 1. Establishment of university priorities.

3 2. Formulation of policy with regard to allocation and utilization of the university’s human, physical 

4 and fiscal resources and the principles underlying the development of the budget.

5 3. Oversight of administrators, establishment or dissolution of administrative offices, and major 

6 changes in administrative structure.

7 4. Establishment of policies for the regulation of inter-collegiate athletes.

8 5. Recommendation of candidates for honorary degrees.

9 6. The establishment or elimination of colleges, schools, or local academic unit.

10 7. Conducting of commencement exercises and honors convocations.

11 8. Other matters inseparably associated with traditional faculty responsibilities.

12 9. Any matters of interest to the faculty or pertaining to the university and its purpose.

13

14 1.3 The Faculty Council and Its Delegated Authority

15

16 The authority of the faculty to carry out its responsibilities for university-wide issues is delegated to the 

17 Faculty Council, except when a meeting of the Council of the Whole is held at the call of the university 

18 president, the provost, the Faculty Council, or on written petition to the Faculty Council by at least fifty 

19 full-time members of the faculty.

20

21 For the purposes of this Council’s representation, the university’s regular full-time faculty consists of all

22 tenure-line and term faculty and excludes the president, the provost, the university’s vice presidents, the 

23 deans of the colleges or schools, and other faculty members whose roles in the judgment of the President 

24 of the Faculty Council, are predominantly administrative.

25

26 1.3.1 Members of the Faculty Council

27

28 All colleges shall have representation on Faculty Council. The overall size of Faculty Council, the 

29 number of seats for members and alternates, and the distribution of those seats by college shall be 

30 determined by Faculty Council according to its bylaws.

31

32 Members shall be elected by the full-time faculty of the various colleges and schools respectively. The 

term for a regularly elected member of Faculty Council shall be from September 1st 33 of the calendar year 

in which he or she is elected until August 31st 34 of the calendar year in which his or her term expires. Each 

35 calendar year, unit elections for the regular seats and alternate seats held by members whose terms expire 

in that year shall take place on or after April 1st 36 and by a date that will allow the results to be reported to 

37 the chair of the Committee on Committees for presentation at the June meeting of the Council. Members 

elected at that time shall begin their terms on September 1st 38 of that year.

39

40 Council members shall hold office for three years with staggered terms so that one-third of the 

41 membership is eligible for election each year. The office of a Council member shall become vacant on 

42 incapacity, resignation, or the absence of said council member from the meeting of the Council for four 

43 consecutive months. The college dean shall call a special election to fill an existing vacancy.

44

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 19 of 188 PageID #:19
July 1, 2018

5

1 Alternate members shall hold office for one-year terms. In the event of an anticipated absence of a 

2 council member from a Council meeting, the council member shall designate an alternate to participate in 

3 his/her stead with full rights of a Council member.

4

5 The Faculty Council Committee on Committees shall review the composition of Faculty Council 

membership by February 29th 6 of every leap year and make a recommendation to Faculty Council during 

7 the subsequent March meeting to maintain or adjust the composition of membership to take effect for the 

8 coming academic year.

9

10 1.3.2 Officers of the Faculty Council

11

12 The Council shall elect a president as presiding officer, a vice president, and a secretary from among its 

13 elected members. These officers may be from any school or college. An additional officer shall be the 

14 chair of the Committee on Committees, who shall be elected from among the COC members themselves, 

15 subject to the approval of Council.

16

17 The Council president shall represent Council in university business that Council deems appropriate. She 

18 or he shall call the monthly meetings of Council, preside over Faculty Council Executive Committee 

19 meetings, and otherwise organize the business of Council in consultation with the other officers. The 

20 Council president does not vote on Council resolutions except to break a tie vote or to create a tie vote. In 

21 the case of secret ballot, the president may vote on all matters on the secret ballot. 

22

23 The vice president shall represent Council in university business deemed appropriate or in instances in 

24 which the president is unable to attend. The vice president shall be the working liaison between Council 

25 and specific standing committees as designated by the president and shall organize the Faculty Council 

26 Executive Committee meetings.

27

28 The secretary shall keep the minutes at the Council meetings, monitor the website, maintain the archival 

29 records of Council, and report findings or decisions of Council to the appropriate administrative bodies 

30 for action.

31

32 The chair of the Committee on Committees shall organize the appointment of faculty (subject to 

33 Council’s approval) to all faculty slots on university and Council committees. She or he shall maintain 

34 the records of current and previous faculty appointments, oversee the process of Council elections in the 

35 various colleges, and perform other organizational duties as designated by the president and the Faculty 

36 Council Executive Committee.

37

38 The duties of Faculty Council officers are further specified in Faculty Council’s bylaws.

39

40 The president, vice president and secretary of the Council shall be elected at each June meeting. It is not 

41 precluded, but it is also not an assumption, that the vice president will necessarily succeed the president. 

42 Terms for all officers are one year, subject to re-election. The president and vice president must 

43 collectively represent at least two (2) colleges or schools. Should any officer be unable to fulfill her or his 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 20 of 188 PageID #:20
July 1, 2018

6

1 term, the Committee on Committees shall determine by next Council meeting a proper process for 

2 succession.

3

4 1.3.3 Meetings of the Council

5

6 The Council shall generally meet on the first Wednesday of each month during the academic year 

7 (September through June, inclusively), and as needed at the call of the president of the university, the 

8 provost, the Faculty Council president, or at the call of the majority of the Council members. Minutes of 

9 each meeting shall be posted promptly on the FC website by the Council secretary.

10

11 At least five days before every meeting, the Council secretary shall send to Council members notice of the 

12 forthcoming Council meeting, together with documents pertaining to the agenda of the meeting, including 

13 the text of any proposed legislation.

14

15 1.3.4 Notice to the Faculty of Council Meetings

16

17 The Council secretary shall post to Council’s website and send notice and agenda of each meeting of the 

18 Council to all faculty members, together with documents pertaining to the agenda of the meeting, 

19 including the text of any proposed legislation.

20

21 1.3.5 Conduct of Meetings

22

23 The presence of 50% or more of the voting eligible members of the Faculty Council shall constitute a 

24 quorum of the Council. 

25

26 Decisions are to be made by majority vote of the Council members present, provided that the votes in 

27 favor of a resolution shall number more than one-third of the voting eligible members.

28

29 All faculty members may attend meetings of the Council, excluding executive sessions. Chairs of 

30 committees of the Faculty Council may offer motions and speak on behalf of their committees.

31

32 The Council may, by decision of the president or a majority of the Council members present, permit other 

33 persons not on the Council to speak on agenda items.

34

35 An executive session may be called by the president of the Faculty Council at his/her discretion, which 

36 may be overruled by a majority of the Faculty Council members present. Sessions dealing with matters 

37 involving the right to privacy of individuals normally shall be executive sessions. Executive sessions 

38 may be used for obtaining information and for deliberation; but final policy decisions shall be made in 

39 open Faculty Council meetings.

40

41 1.3.6 Communication of Decisions

42

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 21 of 188 PageID #:21
July 1, 2018

7

1 All decisions and recommendations of the Faculty Council shall be forwarded to the president of the 

2 university (or the provost as designee) for approval.

3

4 In the event the president of the university (or the provost as designee) disapproves any Faculty Council 

5 decision or recommendation, the president (or provost as designee) shall communicate the reasons to the 

6 Faculty Council.

7

8 1.3.7 Responsibility to the Faculty

9

10 The Council secretary shall regularly send a summary of Council’s actions to the provost and post to 

11 Council’s website all records of actions and responses from the university president (or provost as 

12 designee). 

13

14 At the request of a majority of voting members present at a Faculty Council meeting, but no fewer than 

15 one-third of Council’s total voting membership, any matter must be submitted to the faculty for 

16 consideration. The Council shall establish the manner by which the faculty shall vote by mail, electronic 

17 ballot or otherwise on any such matter. A vote by the majority of the full-time faculty members of the 

18 university shall be binding on the Faculty Council.

19

20 1.3.8 Conduct of Meetings of the Council of the Whole

21

22 Twenty-five (25) percent of full-time faculty members shall constitute a quorum of the Council of the 

23 Whole. Meetings of the Council of the Whole shall be chaired by the president of the Faculty Council. 

24 Decisions of the Council of the Whole shall be made by a majority of the full-time faculty members 

25 present, subject to ratification by a vote of the majority of all full-time faculty members in a special mail 

26 or electronic ballot.

27

28 1.4 Committees of the Faculty Council

29

30 The Faculty Council is empowered to establish committees of the Faculty Council. The Faculty Council 

31 appoints the members of the Committee on Committees from among the members of Faculty Council.

32

33 Membership on other Faculty Council committees is not limited to Faculty Council members. The 

34 Faculty Council shall prescribe the terms of office for members of all committees. In the case of standing 

35 committees, the terms of office shall normally be staggered to permit a reasonable degree of continuity.

36

37 The Faculty Council shall prescribe the duration of any ad hoc committees. Any standing or ad hoc 

38 committee which fails to meet or does not otherwise act or file a report for a period of one year shall be 

39 discontinued automatically.

40

41 Each committee of the Faculty Council shall select its own chair. With the approval of the Committee on 

42 Committees, each committee may appoint subcommittees from its own members or from among other 

43 members of the full time and part time faculty and such members of the administration, staff, and students 

44 as shall be helpful in its deliberations.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 22 of 188 PageID #:22
July 1, 2018

8

1

2 The standing rules and operating procedures for Faculty Council committees and subcommittees are 

3 further specified in Council’s bylaws.

4

5 1.4.1 General Duties of Committees

6

7 Committees shall recommend to the Faculty Council new policies and changes in policies in their areas of 

8 responsibility.

9

10 They shall receive and consider proposals in their areas of responsibility from the Faculty Council, the 

11 administration, Student Government Association, staff, and other relevant sources. Committees shall 

12 present their recommendations to the Faculty Council. In their deliberations, committees and 

13 subcommittees shall seek advice, information, or materials from other members of the university 

14 community.

15

16 They shall review annually sections of the Faculty Handbook pertaining to their areas of concern and 

17 make recommendations for revision.

18

19 They shall meet frequently and maintain liaison with appropriate committees and groups established by 

20 the academic units, the Student Government Association, the Staff Council, and other university 

21 constituencies.

22

23 1.4.2 Standing Committees of the Faculty Council

24

25 Currently the Faculty Council has fifteen (15) standing committees. Committee charges are detailed in 

26 Council’s bylaws:

27

28 • Committee on Academic Policy (CAP)

29 • Committee on Committees (COC)

30 • Committee on Contingent Faculty (CCF)

31 • Committee on Online Learning (COOL)

32 • Committee on Curriculum and Programs (CCP)

33 • Committee on Learning and Teaching (COLT)

34 • Committee on Research Policy (CORP)

35 • Committee on the Status of Faculty (SOF)

36 • Faculty Committee on Appeals (FCA)

37 • Faculty Council Budget Committee (FCBC)

38 • Faculty Council Executive Committee (FCEC)

39 • Faculty Council Handbook Committee (FCHC)

40 • Liberal Studies Council (LSC)

41 • Physical Environment Committee (PEC)

42 • Promotion and Tenure Policy Committee (PTPC)

43

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 23 of 188 PageID #:23
July 1, 2018

9

1 1.4.3 University Committees with Faculty Representation

2

3 University committees dealing with matters in which the faculty have governance responsibility or 

4 interest shall have faculty representation. Faculty representatives on such committees shall be responsive 

5 to the Faculty Council to the extent appropriate.

6

7 To the extent that any boards or committees not under the auspices of the Faculty Council address areas 

8 of primary faculty responsibility and report directly to the university president or other university officers, 

9 those boards or committees shall be subject to the policies of the Faculty Council and to review by the 

10 Faculty Council.

11

12 Faculty are represented on the following university committees and boards:

13

14 • 403(b) Investment and Plan Administrative Committee

15 • Academic Advising Award Committee

16 • Academic Affairs Committee - Board of Trustees

17 • Academic Integrity Board

18 • Academic Integrity Student Consultants

19 • Academic Program Review Committee

20 • All University Judicial Board 

21 • Campus Recreation Advisory Committee 

22 • Campus Violence Prevention Committee

23 • Committee on Conflict of Interest in Sponsored Programs

24 • Comprehensive Internationalization Committee

25 • Continuing and Professional Education

26 • Faculty Grievance and Appeals Panel

27 • Fair Business Practices Committee

28 • Grade Challenge Review Board

29 • Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) 

30 • Issues Review Board (for staff grievances)

31 • Library Review Board

32 • Public Service Council

33 • Quality of Instruction Council

34 • Strategic Resource Allocation Committee

35 • Student Activity Fee Board

36 • Student Welfare Taskforce

37 • Teaching Learning and Technology Committee

38 • Tuition Pricing Committee

39 • University Athletic Board

40 • University Benefits and Compensation Committee

41 • University Board on Faculty Promotion and Tenure

42 • University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 24 of 188 PageID #:24
July 1, 2018

10

1 • University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects (IRB)

2 • University Research Council

3 • University-wide Honors Program Committee

4

5 1.5 Amendment of the Faculty Handbook

6

7 The Faculty Handbook may be amended by the faculty. Changes to the Faculty Handbook take effect 

8 when accepted by the university president.

9

10 The Faculty Handbook may be amended in either of two ways:

11

12 1. By the affirmative vote of least sixty percent (60%) of the members of the Faculty Council 

13 present at the meeting, provided that those votes represent at least 50% of the total Faculty 

14 Council membership; or

15 2. By submission of a proposed amendment over the signature of 10% of the regular full-time 

16 faculty as a whole for ratification. The Committee on Committees will then task a committee to 

17 oversee a referendum within 14 days. The amendment will be approved if a majority of the full18 time faculty cast referendum ballots and if at least two-thirds of the faculty members casting 

19 ballots vote in favor of the amendment.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 25 of 188 PageID #:25
July 1, 2018

1

1 CHAPTER 2. RECRUITMENT, APPOINTMENT, AND 

2 CATEGORIES OF FACULTY 

3

4 2.1 Recruitment Policies..................................................................................................... 2

5 2.2 Initial Academic Appointments.................................................................................... 3

6 2.2.1 General Criteria and Policies................................................................................. 3

7 2.2.2 Hiring With Tenure upon Initial Appointment ...................................................... 4

8 2.3 Full-Time Faculty Appointments.................................................................................. 5

9 2.3.1 Tenure-line Faculty................................................................................................ 5

10 2.3.2. Term Faculty......................................................................................................... 6

11 2.3.2.1. Definitions and Scope .................................................................................... 6

12 2.3.2.2 Term Faculty Ranks........................................................................................ 7

13 2.3.2.3 Functional Titles ............................................................................................. 7

14 2.3.2.4 Responsibilities and Participation in Governance .......................................... 8

15 2.3.2.5 Hiring and Contracts....................................................................................... 8

16 2.3.2.6 Reappointment and Termination..................................................................... 8

17 2.3.3 Special Appointments............................................................................................ 9

18 2.3.4 Annual Performance Review ............................................................................... 10

19 2.4 Adjunct Faculty Appointments................................................................................... 11

20 2.4.1 General Principles................................................................................................ 11

21 2.4.2 Retired Faculty..................................................................................................... 11

22 2.4.3 Professors Emeriti and Emeritae.......................................................................... 12

23 2.5 Other Instruction-Related Positions............................................................................ 12

24 2.5.1 Academic Support Appointments........................................................................ 12

25 2.5.2 Graduate Assistants and Fellows......................................................................... 12

26 2.6 Change of Affiliation or Status................................................................................... 12

27 2.6.1 Change of Affiliation ........................................................................................... 12

28 2.6.2 Change of Status.................................................................................................. 13

29 2.7 Summer Session Appointments.................................................................................. 13

30 2.8 Orientation of Faculty................................................................................................. 14

31 2.9 Annual Reporting........................................................................................................ 14

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 26 of 188 PageID #:26
July 1, 2018

2

1 CHAPTER 2. RECRUITMENT, APPOINTMENT, AND 

2 CATEGORIES OF FACULTY 

3

4 This chapter defines categories of faculty and sets out DePaul University's policies for 

5 recruitment, appointment, and review of faculty members. It also addresses change of faculty 

6 affiliation or status and summer session appointments. As stated in Section 1.1 of this Handbook, 

7 the faculty as a whole is vested with primary governance responsibility for academic and 

8 scholarly activities and faculty personnel matters within the university. As a general rule, full9 time faculty members (both tenure-line and term) are entitled to participate and vote in decisions 

10 made in the academic programs, departments, schools, and colleges with which they are 

11 affiliated. However, some matters including faculty hiring, tenure, promotion, and review are 

12 restricted exclusively to tenure-line faculty. 

13 2.1 Recruitment Policies

14

15 Academic deans, local academic unit officers, and academic program directors have 

16 responsibility for initiating the process for faculty appointments, with the exception of the 

17 position of dean. 

18

19 Consultation with the tenure-line faculty of the local academic unit, as defined by the unit’s 

20 written policies, is required for the appointment of all full-time faculty and local academic unit 

21 officers. Only in rare instances and for compelling reasons will an appointment be made over the 

22 expressed opposition of the local academic unit faculty. In such circumstance, the dean shall, in 

23 writing, inform the local academic unit of the specific reasons for overturning the judgment of the 

24 faculty. 

25

26 Faculty involved in the search process are individually accountable for following the university’s 

27 equal employment opportunity policies.

28

29 DePaul University provides equal employment opportunities to all employees and applicants for 

30 employment. As an Equal Opportunity Employer, DePaul does not discriminate or permit 

31 discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual 

32 orientation, gender identity, military or veteran status, genetic information, marital status, parental 

33 status, ancestry, source of income, or any other classes protected by local, state, and federal law.

34

35 In order to provide for the most diverse and highest quality faculty, DePaul is committed to 

36 searches conducted in the broadest possible markets. 

37

38 Entry-level hiring for tenure-line positions presumes a national search. A national search is 

39 defined by the practices of the disciplinary or interdisciplinary field and generally includes 

40 advertisements as customary in the discipline, recruitment at national conventions, and similar 

41 wide outreach. 

42

43 In limited cases the requirements for a national search may be waived if a scholar of exceptional 

44 merit has already been identified as a target of opportunity hire, particularly if that scholar would 

45 enhance DePaul’s diversity profile or bring difficult to find expertise to the University.

46

47 A local academic unit’s written request to waive the search requirement for an 

48 academic appointment must be approved by its tenure-line faculty. The request must convince the

49 dean and the provost that the candidate is fully qualified for the position. Evidence of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 27 of 188 PageID #:27
July 1, 2018

3

1 candidate's significant accomplishments and a rigorous review of the candidate's qualifications in 

2 teaching, research and other creative activities, and service are expected in the subsequent 

3 preparation of the appointment recommendation.

4 2.2 Initial Academic Appointments

5 2.2.1 General Criteria and Policies

6

7 The faculty has a major responsibility for fulfilling the principal functions of the university: 

8 teaching, scholarship, research and other creative activities, and service. DePaul appoints its 

9 faculty on the basis of scholarly achievement and the promise of continuing academic growth, 

10 competencies directly related to the university’s academic goals and programs, and acceptance of 

11 the principles as stated in the Employment Policies and Procedures section of this Handbook.

12

13 The principal criteria for initial appointment and promotion in academic rank are: quality of 

14 teaching; scholarship, research or other creative activities; and service. 

15

16 General university criteria are subject to further specification standards adopted by colleges, 

17 schools and local academic units. Criteria, which are approved by and included in official 

18 documents of the academic units, are as binding on the members of those units as are the general 

19 university standards for which they provide explication. Should there be a difference between the 

20 two sets of criteria, those of the university shall prevail.

21

22 Authority to appoint faculty rests with the university president. In practice, this authority is 

23 regularly delegated to the provost, who carefully reviews the terms of the proposed faculty 

24 contract before it is approved and issued. The review is to assure that the terms of the proposed 

25 faculty contract are compatible with university policies, accepted academic standards, and 

26 principles of equity with respect to other DePaul faculty members in comparable positions. 

27

28 The Office of the Provost has overall responsibility for monitoring academic appointments. This 

29 office establishes policies and procedures related to faculty employment that are compatible with 

30 the general university guidelines. These guidelines assume, however, that most of the initial 

31 responsibility for the selection process resides with academic deans, local academic officers, and 

32 directors of academic offices. 

33

34 Initial appointments are in contract form, each including:

35

36 1. Salary

37 2. Length of contractual service

38 3. Academic rank

39 4. Tenure status

40 5. Affiliation with an academic unit, that is, a particular college/school, academic department, or 

41 academic program.

42

43 The offer letter to the faculty member includes specific terms, which are then incorporated into 

44 the formal contract. The initial contract may be for one, two, or three years on the 

45 recommendation of the academic dean and with the approval of the provost.

46

47 If the initial contract comes with tenure, it must meet the criteria of section 2.2.2 below. An initial 

48 contract may not result from a Change of Status (2.6.2).

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 28 of 188 PageID #:28
July 1, 2018

4

1

2 Two or more members of the same family may be given faculty appointments, even in the same 

3 college/school or local academic unit. However, such an appointment will not be made in a 

4 situation in which one member of the family holds an administrative position that requires a 

5 judgment on the other member’s qualifications for appointment and salary. Similarly, after the 

6 initial appointment, one member of a family is not eligible for an administrative appointment in a 

7 unit of the university that would require the above-mentioned judgments on the qualification of 

8 another member of the family.

9 2.2.2 Hiring With Tenure upon Initial Appointment

10

11 The granting of tenure upon initial appointment shall be at the discretion of the local academic 

12 unit officer, the dean, and the provost, after a rigorous peer review by the local academic unit’s 

13 tenured faculty. The personnel committee of the unit (or equivalent) shall conduct an evaluation 

14 of the candidate applying the unit’s tenure and promotion guidelines (which themselves must be 

15 consistent with the university criteria) and shall report to the tenured faculty prior to the vote. All 

16 initial appointments with tenure must include a vote of the local academic unit tenured faculty 

17 with a recommendation for or against tenure. 

18

19 The university hires a candidate with tenure upon initial appointment only if the individual 

20 satisfies one or more of the following criteria: 

21

22 1. Prior academic achievement comparable to incoming rank at DePaul;

23 2. Extensive, relevant non-academic experience; or

24 3. Appointment to provost, dean or local academic unit officer positions.

25

26 Persons who are already full-time or part-time employees of DePaul University in any capacity 

27 (except “Visiting Faculty” as defined in Section 2.3.3) are not eligible for initial appointments 

28 with tenure under this section, but must instead be first appointed without tenure to the tenure-line

29 faculty and subsequently evaluated under the tenure process outlined in Chapter 3 of this Faculty 

30 Handbook. 

31

32 Faculty hired with tenure at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor upon initial appointment 

33 must have appropriate qualifications and prior experience. Only a candidate with an exceptional 

34 record may be appointed with tenure under this section if the candidate has not previously been 

35 granted tenure at another institution.

36

37 In order to appoint a new faculty member at the rank of full professor who has not previously 

38 held that rank at a recognized college or university, there must be an evaluation of the candidate’s 

39 scholarly or creative record by the local academic unit’s tenured faculty and a minimum of three

40 outside experts who have been sent the appropriate materials. Selection of reviewers and the 

41 appropriate materials to submit to the reviewers follows the external review procedure described 

42 in Chapter 3.

43

44 In order to appoint with tenure a candidate whose experience is primarily nonacademic, the

45 tenured faculty of the unit must include in the departmental vote and request for an appointment a 

46 written case for the strength of the candidate’s non-academic experience.

47

48 Individuals under consideration for appointment to provost, dean, or local academic unit officer

49 positions can be appointed with tenure. These candidates must have demonstrated scholarly and 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 29 of 188 PageID #:29
July 1, 2018

5

1 academic credentials or extensive relevant experience. The administration initiates appointments 

2 with tenure to these positions. For dean or local academic unit officer positions, the provost, with 

3 a consultative vote of the tenured faculty on the issue of tenure within the appropriate unit, will 

4 make the initial appointment with tenure. When appointing a provost, the president, with a 

5 consultative vote of the tenured faculty on the issue of tenure within the appropriate unit, will 

6 make the initial appointment with tenure. When appointing a president, the Board of Trustees, 

7 with a consultative vote of the tenured faculty on the issue of tenure within the appropriate unit, 

8 will make the initial appointment with tenure. The university would normally provide an 

9 additional permanent position and funding to the local academic unit if and when the dean,

10 provost or president returns to a faculty position.

11 2.3 Full-Time Faculty Appointments

12

13 All full-time faculty fall into three categories: tenure-line faculty, term faculty and special 

14 appointments.

15 2.3.1 Tenure-line Faculty

16

17 Tenure-line appointments may be at the rank of instructor awaiting terminal degree conferral, 

18 assistant professor, associate professor, or full professor. All tenure-line appointments shall 

19 involve an evaluation of the candidate’s qualification based on the approved policies and 

20 procedures of the local academic unit, as well as a vote of the tenure-line faculty of the unit, 

21 except under circumstances stipulated in Section 2.2.2.

22

23 Instructor Awaiting Terminal Degree Conferral 

24

25 Candidates who are hired into tenure-line positions but have not successfully completed all 

26 requirements for the terminal degree may be appointed to this rank with the stated expectation 

27 that, upon conferral of the degree, the faculty member will be appointed to a tenure-line position 

28 at the rank of assistant professor. Typically, the period of time as an instructor in this category 

29 would be one year, and only under rare and compelling circumstances should it exceed two years. 

30 Time in rank as instructor in this category may count towards tenure; the probationary period is 

31 determined by an agreement between the dean and the faculty member in the initial contract as 

32 assistant professor. The annual performance review process (Section 2.3.4) will be used to 

33 determine whether contract renewal for the next academic year is appropriate and desired. The 

34 tenure clock would start the September after the university receives confirmation of the 

35 candidate’s terminal degree.

36

37 Assistant Professor. The doctorate or other terminal degree is required for this rank. Exceptions 

38 are made for candidates who have already attained recognition for scholarly or other relevant 

39 professional achievements and who give promise of continued academic development. The 

40 assistant professor should demonstrate a potential for becoming an effective teacher, for pursuing 

41 scholarship, research, and/or other creative activities, and for service.

42

43 Associate Professor. In addition to the requirements for assistant professor, the candidate must 

44 demonstrate consistently effective teaching performance. The candidate should also show 

45 evidence of notable scholarship, research, and/or other creative activities, and service. For this 

46 rank, the candidate should show significant involvement in university activities at the local 

47 academic unit and beyond. This rank is reserved for those with recognized academic 

48 achievements.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 30 of 188 PageID #:30
July 1, 2018

6

1

2 Professor. In addition to the requirements for associate professor, candidates must give evidence 

3 of continued scholarship, research, and/or other creative activities, the quality of which is 

4 recognized by their peers inside and outside the university. Candidates for this rank must also 

5 show a record of notable service contributions at the university level. Effective teaching remains 

6 mandatory for this rank. This rank is reserved for those with recognized academic achievements.

7

8 Tenure-line Joint Appointments

9

10 A faculty member may receive a joint appointment or affiliation in two local academic units. For 

11 a joint appointment in two units, a candidate for initial appointment must be evaluated and 

12 recommended by the faculty of both local academic units. The criteria for determining eligibility 

13 for such a joint appointment are those for the usual initial appointment. 

14

15 2.3.2. Term Faculty

16 2.3.2.1. Definitions and Scope

17

18 Term faculty positions are full-time, non-tenure-line, and do not lead to tenure. 

19

20 The university uses term faculty positions to:

21 • Retain a cadre of effective and committed teachers who can provide instructional 

22 continuity;

23 • Maintain flexibility in allocating resources for faculty positions;

24 • Bring in outstanding individuals who will enrich the learning experience through their 

25 professional qualifications and experiences from careers outside academia;

26 • Provide additional time for scholarly pursuits of tenure-line faculty;

27 • Deal with exigent circumstances, such as replacing faculty on leave, filling vacancies that 

28 occur too late to conduct an appropriate search for a tenure-line faculty appointment, 

29 filling a vacancy resulting from an unsuccessful search for a tenure-line faculty member, 

30 or staffing a new and developing program;

31 • Teach in and administer programs that would be too time consuming for tenure-line

32 faculty to oversee and/or require specialized skills or knowledge to run. 

33

34 The university does not use term faculty positions to:

35

36 • Permanently replace a tenure-line position;

37 • Avoid adding new tenure-line positions when merited; or

38 • Provide a safe harbor for faculty whose tenure status is in jeopardy. (Section 2.6.2)

39

40 The percentage of term faculty in a local academic unit should not be more than 30% of the full41 time faculty in that unit. Units may exceed 30% if approved by majority votes of the unit’s 

42 tenure-line faculty and by the Faculty Council. Such exemptions are typically granted to: (i) units 

43 with new or developing programs; (ii) units whose primary instructional programs involve 

44 clinical and similar professional activities not usually covered by tenure-line faculty, and (iii)

45 units whose primary instructional obligations are not typically met by tenure-line faculty due to 

46 extraordinary responsibility for service-level courses.

47

48 Term faculty may use the grievance and appeals processes set out in Chapter 5, except as 

49 delimited by Section 2.3.2.6.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 31 of 188 PageID #:31
July 1, 2018

7

1 2.3.2.2 Term Faculty Ranks

2

3 Term faculty may be appointed at the ranks of Instructor, Professional Lecturer, and Senior 

4 Professional Lecturer. 

5

6 Instructor: A term faculty member without a terminal degree is usually hired at the rank 

7 of Instructor. Such faculty members are normally hired to satisfy short-term curricular 

8 needs and to provide support in staffing skills-oriented areas of the curriculum. The 

9 primary responsibility of instructors is teaching, and their duties usually do not involve 

10 service to the unit or other professional activities. Instructors may be called upon to carry 

11 out minor administrative functions to help support programmatic and teaching-related 

12 activities. The College of Law, in keeping with the general practice of law schools, may 

13 use the title Visiting Assistant Professor for individuals hired at the rank of Instructor.

14

15 Professional Lecturer: This rank is reserved for term faculty who satisfy one or more of the 

16 following criteria:

17

18 • Hold a terminal degree in their instruction area;

19 • Have satisfactorily taught at the rank of instructor for three years; or

20 • Possess professional qualifications and achievements equivalent to a terminal degree in 

21 the relevant field. 

22

23 The primary responsibility of professional lecturers is teaching, and their duties include service to 

24 the unit and other professional activities deemed appropriate by the unit and the dean.

25 Professional Lecturers may be called upon to carry out minor administrative functions to help 

26 support programmatic and teaching-related activities. An academic unit may also appoint to this 

27 rank those who have equivalent professional experience upon initial hiring. After five years of 

28 satisfactory service and upon a formal review by the unit, professional lecturers are eligible for 

29 promotion to the rank of Senior Professional Lecturer.

30

31 Senior Professional Lecturer: This rank recognizes the contributions of term faculty who have 

32 served at the rank of professional lecturer and have demonstrated superior performance as a 

33 teacher. Senior Professional Lecturers may be called upon to carry out minor administrative 

34 functions to help support programmatic and teaching-related activities. An academic unit may 

35 also appoint to this rank those who have equivalent professional experience upon initial hiring.

36 After five years of satisfactory service and upon a formal review by the unit, professional 

37 lecturers are eligible for promotion to this rank.

38

39 An academic unit may also appoint to this rank an individual who, upon initial appointment, has 

40 equivalent professional experience. Senior professional lecturers have the same duties as 

41 professional lecturers.

42 2.3.2.3 Functional Titles

43

44 Colleges may confer upon term faculty members functional titles to reflect their particular status 

45 or role within the unit. The terms “Assistant Professor,” “Associate Professor,” and “Professor” 

46 must only be used with a modifier. Such titles will not affect the person’s rank and should be set 

47 out explicitly in his or her contract. Functional titles should not be created on an ad hoc basis, but 

48 created and defined by each local academic unit to reflect its programs and special needs. The 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 32 of 188 PageID #:32
July 1, 2018

8

1 titles themselves, but not individual appointments, shall be approved in writing by the unit 

2 faculty, the dean and the provost.

3 2.3.2.4 Responsibilities and Participation in Governance

4

5 The primary responsibility of term faculty will be teaching and, as such, term faculty 

6 appointments generally carry higher teaching loads than tenure-line appointments. However, term 

7 faculty also have a responsibility for continued professional development, for which the units 

8 must provide appropriate support. Continued professional development is a criterion for 

9 evaluation of term faculty.

10

11 Term faculty at the rank of professional lecturer or above may be involved in the typical service 

12 activities of faculty in the unit. These activities may include advising and the creation and 

13 supervision of the curriculum, based on the unit’s written policies. Term faculty have the right to 

14 participate in faculty governance except in matters related to hiring, retention, promotion and 

15 tenure. The local academic unit officer should ensure a fair balance of the term faculty members’ 

16 teaching load, service and administrative responsibilities, as well as the unit’s expectations for 

17 continued professional development.

18

19 2.3.2.5 Hiring and Contract Duration 

20

21 Term faculty members are initially hired on one- or two-year contracts. 

22

23 An evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications and input by faculty of the local academic unit, as 

24 specified in the unit’s personnel policies, must precede the initial hiring of a term faculty 

25 member. In the absence of personnel policies regarding faculty input, hiring will require a vote of 

26 the unit’s tenure-line faculty. 

27

28 For initial appointment (and any subsequent reappointments), the duties of the term faculty 

29 member and evaluation criteria must be specified in writing and approved by the unit or its 

30 personnel committee.

31

32 Term faculty may be reappointed to one- or two-year terms as described in the following section. 

33 The specific peer review and evaluation process for each unit or college will be developed by the 

34 faculty and specified as part of the unit’s personnel policies. There is no limit to the number of 

35 reappointments. 

36

37 Upon the satisfactory completion of at least three years of service, a term faculty member will be 

38 eligible for, and may apply for, a longer-term contract ranging from three to five years, with 

39 specific length and duties determined based on the needs of the unit in consultation with unit 

40 faculty. The application will be reviewed according to Section 2.3.2.6. Long-term contracts may 

41 be renewed, with each renewal following the same formal review process used for the initial 

42 appointment to a long-term contract. If the candidate is reappointed without a long-term contract

43 due to the candidate’s performance, he or she may reapply after two additional consecutive years 

44 of service. If the candidate is reappointed without a long-term contract for any reason other than 

45 the candidate’s performance, the candidate may reapply the following year.

46 2.3.2.6 Reappointment and Termination

47

48 Term faculty appointments carry no right of reappointment at the conclusion of a contract. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 33 of 188 PageID #:33
July 1, 2018

9

1

2 The dean or local academic unit officer shall give term faculty appropriate notice before a 

3 decision is made on reappointment. Term faculty may submit supporting materials for 

4 reappointment to the dean or the local academic unit officer, according to the unit’s performance 

5 review process. 

6

7 The dean or local academic unit officer shall give term faculty written notice of the decision for 

8 reappointment or non-reappointment by April 10. The faculty member may report failure to 

9 provide timely notice of the decision to the next level academic officer. That notice shall be 

10 provided within ten business days of the report of failure to provide timely notice. 

11

12 Consideration of a long-term appointment for a term faculty member shall include an evaluation 

13 by the unit (based on the unit’s written personnel policies), an opportunity for the candidate to 

14 submit supporting documentation, a vote of the unit’s tenure-line faculty, and review by the dean 

15 and provost. 

16

17 Non-reappointment of an instructor or professional lecturer shall involve input by the faculty of 

18 the local academic unit as specified in the unit’s personnel policies. In the absence of such 

19 personnel policies regarding faculty input or review, the decision rests with the local academic 

20 unit officer. Non-reappointment of senior professional lecturers requires a formal review process 

21 by the unit.

22

23 Term faculty may not grieve the university decision’s not to reappoint. Term faculty may appeal

24 the university’s decision not to reappoint only on the grounds of academic freedom violation or 

25 discriminatory practices prohibited by university policies or applicable federal, state, or local 

26 laws. Term faculty appeal procedures are detailed in Chapter 5.

27

28 2.3.3 Special Appointments 

29

30 Special appointments may take the form of visiting faculty, research faculty (for example, post31 doctoral fellows), and University Professors. These positions are so designated because the 

32 appointment has a definite time limitation or is an appointment whose continuation is directly 

33 connected to the faculty member’s program. 

34

35 During the period of the visit, the university may consider appointing faculty holding a special 

36 appointment for a tenure-line faculty appointment. Consideration for appointment with tenure 

37 must follow procedures in Section 2.2.2. Consideration for appointment into a tenure-line but 

38 untenured position must follow procedures in Section 2.3.1. The university’s requirement for an 

39 outside search must be met, unless waived under the waiver standards of Section 2.1. 

40

41 University Professor

42

43 The president may make special full-time university appointments. Such appointments are limited 

44 to (i) high-level administrative staff, the nature of whose responsibilities include supervision of 

45 academic policies or (ii) special honorific appointments in furtherance of the university’s goals 

46 and mission. Special appointments are made by a formal contract which indicates the scope of 

47 responsibilities and limitations attached to the appointment. 

48

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 34 of 188 PageID #:34
July 1, 2018

10

1 Faculty appointed as university professor are not affiliated with any academic unit and may not 

2 participate in the governance, service, or educational activities of the unit except with the 

3 expressed consent of the tenure line faculty of the unit. 

4

5 Visiting Faculty

6

7 Appointment as a visiting faculty member is reserved exclusively for faculty members who are 

8 employed by a home institution other than DePaul and retain that employment relationship during 

9 a full or part-time appointment at DePaul. The home institution of the visiting faculty member 

10 will ordinarily be another institution of higher education, but may be a foundation, a corporation 

11 or a government agency or other appropriate body. In rare cases, artists or scholars of national 

12 stature who do not have a home academic institution may be considered for visiting faculty 

13 positions. 

14

15 Visiting faculty members may have the titles Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate 

16 Professor, or Visiting Professor. The qualifications for each rank are the same as for initial 

17 appointment of tenure-line faculty. Visiting faculty may be offered contracts not to exceed two 

18 years, with approval of the tenure-line faculty of the relevant unit and of the dean and provost. 

19

20 The College of Law, in keeping with the general practice of law schools, may use the title 

21 Visiting Assistant Professor for individuals hired at the rank of Instructor.

22

23 Research Faculty

24

25 The university may grant a research faculty position to a person engaged primarily in scholarship 

26 or professional activities relevant to the work of the university. The local academic units 

27 recommend research faculty appointments and reappointments based on established policies and 

28 procedures of the unit, subject to the approval of the dean and the provost. These appointments 

29 may be at the rank of research assistant professor, research associate professor, or research 

30 professor, provided that the research faculty member possesses the educational and scholarship 

31 qualifications appropriate to the particular rank. The local academic unit will specify the nature 

32 and extent of the duties research faculty members in consultation with the director of the relevant 

33 center, institute, or group with which the research faculty member will be associated. The 

34 university will provide the description of duties in a letter of appointment. The research faculty 

35 should not expect employment beyond the contract period. These appointments carry no 

36 implication of, or credit towards, academic tenure. 

37

38 Research faculty will normally have sources outside the university to fund their salaries, such as 

39 external grants or funds provided through other institutions. Exceptions will require the provost’s 

40 written approval upon recommendation of the local academic unit. Research faculty receive

41 resources and access to university facilities as determined by the local academic unit officer or 

42 the director of the center, institute, or group with which they have affiliated.

43 2.3.4 Annual Performance Review

44

45 All tenure-line and term faculty are reviewed annually. This annual process consists of a review 

46 and evaluation of performance during the preceding academic year based on the local academic 

47 unit’s criteria and responsibilities. The review may serve one or more of the following purposes:

48

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 35 of 188 PageID #:35
July 1, 2018

11

1 1. to provide an opportunity for feedback on performance during the preceding year, to 

2 communicate expectations, and to develop goals for the coming year;

3 2. to determine salary recommendations; 

4 3. in the instance of term faculty and instructor awaiting terminal degree conferral, to determine 

5 whether contract renewal for the next academic year is appropriate and desired.

6

7 Reviews of performance are written processes implemented by the local academic unit officer or 

8 dean. 

9 Salary recommendations, while part of the annual review process, may use criteria and 

10 considerations somewhat different from decisions on contract renewal or promotion and tenure. 

11 Salary decisions are made in accordance with university budget guidelines and usually are made 

12 at a different time during the academic calendar year. Salary decisions may result in a merit 

13 increase when budgets allow. Salary decisions may include increases for such things as equity 

14 and market adjustments. The academic dean of the respective college or school makes salary 

15 recommendations to the provost.

16 A faculty member with a formal faculty appointment in more than one academic unit shall be 

17 evaluated by the home unit and shall be evaluated independently by the second unit if it so 

18 chooses or if requested to do so by either the candidate or by the home unit.

19

20 2.4 Adjunct Faculty Appointments

21

22 An adjunct faculty appointment allows an individual to contribute to the instructional program of 

23 a local academic unit, center, or institute. Adjunct faculty are appointed on a course-by-course 

24 basis. The appointments are part-time and do not lead to tenure.

25 2.4.1 General Principles

26

27 The dean of a college appoints adjunct faculty to provide instruction in specific courses. 

28 Appointment of adjunct faculty should involve input by the local academic unit. The university is 

29 not obligated to reappoint adjunct faculty. Adjunct faculty may use the grievance process set out 

30 in Chapter 5.

31 2.4.2 Retired Faculty

32

33 A retired faculty member may be offered a limited faculty assignment with adjunct status. 

34 The usual reasons for offering such an assignment are: 

35

36 1. the need of the college or local academic unit for the specific and unusual competencies of the 

37 retired faculty member and;

38 2. quality of teaching or other academic endeavors, with reference to current developments in the 

39 field.

40

41

42 The decision to offer a limited assignment to a retired faculty member rests principally with the 

43 academic dean, following local academic unit consultation. The dean shall submit his or her 

44 written decision to the provost for final approval.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 36 of 188 PageID #:36
July 1, 2018

12

1 2.4.3 Professors Emeriti and Emeritae

2

3 The university may bestow the title of Professor Emeritus or Professor Emerita upon retirement. 

4 Those eligible for emeritus status are tenured faculty members who have contributed substantially 

5 to the university’s mission and who have ordinarily served at least seven years as a faculty 

6 member. Exceptions to these criteria must be approved by the provost. 

7

8 Prior to the individual’s retirement, the tenured members of the local academic unit may 

9 recommend the retiring faculty member for the honorary status of Professor Emeritus or 

10 Professor Emerita by sending a letter to the dean describing the person’s contributions. The dean 

11 forwards his or her recommendation to the provost who, in turn, makes a recommendation to the 

12 president, who then makes the final appointment.

13

14 2.5 Other Instruction-Related Positions

15 2.5.1 Academic Support Appointments

16

17 Members of the staff whose duties include teaching are not members of the full-time faculty.

18 2.5.2 Graduate Assistants and Fellows

19

20 Graduate assistants and graduate teaching fellows are appointed by the appropriate dean on the 

21 recommendation of the local academic unit officer. They do not possess faculty status.

22 The appointment of a graduate assistant or graduate teaching fellow is subject to the approval by 

23 the dean. 

24

25 2.6 Change of Affiliation or Status

26 2.6.1 Change of Affiliation

27

28 With the written agreement of the faculty member, the faculty member’s affiliation may be 

29 changed to a different local academic unit. The contract will reflect the new affiliation. 

30

31 Transfer of affiliation may be initiated by the faculty member, by the dean, or by the local 

32 academic unit officer to which the transfer is proposed. Eligibility is determined by the same 

33 criteria used for an initial faculty appointment. 

34

35 The faculty member will normally retain the same rank following the transfer. In special 

36 situations, the faculty and local academic unit officer in the accepting unit may require the faculty 

37 member to accept a lower rank. In no instance may a faculty member receive a promotion 

38 through a change of affiliation.

39

40 A tenured faculty member transferring to another unit retains tenure. An untenured faculty 

41 member must complete the same number of probationary years as remained in the former unit. 

42 The number of years of probationary service may be extended upon agreement with the faculty 

43 member.

44

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 37 of 188 PageID #:37
July 1, 2018

13

1 A member of a local academic unit may request an additional affiliation, resulting in a joint 

2 appointment. In such cases, the faculty, the dean, and the local academic unit officer in which the 

3 second appointment is to be made are responsible for evaluating and recommending the joint 

4 appointment. Joint appointments require the qualifications necessary for appointment at the 

5 tenure status and rank according to each unit’s standards. 

6 2.6.2 Change of Status

7

8 Any change in rank or tenure is a change of status. All changes of status must follow established 

9 procedures. A change of status does not confer tenure, unless the process meets the tenure 

10 procedures in this Handbook.

11

12 A change of status occurs if a tenure-line faculty member is not renewed. Such a faculty member

13 is not eligible for a full-time faculty position for a period of five years. Faculty members denied 

14 tenure shall never be eligible for any faculty appointment. 

15

16 A change of status also occurs if a full-time or part-time faculty member who is not a tenure-line 

17 faculty member seeks to become a tenure-line faculty member. The change of status from non18 tenure-line to tenure-line requires evidence of a national search or a request from the local 

19 academic unit’s faculty for a waiver from a national search. A waiver request must come from a 

20 majority of the local academic unit’s tenure-line faculty and be approved by the dean and the 

21 provost. The change of status from non-tenure-line to tenure-line also requires participation of the 

22 local academic unit’s tenure-line faculty, including at least a majority vote of that faculty as 

23 determined by procedures laid out in the local academic unit guidelines and the Faculty 

24 Handbook. 

25

26 2.7 Summer Session Appointments

27

28 The dean, after consultation with the local academic unit officers, and considering the resources 

29 and needs of the college, decides which courses, workshops or other programs will be offered in 

30 the summer sessions and which faculty members will conduct them. Faculty members with a ten31 month contract may accept or decline courses offered to them during the summer. The university 

32 does not guarantee summer session appointments. 

33

34 University policy regarding summer course assignments consists of the following principles:

35

36 1. Two courses running concurrently constitute a full load; the dean’s explicit approval is 

37 required for any overload assignment.

38 2. Faculty members receiving full summer compensation from an external grant may not be 

39 assigned summer courses unless such instruction is among the terms of the grant. Faculty 

40 members receiving partial summer compensation from an external grant may have a

41 partial summer course assignment, provided that the combined compensation does not exceed the 

42 amount they could receive for a full summer course load.

43 3. Within the bounds established by principles #1 and #2, assignments should be made on an 

44 equitable basis. 

45

46 Within the standards set by general university policy, each college develops its own policy for 

47 determining the programs to be offered over the summer and for making summer session 

48 appointments. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 38 of 188 PageID #:38
July 1, 2018

14

1

2 For summer students enrolled for semester credit (4.5 quarter hours), faculty are expected to 

3 assign additional work commensurate with the additional credit. 

4

5 Full-time faculty members with ten-month contracts receive additional salary for teaching in the 

6 summer. The rate of summer compensation is subject to periodic review involving the 

7 participation of faculty members. Teaching in a summer session may be part of the normal 

8 assignment of faculty members who have a 12-month contract, in which case no additional salary 

9 is paid. Adjunct faculty members who teach in a summer session will receive the same 

10 compensation as for a course offered during the academic year.

11

12 2.8 Orientation of Faculty

13

14 The Office of Academic Affairs offers a yearlong series of orientations for new full-time faculty, 

15 including an introductory orientation at the beginning of each academic year. The Office of 

16 Human Resources also offers frequent workshops describing personnel policies, benefits, and 

17 general employee information. Colleges and academic units may offer additional academic 

18 orientation. 

19

20 Local academic units, colleges, and university offices are encouraged to provide comprehensive 

21 orientation and ongoing development support for their term and adjunct faculty in order to 

22 welcome and acculturate them to the DePaul community.

23 2.9 Annual Reporting

24

25 The provost will annually report to Faculty Council on the composition of the faculty including 

26 tenure-line, term, and adjunct faculty; percentages of tenure-line, term, and adjunct faculty 

27 appointments by academic units and colleges; current titles in use; and any other pertinent 

28 information concerning faculty appointments. Academic deans shall report the same information 

29 to their respective faculties annually.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 39 of 188 PageID #:39
July 1, 2018

1

1 CHAPTER 3. PROMOTION AND TENURE STANDARDS AND 

2 PROCEDURES

3

4 3.1 Overview.................................................................................................................. 4

5 3.2 Probationary Service................................................................................................ 4

6 3.2.1 Length of Probationary Period............................................................................... 4

7 3.2.1.1 Assistant Professors Credit for Prior Service.................................................. 5

8 3.2.1.2 Associate or Full Professors Credit for Prior Service..................................... 5

9 3.2.1.3 Non-tenure-line Full-Time Appointments...................................................... 5

10 3.2.2 Leaves of Absence ................................................................................................. 5

11 3.3 Types of Review for Tenure-Line Faculty............................................................... 5

12 3.3.1 Probationary Tenure-Line Reviews....................................................................... 6

13 3.3.1.1 Formal Tenure-line Probationary Reviews............................................... 6

14 3.3.1.2 Informal Tenure-line Probationary Reviews .................................................. 7

15 3.3.1.3 The Tenure Review ................................................................................... 7

16 3.3.2 Promotion in Rank ................................................................................................. 7

17 3.4. Criteria for Promotion and Tenure........................................................................... 7

18 3.4.1. Requirements by Rank...................................................................................... 7

19 3.4.2 University-wide Criteria ................................................................................... 8

20 3.4.2.2 Scholarship, Research, or Other Creative Activities................................. 8

21 3.4.2.3 Service..................................................................................................... 10

22 3.4.3 Local Academic Unit and College Guidelines............................................... 10

23 3.4.4 Institutional Considerations............................................................................ 11

24 3.5 Process for Tenure and Promotion........................................................................ 11

25 3.5.1 General Principles................................................................................................ 11

26 3.5.1.1 Common Processes....................................................................................... 11

27 3.5.1.2 Guidelines Specific to Multi-Unit Appointments......................................... 13

28 3.5.1.3 Guidelines for Evaluating Collaborative Work ............................................ 14

29 3.5.2 Processes Common to All Evaluation Levels................................................ 14

30 3.5.2.1 Signing Statement ................................................................................... 15

31 3.5.2.2 Minority Report....................................................................................... 15

32 3.5.3 Local Academic Unit ........................................................................................... 15

33 3.5.4 Local Academic Unit Is College ................................................................... 16

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 40 of 188 PageID #:40
July 1, 2018

2

1 3.5.4.1 Personnel Committee (optional) ................................................................... 16

2 3.5.4.2 Tenured Faculty of the College............................................................... 16

3 3.5.4.3 Dean ........................................................................................................ 16

4 3.5.4.4 Candidate Response to College Review.................................................. 16

5 3.5.5 Local Academic Unit Is Not College ............................................................. 17

6 3.5.5.1 Local Academic Unit Personnel Committee (Optional) ......................... 17

7 3.5.5.2 Tenured Faculty of the Local Academic Unit......................................... 17

8 3.5.5.3 Local Unit Academic Officer (Unit Chair or Director)........................... 17

9 3.5.5.4 Candidate Response to Local Academic Unit Review ........................... 17

10 3.5.5.5 College-Level Personnel Committee ...................................................... 18

11 3.5.5.6 Dean ........................................................................................................ 18

12 3.5.5.7 Candidate Response to College Review ....................................................... 18

13 3.5.6 University Review .......................................................................................... 18

14 3.5.6.1 University Board on Promotion and Tenure................................................. 18

15 3.5.6.2 Candidate Response to UBPT....................................................................... 19

16 3.5.6.3 Provost Decision ........................................................................................... 19

17 3.5.7 Detailed Procedures............................................................................................. 19

18 3.5.7.1 Committees.............................................................................................. 19

19 3.5.7.2 Local Academic Unit (Not College) Personnel Committees.................. 19

20 3.5.7.3 Tenured Faculty of the Local Academic Unit......................................... 20

21 3.5.7.4 College Personnel Committees............................................................... 20

22 3.5.7.5 University Board on Promotion and Tenure ........................................... 20

23 3.6 Materials ................................................................................................................ 21

24 3.6.1 Dossier ................................................................................................................. 21

25 3.6.1.1 Items Supplied By Candidate........................................................................ 21

26 3.6.1.2 Items Supplied By Academic Unit and College ........................................... 21

27 3.6.1.3 Additions to the Dossier ............................................................................... 22

28 3.6.2 External Letters.................................................................................................... 22

29 3.6.2.1 Authors of External Letters..................................................................... 23

30 3.6.2.2 External Letter Contents.......................................................................... 23

31 3.6.2.3 Confidentiality of External Letters.......................................................... 23

32 3.6.2.4 Suggested Sample Letter......................................................................... 23

33 3.6.3 Student Input........................................................................................................ 24

34 3.6.3.1 Student Input Instrument............................................................................... 24

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 41 of 188 PageID #:41
July 1, 2018

3

1 3.6.3.2 Evaluation and Submission of Student Input Data ....................................... 25

2 3.7 Appeal.................................................................................................................... 25

3 3.8 Schedule for Informal and Formal Reviews............................................................... 26

4 3.9 Schedule for Promotion and Tenure ...................................................................... 27

5

6

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 42 of 188 PageID #:42
July 1, 2018

4

1 CHAPTER 3. PROMOTION AND TENURE STANDARDS AND 

2 PROCEDURES

3

4 3.1 Overview

5

6 Faculty members contribute to DePaul University as the primary creators of a vibrant academic 

7 community. The university seeks to foster an environment that provides professors with enriching 

8 opportunities to guide students, pursue scholarship and creative activities, and advance the 

9 institution's well-being. 

10

11 DePaul honors and rewards faculty members for their professional achievements. It maintains a 

12 system of faculty evaluation that relies heavily on the views of faculty. Exercising professional 

13 judgment, experienced faculty evaluate the work of their colleagues for renewal, promotion, and 

14 tenure.

15

16 Tenure is the foundation of academic freedom and the quality of the university. It is neither an 

17 end in itself nor a privilege exempting the individual from the obligation to make future 

18 contributions. It is, rather, a status that society recognizes as promoting the common good. 

19 Before granting tenure, the university should have no reasonable doubt about the faculty 

20 member’s demonstrated qualifications and continued capacity to contribute to DePaul’s 

21 distinctive goals and academic mission. Tenure creates the presumption of continuing 

22 employment, unless the university, using established procedures and faculty guidance, proves that 

23 countervailing circumstances exist. 

24

25 This chapter sets out DePaul University's standards and procedures for evaluating its tenure-line 

26 faculty. 

27 

28 3.2 Probationary Service

29

30 The probationary period is defined as the candidate’s time of continuous service in full-time 

31 tenure track at DePaul, at the end of which the tenure decision is made. During the probationary 

32 period, a tenure-line faculty member undergoes annual formal or informal evaluations for 

33 contract renewal or nonrenewal. In the final year of probationary service, the faculty member may 

34 apply for tenure and promotion. An unsuccessful candidate for tenure will not be offered a 

35 contract renewal, but will be offered a terminal contract of one year for the academic year 

36 following the academic year in which the faculty member applied for tenure. 

37

38 3.2.1 Length of Probationary Period

39

40 The maximum probationary period is six years excluding certain types of leaves that suspend the 

41 clock as described in Section 3.2.2. The probationary period may be reduced by agreement based 

42 on full-time prior academic service. The initial tenure-line contract must state any agreed-upon 

43 credit for prior service.

44

45

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 43 of 188 PageID #:43
July 1, 2018

5

1 3.2.1.1 Assistant Professors Credit for Prior Service 

2

3 A prospective faculty member recruited to DePaul as an assistant professor may have previously 

4 held a full-time faculty appointment at another college or university. The length of the 

5 probationary period at DePaul may be reduced by one, two, or three years, upon agreement of the 

6 individual and the university at the time of appointment. The initial faculty contract must state 

7 any agreed-upon credit for prior service. 

8

9 3.2.1.2 Associate or Full Professors Credit for Prior Service

10

11 A prospective faculty member recruited to DePaul as an associate or full professor may receive 

12 an appointment without tenure. Upon agreement of the individual and the university at the time of 

13 appointment, one, two, three, or four years of prior full-time faculty service at another college or 

14 university may be credited to the probationary period at DePaul. The faculty member's initial 

15 contract must reflect the agreed-upon amount of credit for prior service and the review schedule. 

16 Regardless of the amount of credit, the individual will not be evaluated for tenure without having 

17 had at least one formal probationary evaluation at DePaul prior to the tenure evaluation. 

18

19 3.2.1.3 Non-tenure-line Full-Time Appointments

20

21 As a general norm, the years a faculty member has spent at DePaul University in a non-tenure22 line full-time appointment (e.g., instructor or visiting professor) do not count toward the 

23 probationary period. If a faculty member’s status changes to a tenure-line appointment, the 

24 individual and the university may agree to credit one or more years of special appointments 

25 toward the probationary period. The faculty member's initial contract for a tenure-line full-time 

26 appointment must reflect the agreed-upon amount of credit for the prior service at DePaul. 

27 Regardless of the amount of credit, the individual will not be evaluated for tenure without having 

28 had at least one formal probationary evaluation at DePaul prior to the tenure evaluation.

29

30 3.2.2 Leaves of Absence

31

32 A leave of one quarter or longer may interrupt the faculty member’s probationary period. 

33

34 If an untenured tenure-line faculty member takes a leave as defined by DePaul policies, including 

35 family or medical leave, research leave, teaching leave, or military service leave, the year during 

36 which the leave occurs is normally not considered as a year of probationary service, and the leave 

37 does not break the required continuity of full-time service. If the candidate, however, wishes for

38 the leave not to affect the length of the probationary period, he or she must notify the dean in 

39 writing within six months upon return from the leave.

40 Faculty sometimes request and are granted a personal leave that does not fall into any of the 

41 categories covered in the prior paragraph. If a candidate takes such a leave, the provost makes the 

42 decision on how the leave affects the probationary period. (Section 6.7.)

43

44 3.3 Types of Review for Tenure-Line Faculty 

45

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 44 of 188 PageID #:44
July 1, 2018

6

1 3.3.1 Probationary Tenure-Line Reviews

2

3 During the probationary period, the probationary tenure-line faculty member will be subject to 

4 annual probationary reviews conducted by the faculty member’s local academic unit. In colleges 

5 with departments, the local academic unit is, in colleges with departments, the department or 

6 similar body. In other colleges, it is the lowest-level body conducting reviews for tenure and 

7 promotion. 

8

9 Probationary reviews serve three major purposes: 

10

11 1. To assess the faculty member's progress toward promotion and/or tenure, measuring the 

12 individual against the established criteria

13

14 2. To provide clear and consistent guidance and develop priorities for the faculty member 

15 toward fully satisfying the criteria, and

16

17 3. To recommend for or against renewal. 

18

19 Three types of probationary reviews apply to tenure-line faculty who are untenured: informal,

20 formal, and the tenure review. Each evaluation leads to a decision for renewal or nonrenewal (see 

21 also Section 4.2).

22

23 The dean normally makes a recommendation on annual renewal and nonrenewal. If the dean does 

24 not concur in the recommendation of a local academic unit, the dean shares his or her

25 recommendation with the local academic unit. The local academic unit may appeal the dean’s 

26 recommendation to the provost. In such cases, the dean and the department or unit provide the 

27 provost with written reasons for their respective positions. The provost makes the final decision 

28 and reports it to the candidate. A faculty member who is not renewed may file an appeal.

29 (Chapter 5)

30

31 A formal review must precede a decision in year five to issue a terminal contract. In case of 

32 nonrenewal, the candidate is not eligible to apply for tenure or promotion.

33 3.3.1.1 Formal Tenure-line Probationary Reviews 

34

35 A formal probationary review is designed to prepare a faculty member for the tenure process and 

36 to document areas that need the faculty member's attention. In a formal review, the local 

37 academic unit considers the candidate’s personal statement and CV, evidence of scholarship or

38 documentation of creative activity, student evaluations, evidence of service, and other materials 

39 specified by policies of the local academic unit or college. 

40

41 Each local academic unit or its personnel committee conducts a formal review of untenured 

42 tenure-line faculty no less often than every two years. The tenured faculty of the local academic 

43 unit then vote by separate secret ballots on (1) adequate progress toward tenure and (2) renewal.

44 The faculty prepare a report that clearly details areas of strength and areas for improvement. The 

45 report is explicit about the faculty member's progress towards tenure. Copies of this report are 

46 forwarded to the candidate and the dean. The dean writes a separate letter to the provost with a 

47 recommendation regarding renewal or nonrenewal. If a formal review raises serious concerns

48 about the candidate’s potential for attaining promotion or tenure, the local academic unit faculty, 

49 local academic unit officer, or dean may mandate that the next year’s annual review be formal.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 45 of 188 PageID #:45
July 1, 2018

7

1

2 3.3.1.2 Informal Tenure-line Probationary Reviews

3

4 The purpose of an informal review is to recommend for or against contract renewal and to address 

5 progress towards tenure in review periods when a formal review is not conducted. 

6

7 In years in which a formal review is not conducted, the chair, dean, or, where applicable,

8 appropriate committee conducts an informal review of the faculty member, according to 

9 processes specified in local academic unit or college policies, that results in a written 

10 recommendation to the provost, with a copy to the candidate.

11

12 3.3.1.3 The Tenure Review

13

14 The tenure review is the final review during the probationary period. It begins with the 

15 candidate’s tenure application and concludes with the provost’s decision to grant or deny tenure. 

16 It is a formal review involving university-wide consideration under detailed procedures. It 

17 includes solicitation of opinions from external reviewers and from students. The tenure review 

18 examines the faculty member’s accomplishments and assesses the likelihood of future 

19 accomplishments. 

20

21 Before granting tenure, the university should have no reasonable doubt about the faculty 

22 member’s demonstrated qualifications and continued capacity to contribute to DePaul’s 

23 distinctive goals and academic mission. 

24 3.3.2 Promotion in Rank

25

26 Ordinarily, an assistant professor applies for tenure and promotion simultaneously. The candidate 

27 receives either both promotion to associate professor and tenure or neither promotion nor tenure. 

28 Only an associate professor may apply for promotion for full professor. 

29

30 A faculty member ordinarily serves three to six years in a given rank before promotion. See 

31 Section 3.5.1.1 (m) for details. 

32

33 There is no limit to the number of times a faculty member may apply for promotion to full 

34 professor. In the event of a denial of promotion, the faculty member may not re-apply for 

35 promotion in the year immediately following the denial.

36 3.4. Criteria for Promotion and Tenure

37 3.4.1. Requirements by Rank

38

39 Assistant Professor. The doctorate or terminal degree is required for this rank. Exceptions are 

40 made for candidates who have already attained recognition for scholarly or other relevant 

41 professional achievements and who give promise of continued academic development. The 

42 assistant professor should demonstrate a potential for becoming an effective teacher, for pursuing 

43 scholarship, research, and/or other creative activities, and for service.

44

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 46 of 188 PageID #:46
July 1, 2018

8

1 Associate Professor. In addition to the requirements for assistant professor, the candidate must 

2 demonstrate consistently effective teaching performance. The candidate should also show 

3 evidence of notable scholarship, research, and/or other creative activities, and service. For this 

4 rank, the candidate should show significant involvement in university activities at the local 

5 academic unit and beyond. This rank is reserved for those with recognized academic 

6 achievements.

7

8 Professor. In addition to the requirements for associate professor, candidates must give evidence 

9 of continued scholarship, research, and/or other creative activities – the quality of which is 

10 recognized by their peers inside and outside the university. Candidates for this rank must also 

11 show a record of notable service contributions at the university level. Effective teaching remains 

12 mandatory for this rank. This rank is reserved for those with recognized academic achievements.

13 3.4.2 University-wide Criteria

14

15 DePaul University appoints, retains, promotes, tenures, and rewards faculty who best help the 

16 university fulfill its mission, as articulated in the university's Mission Statement and Faculty 

17 Handbook. The principal criteria for tenure and advancement in academic rank are: teaching and 

18 learning; scholarship, research, or other creative activities; and service. In evaluating faculty for 

19 promotion or tenure, local academic units specify more detailed guidelines that provide unit- and 

20 discipline-specific articulations of the university-wide criteria (Section 3.4.3.)

21

22 3.4.2.1 Teaching and Learning 

23

24 Effective teaching is the first requirement in decisions at all levels on appointment, retention, 

25 promotion, and tenure. Teaching evaluation must be done in a systematic, documented manner, 

26 including contributions from the candidate's students and peers. Effective teaching involves:

27

28 • Command of material

29 • Effective communication of subject matter

30 • Development and articulation of appropriate and thorough learning objectives for 

31 each course taught

32 • Delivery of course content that is appropriate to the level of the course, its 

33 description in the course catalog, and its student audience

34 • Probing and fair methods of evaluating students

35 • Success in bringing students to an acceptable level of performance and in 

36 challenging them to grow intellectually and morally

37

38 Instructional activities outside the classroom, such as course development (individual or 

39 collaborative), academic advisement, accessibility to students, supervision of independent study, 

40 and contributions to meeting departmental instructional needs, are also relevant. 

41

42 3.4.2.2 Scholarship, Research, or Other Creative Activities

43

44 Throughout their professional lives, all tenure-line faculty members should engage in scholarship, 

45 research, or other creative activities. Each requires disseminating the results of completed projects 

46 in academic and artistic arenas outside DePaul. 

47

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 47 of 188 PageID #:47
July 1, 2018

9

1 The university evaluates untenured tenure-line faculty based on their total output of work.

2

3 Scholarship, while including research, is a broader concept. Research traditionally refers to

4 discovery using the disciplinary methodologies for investigation and production of new 

5 knowledge in the humanities, social and natural sciences, and mathematics. Research is usually 

6 shared through presentations at professional meetings and academic publications. Scholarship is 

7 a broader term encompassing the four separate but overlapping functions of a quality faculty 

8 member: discovery, integration, application, and teaching. 

9

10 • Original discovery advances knowledge within the context of a disciplinary or 

11 multi-disciplinary field and practice, contributing significantly to knowledge and 

12 the intellectual life of the university. Research falls into the category of 

13 discovery. 

14 • Integration develops knowledge through cross- and multi-disciplinary 

15 investigations, allowing new fields of inquiry to develop.

16 • The application of knowledge uses research findings in responsible ways to 

17 address contemporary societal problems through interaction with the larger 

18 community.

19 • The study of teaching experiences leads to the development of better pedagogical 

20 methods and tools. 

21

22 Creative activities refer to activities other than scholarship. Creative activities result in products

23 in the fine arts, such as the visual arts, the literary arts, and the performing arts, and their 

24 combinations and supportive activities. These can also be addressed as objects of scholarship 

25 through any of the four functions listed above.

26

27 Evidence of research, scholarship, or creative activities should include, at a minimum:

28 • A current and complete curriculum vitae

29 • Copies of the project results where feasible

30 • If applicable, documentation sufficient to substantiate the candidate’s 

31 contributions to collaborative projects, as specified in the local academic unit 

32 guidelines

33 • Assessment of the contributions by professional peers and other experts in the 

34 field

35 • Self-assessment concerning scholarly or creative growth and development

36

37 The University evaluates research, scholarship, and creative activities in light of their:

38 • Originality

39 • Contribution to knowledge

40 • Conceptual or artistic sophistication

41 • Intellectual rigor or artistic skills

42 • Effective application of knowledge to address human problems or needs

43 • Effective communication of knowledge to audiences beyond the classroom

44

45 Scholarship or creative activities that cannot be evaluated by these criteria will not be considered

46 for promotion and tenure. An academic unit may evaluate oral presentations or creative activities 

47 by various means including (but not limited to) listening to recordings, examining drafts, or 

48 soliciting the views of other scholars (including other members of the DePaul faculty) who were 

49 in attendance. 

50

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 48 of 188 PageID #:48
July 1, 2018

10

1 Activities conducted solely within the candidate's classes, or designed merely to keep a candidate 

2 abreast of scholarly development in a field, are considered in evaluating the candidate's teaching, 

3 not in evaluating his or her contributions in scholarship, research, or other creative activities. 

4

5 3.4.2.3 Service 

6

7 Service consists of documented activities that

8 • Benefit the university and its academic units, professional associations, the 

9 community, or the broader public

10 • Are consistent with the university's mission

11 • Clearly benefit from the expertise of the faculty member -- either the specialized 

12 expertise of the faculty member's field or the professional skills possessed by all 

13 members of the faculty

14

15 Service may be provided to the university, the profession, and the community. The amount and 

16 nature of service are correlated with academic rank. 

17

18 University service consists of contributions to the enhancement of the institution's internal 

19 processes and its relationships with external bodies. All faculty members must serve in their local 

20 academic unit (unless assigned to a position such as associate dean that precludes such service). 

21

22 Professional service consists of contributions to the organizations or associations of the faculty 

23 member's academic discipline or the professoriate. Professional service may have a component of 

24 scholarship or creative activities. 

25

26 Community service activities contribute to the public welfare outside the institution, consistent 

27 with the Vincentian tradition of DePaul University. Activities consistent with a faculty member's 

28 expertise but that could be done by someone without that expertise do not qualify as community 

29 service. In some instances, it will not be obvious whether an activity counts as community 

30 service. In those cases, it is the responsibility of the candidate to make the case demonstrating that 

31 the activity qualifies as service as the term is used here.

32

33 3.4.3 Local Academic Unit and College Guidelines 

34

35 Local academic units and colleges have the responsibility to adopt written guidelines and policies

36 for tenure-line faculty evaluation. These guidelines have two purposes: (1) they provide unit- or 

37 college-specific articulations of university-wide criteria based on the professional discipline, 

38 field, or interdisciplinary area, including collaborative work, as applicable; and (2) they describe 

39 unit- or college-specific procedures and processes used for promotion and tenure. The guidelines 

40 must be consistent with the university’s criteria and procedures specified in this Faculty 

41 Handbook. In the absence of approved unit or college guidelines, the guidelines of the higher 

42 level will apply.

43

44 The faculty of the local academic unit bear the primary responsibility for developing and 

45 amending guidelines. Guidelines should include at least these elements: 

46 Criteria

47 a) Statement of discipline-specific articulations for university-wide criteria and 

48 expectations for teaching, research and creative activities, and service

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 49 of 188 PageID #:49
July 1, 2018

11

1 b) Specification of standards for different forms of scholarship within the discipline

2 (or interdisciplinary field)

3

4 Process

5 a) Uniform policies detailing the process used for evaluations

6 b) Composition of the personnel committee, if any

7 c) Policies on remote participation in meetings 

8 d) Explanation of participation by, or exclusion of, faculty who are unavailable at 

9 the time of the evaluation for reasons such as illness or leaves of absence. 

10 (Reviewers allowed to participate must have read the dossier in advance.)

11 e) Guidance on whether reviewers must have attained at least the rank that the 

12 candidate seeks

13 f) Process for amending guidelines

14

15 College guidelines should reflect the input of their constituent academic units, where applicable. 

16

17 The University Board on Promotion and Tenure reviews changes in the guidelines prepared by 

18 local academic units and colleges. The UBPT determines whether the guidelines are clear and 

19 consonant with the general university-wide criteria and procedures for promotion and tenure. If 

20 the UBPT finds local academic unit or college guidelines to be unclear or inconsistent with 

21 university requirements, it will inform the local academic unit or college in writing with the 

22 expectation that the guidelines will be revised. In the absence of guidelines or if the guidelines 

23 have not been approved by the UBPT, the guidelines of the higher level will be used.

24

25 Approved guidelines included in official documents of academic units are binding, as are the 

26 university-wide criteria and processes. Should there be inconsistencies in the guidelines and 

27 criteria of different evaluation levels, those of the higher level prevail.

28

29 3.4.4 Institutional Considerations 

30

31 Merit is not the sole consideration for professional advancement at DePaul University. 

32 Institutional need also plays a role in the renewal and tenure of untenured faculty. In planning the 

33 number and qualifications of faculty to meet future needs and the resources required to support 

34 the faculty, the university may – after consultation with the faculty – limit the number or 

35 proportion of tenured positions in the university or in any of its academic units. In such instances, 

36 tenure would not be granted regardless of the faculty member’s qualifications and length of 

37 service. The university will notify affected faculty members promptly upon the adoption of any 

38 such limitation. 

39

40 3.5 Process for Tenure and Promotion

41 3.5.1 General Principles

42

43 The following general principles guide promotion and tenure reviews: 

44

45 3.5.1.1 Common Processes

46

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 50 of 188 PageID #:50
July 1, 2018

12

1 a) There are normally three levels of evaluation prior to the final decision of the provost: 

2 the local academic unit, the college, and the university. In the absence of departmental 

3 or school structures, the local academic unit is the college and thus there are only two 

4 levels: the local academic unit and the university. 

5

6 b) An individual faculty member may vote or advocate for or against a candidate only at 

7 one level in the review process. Members of UBPT must vote only on the UBPT. In 

8 units where the local academic unit is not the college, college policy must specify 

9 whether college personnel committee members vote at the college or the local 

10 academic unit level. However, members of a local academic unit personnel committee 

11 may fully participate and vote in both the personnel committee's evaluation and the 

12 local academic unit evaluation. 

13

14 c) All votes are by secret ballot and the numerical results are recorded. A tie vote will be 

15 interpreted as a recommendation against renewal or against an award of tenure or 

16 promotion.

17

18 d) Candidates receive the written reports and vote counts at each step in the process 

19 promptly as those materials become available. Candidates receive external letters with 

20 information identifying the reviewer redacted. 

21

22 e) Candidates receive copies of any additions to a dossier.

23 

24 f) Each level of evaluation is substantive and judges the candidate on the merits 

25 according to the university's criteria and the guidelines of that level of review. In 

26 addition to substantive review, reviewers after the initial level consider the method 

27 and care of application of the approved guidelines by lower-level unit(s) and the 

28 disciplinary expertise of the local academic unit. Relevant issues include matters of 

29 stringency, consistency among candidates, and fairness, as well as the implications the 

30 decision may have at the college, school, or university level. 

31

32 g) All individuals participating in the process at any stage must respect its 

33 confidentiality. They must not reveal votes, the names or views of referees, the 

34 contents of discussions, or the contents of the dossier to anyone. Intentional or 

35 continuing breaches of confidentiality are considered to be serious violations of 

36 professional ethics. Local academic units and colleges must take appropriate steps to 

37 maintain confidentiality, including during the physical preparation of the dossier and 

38 dossier storage. It is unwise to make a broad electronic distribution of the dossier;

39 instead password-protected web sites can be used. All documentation will be retained 

40 in accordance with the Records Management policy.

41

42 h) Faculty members should always avoid conflicts of interest in evaluating individual 

43 faculty members for appointment, renewal, tenure, or promotion. The university 

44 expects the provost, deans, local academic unit administrators, and all other internal 

45 faculty reviewers to acknowledge such conflicts openly and to abstain from 

46 participation whenever conflicts arise.

47

48 i) Faculty members receive tenure only upon affirmative award by DePaul University. 

49 Each year, eligible tenure-line faculty may apply for tenure and/or promotion. By 

50 April 1, the Office of Academic Affairs will notify eligible faculty in writing of the 

51 deadline for submitting an application for promotion and tenure or promotion for the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 51 of 188 PageID #:51
July 1, 2018

13

1 following year. The faculty member must submit his or her request to the local 

2 academic unit officer, academic dean, and the Office of Academic Affairs by the 

3 stated deadline, typically May 1. 

4

5 j) Requests for tenure submitted before the year of eligibility will not be accepted. If a 

6 faculty member eligible for tenure consideration fails to apply by the application 

7 deadline he or she forfeits the opportunity for tenure consideration and receives a 

8 terminal contract of no more than one year's duration. 

9

10 k) Failure to meet the application deadline for promotion to full professor postpones 

11 consideration until the next academic year. There is no limit to the number of times a 

12 faculty member may apply for promotion to full professor, except that a candidate 

13 may not re-apply in the year immediately following a decision denying promotion.

14

15 l) The provost will acknowledge receipt of applications for promotion, for tenure, or for 

16 promotion and tenure, no later than May 15. For candidates with tenure who are 

17 seeking promotion to full professor, the provost will advise all candidates of the right 

18 to withdraw an application for promotion at any time, without prejudice to future 

19 applications.

20

21 m) Faculty members are normally expected to serve a minimum of three to six years, 

22 depending on the practice of their college, in a given rank before promotion to the next 

23 rank. Exceptions to the norm are allowed only when the dean and, if one exists, 

24 college personnel committee, certify that the candidate’s extraordinary performance, 

25 under departmental, school, and college guidelines, warrants early application for 

26 promotion.

27

28 n) Candidates may continue through all stages of evaluation, regardless of a negative 

29 recommendation at any stage.

30

31

32 3.5.1.2 Guidelines Specific to Multi-Unit Appointments 

33

34 a) If a faculty member has a formal appointment in more than one academic unit, the 

35 home academic unit specified in the appointment letter evaluates the candidate. The 

36 second unit evaluates the candidate if it so chooses, or if requested to do so by either 

37 the candidate or the home unit. The second unit conducts an independent evaluation 

38 and makes a recommendation based on the candidate’s responsibilities in that unit. 

39 The second unit may review the reference letters and student input from the home 

40 academic unit. The report of the second unit will be forwarded to the home unit for its 

41 consideration and inclusion in the dossier. 

42

43 b) A faculty member who changes formal appointments during the period under 

44 evaluation shall be evaluated by both academic units. Either unit may, upon request, 

45 have access to the other unit's documentation. Each academic unit sends the 

46 candidate's supporting documents and the unit's evaluation to the next higher level 

47 unit.

48

49 c) A faculty member with a formal appointment in only one department or local 

50 academic unit may have formally assigned duties in one or more other units. In 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 52 of 188 PageID #:52
July 1, 2018

14

1 evaluating the faculty member, the home unit shall invite the other units to submit 

2 evaluations, which the home unit will include with its evaluation. At each stage in the 

3 review process, the evaluations will receive weight in the approximate portion of the 

4 workload assignment to each entity. Ultimately, the recommendation to the next level 

5 of review rests with the home academic unit.

6

7 3.5.1.3 Guidelines for Evaluating Collaborative Work

8

9 Collaborative activities within and across units are valued at DePaul. If collaborative 

10 work is submitted as part of the dossier, it must be evaluated as part of tenure and 

11 promotion review. Individual contributions to collaborative work should be described 

12 specifically by the candidate and documented by team members. Evaluators should 

13 consider that collaborative work may be especially labor-intensive, may be disseminated 

14 in non-traditional forms, and may blur the conventional distinctions between research and 

15 teaching and service. Local Academic Units should specify in their guidelines the 

16 processes and policies governing the evaluation and weight of collaborative work in the 

17 tenure and promotion review.

18

19 3.5.2 Processes Common to All Evaluation Levels

20

21 At all levels of evaluation the following processes must be followed:

22

23 a) Additions to the dossier may be made in accordance with the guidelines in this 

24 chapter.

25

26 b) The reviewing body's numerical vote must be reported to all subsequent levels.

27

28 c) All documents considered at each level must be passed on to subsequent levels. The 

29 candidate has access to all documents being considered, but the candidate’s copies of 

30 the external reviewer letters must have the reviewer’s identifying information 

31 redacted.

32

33 d) The local academic unit officer (e.g., department chair) or academic dean, as 

34 applicable, informs the candidate of the decision, numerical vote, and all grounds for 

35 the decision before transmitting the dossier to the next level. 

36

37 e) All decisions or recommendations shall be reported promptly to the academic 

38 administrator of the prior level, along with the reasons for any recommendations 

39 differing from the prior level’s recommendation.

40

41 f) All tenured faculty members of a candidate’s local academic unit, members of the 

42 college personnel committee, and members of the UBPT are permitted and expected 

43 to vote by a secret ballot at a meeting in which the candidate’s application is 

44 reviewed and discussed, exempting those faculty who may be unable to participate 

45 due to approved leaves of absence. Under no circumstances may a vote be cast 

46 through a proxy at any level in the retention, promotion or tenure process. However, 

47 faculty in absentia may vote only if they use technology that permits simultaneous 

48 participation in the review meeting and conveyance of their secret ballot at the time 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 53 of 188 PageID #:53
July 1, 2018

15

1 of the vote. Moreover, faculty who vote in absentia are required to have reviewed a 

2 candidate’s materials before the academic unit’s official vote. Only those faculty 

3 having a valid excuse as defined in the unit guidelines may attend and vote using 

4 technology. Likewise, no faculty member is permitted to add his or her vote or 

5 change his or her vote after the votes have been tallied. 

6

7 g) The report on a recommendation shall fully discuss both strengths and weaknesses in 

8 the record so as to provide an explanation for positive and negative votes. All faculty 

9 participating in the decision will read the final report of the unit’s recommendation 

10 and sign one of two forms. One form indicates that the faculty member agrees that 

11 the report accurately describes the discussion of the unit. The other form indicates

12 that the report does not accurately describe the unit’s discussion. The faculty 

13 member’s signature does not reflect his or her vote. Faculty who sign the form 

14 indicating inaccuracy of the report must provide a signed statement, known as a 

15 signing statement, explaining why they believe the report does not accurately 

16 describe the discussion. In the event a faculty member is unwilling or unable to sign 

17 one of the two forms, the report will go forward with an explanation from the person 

18 responsible for gathering the signatures.

19

20 3.5.2.1 Signing Statement

21

22 A faculty member who believes that an evaluation level report did not accurately reflect the 

23 discussion during deliberation for promotion or tenure must prepare a signing statement. The 

24 signing statement explains the individual’s disagreement with the report’s characterization of the 

25 meeting. It is restricted to how the evaluating unit or committee report allegedly mischaracterized 

26 the discussion. The statement may not present information or opinions about the candidate 

27 beyond those offered during the meeting. It need not indicate the author’s position on the

28 candidacy. 

29

30 Signing statements must be shared with both the candidate and all faculty members of the unit or 

31 committee who were involved in the discussion at issue. Signing statements are due five business 

32 days after the recommendation goes to the next level. 

33 3.5.2.2 Minority Report

34

35 An allegation that an evaluating unit violated its guidelines, criteria, or processes, or those of the 

36 university, takes the form of a minority report. 

37

38 A minority report is restricted to how the evaluating unit or committee violated guidelines, 

39 process, or criteria. It may not present information or opinion about the candidate beyond that 

40 offered during the meeting.

41

42 Minority reports must be shared with both the candidate and all faculty members of the unit or 

43 committee. The deadline for the minority report is five business days after the recommendation 

44 goes to the next level. The evaluating unit or committee has five business days to respond to the 

45 minority report. These documents must be added to the dossier for subsequent levels of review. 

46 3.5.3 Local Academic Unit

47

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 54 of 188 PageID #:54
July 1, 2018

16

1 The local academic unit is the unit that conducts the first level of review in the promotion and 

2 tenure process. Some colleges are the local academic unit. In other colleges, the local academic 

3 unit might be a school, a department, or a program. A college may have departments that do not 

4 function as local academic units. For example, in the 2012-2013 academic year, the following 

5 colleges functioned as local academic units: College of Communication, College of Law, School 

6 of Music, The Theatre School, and The School for New Learning. 

7 3.5.4 Local Academic Unit Is College

8

9 When the local academic unit is the college, the two levels of review are the college and the 

10 university. The college must follow uniform, written guidelines describing the evaluation process.

11 Participation in the tenure and promotion review process is limited to tenured faculty. 

12

13 3.5.4.1 Personnel Committee (optional)

14

15 A local academic unit may choose to convene a personnel committee consisting of a subset of the 

16 tenured faculty of the unit, excluding the dean. The committee must have at least three members. 

17 The personnel committee, if one exists, evaluates the candidate, votes by secret ballot, and 

18 submits a signed report for the dossier. The personnel committee vote cannot be used in lieu of 

19 any full tenured faculty vote. 

20

21 3.5.4.2 Tenured Faculty of the College

22

23 The tenured faculty of the local academic unit evaluates the candidate, votes by secret ballot, and 

24 provides a report for the dossier. This report may adapt or adopt a personnel committee’s report,

25 but it must reflect the unit’s discussion. Unit guidelines may limit the right to vote on a candidate 

26 to tenured faculty who hold a higher rank than the candidate. Members of the unit’s personnel 

27 committee vote in the evaluation by the unit’s tenured faculty. 

28

29 3.5.4.3 Dean

30

31 The approved procedures of the local academic unit must stipulate whether the dean may attend 

32 the meeting of the tenured faculty of the college in the two-level process. If the dean attends, he 

33 or she may participate but not advocate or vote. The dean writes a separate report for the dossier 

34 expressing his or her evaluation.

35

36 3.5.4.4 Candidate Response to College Review 

37

38 After the dean provides the candidate with all reports from the college review, the candidate has

39 the option to write a response which will be placed in the dossier for review by the UBPT. The 

40 response, if any, must be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs and the dean at least two 

41 business days prior to the scheduled date of the candidate’s hearing by the UBPT. The hearing 

42 must be scheduled to provide the candidate with at least five business days to respond to the 

43 report. A response may address only the candidate’s issues or concerns with the college-level 

44 reports. 

45

46 The next evaluation level is the university level.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 55 of 188 PageID #:55
July 1, 2018

17

1 3.5.5 Local Academic Unit Is Not College

2

3 If the local academic unit is not the college, it is typically a department, school, or program 

4 subordinate to a college. The three levels of review are: local academic unit, college, and 

5 university. Each level of review must follow uniform, written guidelines describing the evaluation 

6 process. If there is an insufficient number of tenured faculty available in the local academic unit, 

7 the dean may appoint tenured faculty from related academic units to the review process. 

8 Participation in the tenure and promotion review process is limited to tenured faculty. 

9

10 3.5.5.1 Local Academic Unit Personnel Committee (Optional)

11

12 A local academic unit may choose to convene a personnel committee consisting of a subset of the

13 tenured faculty of the unit. The committee must have at least three members. The local academic 

14 unit officer may not be a member but may attend. The personnel committee, if one exists,

15 evaluates the candidate, votes by secret ballot, and submits a signed report for the dossier. The 

16 personnel committee vote cannot be used in lieu of a vote by the unit’s entire tenured faculty.

17

18 3.5.5.2 Tenured Faculty of the Local Academic Unit

19

20 The tenured faculty of the local academic unit evaluates the candidate, votes by secret ballot, and 

21 provides a report for the dossier. This report may adapt or adopt a personnel committee’s report 

22 but must reflect the unit’s discussion. Units may establish written procedures limiting the vote on 

23 a candidate to tenured faculty who hold a higher rank than the candidate. Members of the unit’s 

24 personnel committee vote as part of the evaluation by the unit’s tenured faculty. If the local 

25 academic unit has fewer than five eligible tenured faculty members, the dean, after consultation 

26 with members of the unit, will appoint tenured faculty of the appropriate rank to the evaluation 

27 committee from related academic units. 

28

29 3.5.5.3 Local Unit Academic Officer (Unit Chair or Director)

30

31 The local unit academic officer may participate in the discussion by tenured faculty of the unit, 

32 but will not vote on or advocate for or against the candidate’s promotion or tenure. The unit 

33 academic officer will write a separate report for the dossier expressing his or her evaluation. 

34

35 3.5.5.4 Candidate Response to Local Academic Unit Review

36

37 After the local academic unit officer provides the candidate with all reports from the review, the 

38 candidate has the option to write a response which will be places in the dossier for all subsequent 

39 levels of review. The response, if any, must be submitted to the dean and the local academic unit 

40 officer at least two business days prior to the prior to the scheduled date of the candidate’s 

41 hearing by the college personnel committee. The hearing must be scheduled to provide the 

42 candidate with at least five business days to respond to the report. A response may address only 

43 the candidate’s issues or concerns with the local academic unit’s reports.

44

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 56 of 188 PageID #:56
July 1, 2018

18

1 3.5.5.5 College-Level Personnel Committee

2

3 In colleges with a college-level personnel committee, this committee conducts a separate 

4 evaluation of the candidate, votes by secret ballot, and writes a report for the dossier. The college 

5 personnel committee is a subset of the tenured faculty from the college with broad representation 

6 from different units within the college. The minimum number of members on any college 

7 personnel committee is five. Only tenure-line faculty may vote in membership elections for those 

8 committees that are elected. The college-level committee must have representation from tenured 

9 faculty at the rank of full professor. Members of the college personnel committee who voted at 

10 the local academic unit may not vote at the college level. If so specified in the college’s 

11 guidelines, the dean may participate in the meeting of the college personnel committee, but may 

12 not vote or advocate for or against a candidate. The report of the college personnel committee is 

13 provided to the dean of the college. There is no college-wide tenured faculty vote. 

14 3.5.5.6 Dean

15

16 The dean provides a separate evaluation of the candidate for the dossier.

17

18 3.5.5.7 Candidate Response to College Review

19

20 After the dean provides the candidate with all reports from the review, the candidate has the 

21 option to write a response which will be placed in the dossier for the UBPT. The response, if any, 

22 must be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs and the dean at least two business days prior 

23 to the scheduled date of the candidate’s hearing by the UBPT. The hearing must be scheduled to 

24 provide the candidate at least five business days to respond to the report. A response may address 

25 only the candidate’s issues or concerns with the college’s reports.

26

27 The next evaluation level is the university review.

28 3.5.6 University Review

29

30 3.5.6.1 University Board on Promotion and Tenure 

31

32 The University Board on Promotion and Tenure (UBPT) evaluates the candidate, votes by secret 

33 ballot on tenure, promotion, or both and provides a written report summarizing the basis of its 

34 recommendation, including the vote count. In evaluating the candidate, the UBPT takes the 

35 following steps:

36

37 a. Reviews the full dossier.

38

39 b. Conducts a hearing, with five of the seven appointed faculty members 

40 constituting a quorum. The provost is expected to be present when a candidate is 

41 being reviewed. In exceptional circumstances, a designee may attend in the 

42 provost’s absence. The candidate, the local academic unit officer (when 

43 applicable), and the college dean are expected to appear before the UBPT.

44

45 c. Conducts a substantive review applying current university-wide standards and 

46 criteria for tenure and promotion.

47

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 57 of 188 PageID #:57
July 1, 2018

19

1 d. Examines the application of lower-level guidelines to the candidate.

2

3 e. Prepares its recommendation, which it shares with the candidate and the provost.

4 3.5.6.2 Candidate Response to UBPT

5

6 The candidate has the option to write a response to the UBPT evaluation which will be added to 

7 the file and sent to the provost for his or her consideration. A response must focus only on issues 

8 or concerns the candidate may have with the UBPT report. The deadline for this response appears 

9 in the calendar.

10

11 3.5.6.3 Provost Decision

12

13 The provost makes the final decision on tenure or promotion. Only in rare instances and for 

14 compelling reasons will the provost overturn a promotion or tenure recommendation made by the 

15 UBPT. 

16

17 If the provost's decision differs from the UBPT recommendation, the provost must prepare a 

18 written explanation of the decision and provide it to the UBPT, the candidate, the dean, and the 

19 local unit academic officer (if different from the dean). 

20 3.5.7 Detailed Procedures

21 3.5.7.1 Committees

22

23 The following rules apply to the various committees conducting reviews for tenure and 

24 promotion.

25

26 Only tenured faculty may sit on any committee evaluating a faculty member for tenure or 

27 promotion at any level of evaluation; only tenure-line faculty may vote in membership elections 

28 for those committees that are elected.

29

30 Except where otherwise provided in this chapter, a local academic unit or college may adopt

31 written standards for its evaluative committees that address tenure and promotion. The standards 

32 may address, among other topics:

33 • Committee membership

34 • Criteria for chairing the committee

35 • Rank and status of faculty who may elect members of the committee

36 • Rank of members who may vote on promotion to full professor

37 • Term length for committee membership

38 • Process for election of the committee chair

39

40 3.5.7.2 Local Academic Unit (Not College) Personnel Committees 

41

42 Members must be tenured and at least associate rank. The committee must have at least three 

43 members. The tenure-line faculty of the local academic unit elect the personnel committee, and 

44 the personnel committee elects its chairperson. The local academic unit academic officer may not 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 58 of 188 PageID #:58
July 1, 2018

20

1 be a member of this committee. The officer may participate in committee meetings but shall not 

2 advocate for or against the candidate or vote.

3

4 3.5.7.3 Tenured Faculty of the Local Academic Unit

5

6 All and only tenured faculty of at least associate rank are expected to participate in votes for 

7 tenure and promotion at the local academic unit level. For promotion to full professor, the local 

8 academic unit may limit votes to full professors. If the local academic unit has fewer than five

9 eligible tenured faculty members, the dean, after consultation with members of the unit, will 

10 appoint tenured faculty of the appropriate rank to the evaluation committee from related academic 

11 units.

12

13 The tenured faculty of the local academic unit elect a chair to conduct these promotion and tenure 

14 meetings and to organize the reports. The chairperson may not be the local academic unit 

15 academic officer. If the local academic unit is not the college, the local academic unit officer 

16 may participate at promotion and tenure meetings but shall not vote or advocate for or against the 

17 candidate. If the local academic unit is the college, college procedures should stipulate whether 

18 the dean may attend the meeting of the tenured faculty. If the dean attends, he or she may 

19 participate but not advocate or vote for or against the candidate.

20

21 3.5.7.4 College Personnel Committees

22

23 Only tenured faculty may serve on a college personnel committee. College guidelines may limit 

24 the membership to full professors. College guidelines should also address how to convene an 

25 adequate number of full professors for deciding promotion to full professor. The minimum 

26 number of members on any college personnel committee is five. Terms are three years and are 

27 staggered. The committee members elect a chairperson for a one-year term. The chairperson 

28 conducts meetings of the committee and organizes the committee’s reports. The dean shall not be 

29 the chairperson of the committee. The dean may participate in college personnel committee 

30 meetings but shall not vote or advocate for or against a candidate.

31

32 3.5.7.5 University Board on Promotion and Tenure

33

34 The UBPT members must be tenured full professors. Associate deans, deans, and local academic 

35 unit officers (e.g., department chairs) are ineligible to serve. The seven members of the UBPT

36 serve as representatives of disciplines across the university, not as representatives of their 

37 colleges. Members are selected by open nominations and self-nominations across colleges, 

38 reviewed by Faculty Council Committee on Committees, and interviewed and elected by Faculty 

39 Council. Terms are for three years and are staggered. The UBPT members elect a chairperson 

40 annually. The provost or his or her designee is expected to be present at all UBPT meetings where 

41 candidates are reviewed; he or she shall not vote or advocate for or against any candidate.

42

43 The UBPT has two additional responsibilities. First, it reviews changes to evaluation guidelines, 

44 criteria and procedures developed by local academic units, departments, schools, and colleges for

45 clarity and consonance with university-wide criteria. Second, at the conclusion of each year’s 

46 proceedings, the UBPT shares any recommendations it may have with the provost regarding the 

47 board’s future functioning. 

48

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 59 of 188 PageID #:59
July 1, 2018

21

1 The provost and the chair of the UBPT refer any policy matter raised by UBPT members to the 

2 Faculty Council; the provost also makes available to the full faculty an annual statistical summary 

3 of the university’s final tenure and promotion decisions.

4

5 3.6 Materials

6

7 3.6.1 Dossier

8

9 3.6.1.1 Items Supplied By Candidate

10

11 A candidate for promotion and/or tenure supplies the following materials:

12

13 • Complete professional curriculum vitae, paginated with the candidate's name on each 

14 page

15 • A statement of up to 3,000 words in which the candidate emphasizes those achievements 

16 or qualifications to which evaluators should particularly attend

17 • Evidence of collaborative work, if applicable

18 • Evidence of teaching effectiveness beyond course evaluations and peer reviews, 

19 including, at a minimum, selected syllabi, course assignments, and exams

20 • Evidence of service, including, at a minimum, description of individual contributions and 

21 supporting documentation such as letters from committee chairs

22 • Other evidence he or she may wish to submit, e.g., awards and special recognitions

23 • A single copy of articles, papers, published manuscripts, video and audio recordings, and 

24 other examples of scholarship and creative activities

25

26 3.6.1.2 Items Supplied By Academic Unit and College

27

28 The local academic unit and college committee add the following materials to the dossier:

29

30 • Local academic unit and college guidelines

31 • The written recommendation(s) from the reviews conducted at each level, including 

32 signature forms

33 • Signing statements and minority reports, if any

34 • Candidate responses, if any

35 • Data obtained by the college through the student input instrument

36 • Documentation that substantiates according to the local academic unit guidelines, and 

37 with sufficient detail, the faculty member’s contributions to any collaborative work 

38 submitted in the Dossier.

39 • For tenure, an evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship, research, and/or other creative 

40 activities by at least two external experts 

41 • For promotion to full professor, an evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship, research, 

42 and/or other creative activities by a minimum of three external experts 

43 • For tenure decisions, all teaching evaluations for all courses. For promotion, all teaching 

44 evaluations while in current rank 

45 • Internal peer reviews of teaching, if any

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 60 of 188 PageID #:60
July 1, 2018

22

1

2 Review is limited to these items, unless the local academic unit approves any additions to the 

3 dossier. Unsolicited material will not be added to the dossier. 

4

5 3.6.1.3 Additions to the Dossier

6

7 Because of the length of the review process, it is possible that a candidate's record may change 

8 significantly or that other information pertinent to a case may come to light during the course of 

9 the review. 

10

11 After the initial submission of the dossier to the local academic unit, the candidate may request 

12 the addition of new information to the dossier at any level of the review process prior to the final 

13 vote by the UBPT. The request for additions to the dossier must be made to the local unit 

14 academic officer and must include supporting documentation to verify the accuracy of the new 

15 information. The local academic unit officer must rule on the request within five business days of 

16 receiving it. 

17

18 The local unit academic officer will determine whether the new information should be added to 

19 the dossier based on one or more of the following criteria: 

20

21 • The new information constitutes an update to the status of scholarly or creative work 

22 already mentioned in the dossier.

23 • The new information constitutes a significant development, such as the announcement of 

24 a major award or recognition, related to the candidate’s work already reported in the 

25 dossier.

26 • The new information is not related to work previously reported in the dossier but, in the 

27 judgment of the local unit academic officer, may have significant impact on the outcome 

28 of the case.

29

30 The local academic unit officer of the originating unit must formally transmit all new material 

31 approved for addition to the dossier directly to the level at which the case is currently under 

32 review and include with the new material an explanation of the reasons for the addition and at 

33 what level of review the new information became available. The entity currently reviewing the 

34 case should add these new items to the candidate's dossier, evaluate them along with the rest of 

35 the dossier, and provide them to subsequent levels of review.

36

37 The local academic unit officer shall also supply copies of the explanatory memorandum to the 

38 candidate and to the individual in charge of each level already completed at the time the material 

39 is added.

40

41 3.6.2 External Letters

42

43 By June 1, candidates must submit to the local academic unit officers their CV and selected 

44 publications/documentation of creative activities for transmittal to external reviewers. Local 

45 academic units should identify an initial list of potential external reviewers by June 15. Local 

46 academic units will ask external reviewers to prepare letters over the summer for receipt prior to 

47 candidate review in the fall. 

48

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 61 of 188 PageID #:61
July 1, 2018

23

1 3.6.2.1 Authors of External Letters

2

3 Local academic units should obtain letters from persons whose judgment is respected in the 

4 candidate’s field of expertise and who can provide an impartial assessment of the candidate’s 

5 scholarship or creative activities. The candidate may nominate external reviewers. The local

6 academic unit may select from the candidate's nominations or from other sources. When 

7 identifying external reviewers, candidates and committees should take into account both the 

8 objectivity of the reviewer and the reviewer's rank, reputation, and stature. The local academic 

9 unit has full discretion in selecting external reviewers. 

10

11 If a candidate has done collaborative work, a separate set of letters can be solicited and submitted 

12 from collaborators in addition to, but not as a substitute for, the external review letters. The 

13 university's letters to collaborators should request that they describe the division of labor and 

14 nature of the collaborative effort.

15

16 3.6.2.2 External Letter Contents

17

18 The solicitation letter to a potential reviewer should be neutral, asking only for an objective 

19 assessment of the candidate’s research or creative activities and requesting that the reviewer 

20 eschew advocacy for or against tenure and promotion. The solicitation letter should also ask the 

21 reviewer to explain the nature of the reviewer’s relationship to the candidate. The letter should 

22 ask the evaluator to cover the following general ground:

23

24 • the nature of the evaluator’s professional interactions with the candidate

25 • the quality of the candidate’s work 

26 • the impact of the candidate’s work

27

28 Readers will disregard any portions of an external letter advocating for or against tenure and 

29 promotion. 

30 3.6.2.3 Confidentiality of External Letters

31

32 Under Illinois state law, a candidate may see the contents of his or her personnel file, with an 

33 exception applicable to external review letters. To ensure that reviewers provide fully candid 

34 assessments, the university protects the identity of the external reviewers. Therefore, any citations 

35 of the external review letters in department or chair reports and the reports of subsequent 

36 reviewing levels must be redacted, eliminating any and all information that would identify the 

37 reviewer to the candidate. Local academic units must also ensure that external review letters 

38 given to the candidates are redacted to protect the authors’ identities. 

39

40 3.6.2.4 Suggested Sample Letter

41

42 Dear Dr. AA:

43

44 As you are a recognized authority in your field, I am writing to request your assistance. Dr. BB is 

45 due to be reviewed for promotion to Associate Professor in academic year YYYY-YYYY. I 

46 solicit your evaluation of the research [creative activities] of Dr. BB. Please only evaluate the 

47 candidate’s research or creative activities and refrain from rendering a judgment on whether the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 62 of 188 PageID #:62
July 1, 2018

24

1 candidate should be promoted or tenured. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent 

2 legally practicable. 

3

4 In particular, please address the following:

5

6 • the quality of the publications or creative activities of the candidate 

7 • the impact of the candidate’s work

8 • the quality of the journals in which the candidate has published 

9 • the nature of your professional interaction with the candidate, if applicable, and

10 • comments, should you have any, of the candidate’s collaboration with other scholars in 

11 the field.

12

13 To assist in your evaluation, I am enclosing the following information: Dr. BB’s latest curriculum 

14 vitae; the three papers or book manuscript listed below, selected by Dr. BB; and a brief summary 

15 of the department's [local academic unit’s] promotion criteria.

16

17 Although Illinois state law allows employees to view their personnel files, there is an exception 

18 for external review letters. Any information that would identify you will be redacted from all 

19 documents seen by the candidate.

20

21 I realize that this information is rather extensive and will require considerable effort on your part 

22 to review. Your assistance in helping us evaluate Dr. BB’s credentials will be greatly appreciated 

23 and will constitute an important element in the overall evaluation. I would be very grateful if you 

24 could respond to us in writing no later than [DATE]. If possible, kindly send your reply, along 

25 with a copy of your most recent CV, electronically to ........@depaul.edu as an attachment.

26

27

28 Sincerely,

29 DD

30 Chair

31 Personnel Committee

32 [Name of Dept. and Unit]

33 Enclosures: [List the selected works]

34

35 3.6.3 Student Input

36

37 Student input must be part of a candidate’s dossier. Committees will acquire student input from

38 course evaluations and information collected through an instrument such as a survey. The college 

39 will design the instrument with student input. The instrument will generally solicit opinions from

40 one or more of the following groups: alumni, past students who have taken a class from the 

41 candidate, student advisees, or students who have been supervised by the candidate in research

42 projects or independent study.

43

44 3.6.3.1 Student Input Instrument

45

46 Each college personnel committee, or in the absence of a college-level committee, the local unit 

47 personnel committee, shall have an instrument for collecting data from students, a process of 

48 gathering data, and a template for reporting the results. These elements must be created by a 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 63 of 188 PageID #:63
July 1, 2018

25

1 committee of at least two students (preferably including both graduate and undergraduate) and at 

2 least two tenured faculty members.

3

4 The instrument will be used to gather additional data from students beyond the standard course 

5 evaluations. The report should clearly specify:

6

7 • the type of methodology used for data collection and analysis 

8 • the targeted groups surveyed, and 

9 • the questions asked of survey participants.

10

11 The college personnel committee must approve the instrument, process, report template and any 

12 subsequent modifications. Before approval, the college personnel committee should solicit and 

13 consider input from the college’s local academic units. 

14 3.6.3.2 Evaluation and Submission of Student Input Data

15

16 The college bears responsibility for data collection. A student review committee then analyzes 

17 data collected via this process for each promotion and tenure candidate, as well as aggregate 

18 information on course evaluations provided by the unit. The student review committee consists of 

19 up to three students, none of whom is currently enrolled in a class with the candidate under 

20 review. After analyzing the collected data, the review committee provides a written report, along 

21 with all the raw data, to the personnel committee of the local academic unit and to the candidate. 

22 The student input data becomes part of the candidate’s dossier. The personnel committee may 

23 request a meeting with a representative from the student review committee, if the committee

24 deems it necessary.

25

26 Once student representatives furnish their report to the local academic unit, they do not appear 

27 before subsequent evaluative bodies. The student report will be forwarded with other promotion 

28 and tenure materials to each review level.

29

30 3.7 Appeal

31

32 Appeal procedures for a tenure-line faculty member who has been reviewed for tenure, 

33 promotion, or promotion and tenure by the University Board on Promotion and Tenure 

34 are found in Chapter 5 Section 5.1.2.3.

35

36

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 64 of 188 PageID #:64
July 1, 2018

26

1 3.8 Schedule for Informal and Formal Reviews

2

3

PROBATIONARY REVIEWS FOR TENURE-LINE FACULTY 

WITH SIX-YEAR PROBATIONARY PERIOD*

Year at DePaul Timing and 

Contract Year

Type of Review

Notice to Faculty 

Member of Renewal

or Nonrenewal

1st

Winter quarter of 

first year at DePaul, 

for Year 2 contract 

renewal

May be informal or 

formal 

March 1

2nd

Fall quarter of 

second year at 

DePaul, for Year 3 

contract renewal

One of these 2 

reviews must be 

formal; the other may 

be informal or formal.

December 15

Spring quarter of 

second year at 

DePaul, for Year 4 

contract renewal

June 30

3rd

During third year at 

DePaul, with timing 

per college’s 

schedule, for Year 5 

contract renewal

May be informal or 

formal

June 30

4th

During fourth year 

at DePaul, with 

timing per college’s 

schedule, for Year 6 

contract renewal

Formal June 30

5th

During fifth year at 

DePaul, with timing 

per college’s 

schedule, for year 7 

contract renewal

May be informal or 

formal. Must be 

formal if nonreappointment is 

realistic possibility.

June 30

6th

Sixth Year at 

DePaul, with timing 

per Faculty 

Handbook calendar

Promotion and 

Tenure Review

June 30

4 *The contract renewal schedule for tenure-line faculty who come in with years of credit 

5 towards tenure is the same as for other tenure-line faculty, but the year of the promotion 

6 and tenure review varies. The initial faculty contract stipulates the year of the promotion 

7 and tenure review.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 65 of 188 PageID #:65
July 1, 2018

27

1 3.9 Schedule for Promotion and Tenure 

2

3 3.9.1 University Promotion and Tenure Schedule

4

5 The following is the suggested schedule for the university promotion and tenure process. 

6 Whenever possible, the university will abide by the proposed timetable. Any changes to this 

7 calendar must provide at least the allotted time period for candidate responses, minority reports, 

8 and signing statements.

9

10 April 1 

11 Letter of notification as to the eligibility to apply for promotion and tenure sent to the faculty 

12 member from the provost

13

14 May 1

15 Letter requesting consideration for promotion and/or tenure submitted by the faculty member to 

16 the provost, the academic dean, and the head of the academic unit

17

18 May 15

19 Provost acknowledges receipt of applications for promotion, for tenure, or for promotion and 

20 tenure.

21

22 June 1

23 Candidate provides CV and selected publications/documentation of creative activities to local 

24 academic unit officers for submission to external reviewers

25

26 June 15

27 Local academic unit identifies an initial list of potential external reviewers 

28

29 First day of fall quarter

30 Candidate’s complete materials due to the local academic unit

31

32 January 15 

33 Report from the academic unit submitted to the academic dean and to the candidate. 

34

35 January 31 

36 Report from the academic dean and the academic unit of the following colleges and schools 

37 submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs and to the candidate 

38

39 • College of Communication 

40 • College of Computing and Digital Media 

41 • College of Law 

42 • School of Music 

43 • School for New Learning 

44 • The Theatre School 

45

46 March 1 

47 Reports from the academic deans of the College of Commerce and the College of Education and 

48 all relevant materials submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs and to the candidate 

49

50 March 15 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 66 of 188 PageID #:66
July 1, 2018

28

1 Reports from the academic deans of the College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences and the 

2 College of Science and Health and all relevant materials submitted to the Office of Academic 

3 Affairs and to the candidate.

4

5 Winter/Spring Quarter 

6 University Board on Faculty Promotion and Tenure meets with faculty candidates

7

8 Five business days from the last UBPT meeting but no later than May 15

9 UBPT reports due to candidates 

10

11 Two weeks from the date UBPT reports are sent to candidates

12 Optional candidate response due to UBPT

13 UBPT report and all relevant materials for all candidates submitted to provost

14

15 June 15

16 Decision of the university provost

17 Notification to candidate of the provost’s decision follows in a timely fashion

18

19

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 67 of 188 PageID #:67
July 1, 2018

1

1 CHAPTER 4. DISCIPLINARY ACTION, SUSPENSION, 

2 TERMINATION, RESIGNATION, AND RETIREMENT

3

4 4.1 Overview....................................................................................................................... 3

5 4.2 Nonrenewal of Non-Tenured Tenure Line Faculty ...................................................... 3

6 4.3 Tenured Faculty ............................................................................................................ 5

7 4.4 Disciplinary Actions Including Dismissal or Suspension for Misconduct ................... 5

8 4.4.1 Misconduct............................................................................................................. 5

9 4.4.2 Categories of Disciplinary Sanctions:.................................................................... 6

10 4.4.3 Initiation of Disciplinary Actions in All Disciplinary Cases Involving Faculty: .. 6

11 4.4.4 Formal Hearing in Cases Involving Major Sanctions Against Tenure-Line 

12 Faculty............................................................................................................................. 7

13 4.4.4.1 Initiation of a formal hearing .......................................................................... 7

14 4.4.4.2 Rules and procedures for the Hearing Committee.......................................... 7

15 4.4.5 Appealing the Decision of the Hearing Committee in Cases Involving Major 

16 Sanctions Against a Tenure-Line Faculty Member ........................................................ 9

17 4.5 Emergency Suspension ................................................................................................. 9

18 4.6 Termination Due to Financial Exigency..................................................................... 10

19 4.6.1 Financial Exigency............................................................................................... 10

20 4.6.2 Provost Statement ................................................................................................ 10

21 4.6.3 Financial Exigency Committee............................................................................ 11

22 4.6.4 Retrenchment Committee .................................................................................... 12

23 4.6.5 Termination Committee(s)................................................................................... 13

24 4.6.6 University Obligations upon Termination of Tenured Faculty............................ 14

25 4.6.7 Appeal of Termination......................................................................................... 15

26 4.7 Termination of Tenured Faculty Due to Discontinuance or Substantial Reduction of 

27 an Academic Unit or Program .......................................................................................... 15

28 4.7.1 Step 1 ................................................................................................................... 16

29 4.7.2 Step 2 ................................................................................................................... 16

30 4.7.3 Step 3 ................................................................................................................... 16

31 4.7.4 Step 4 ................................................................................................................... 17

32 4.7.5 Step 5 ................................................................................................................... 17

33 4.7.6 University Obligations upon Termination of Tenured Faculty............................ 18

34 4.7.7 Appeal of Termination......................................................................................... 19

35 4.8 Termination of Tenured Faculty Due to Medical Leave Exceeding Thirty-Six Months

36 ........................................................................................................................................... 19

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 68 of 188 PageID #:68
July 1, 2018

2

1 4.9 Resignation ................................................................................................................. 20

2 4.10 Retirement................................................................................................................. 20

3

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 69 of 188 PageID #:69
July 1, 2018

3

1 CHAPTER 4. DISCIPLINARY ACTION, SUSPENSION, 

2 TERMINATION, RESIGNATION, AND RETIREMENT

3 4.1 Overview

4

5 This chapter summarizes the policies and processes to be followed in disciplinary cases involving 

6 faculty as well as those governing the termination of faculty members. Every faculty member is 

7 entitled to fair and consistent decision-making procedures as a protection against violations of 

8 academic freedom or arbitrary adverse decisions. Tenured faculty may be dismissed only under 

9 provisions set out in this Handbook.

10

11 The term “appointment” refers to the initial contract issued to all faculty. The terms 

12 “reappointment” and “non-reappointment” apply to full-time non-tenure line faculty (see Chapter 

13 2). The terms “renewal” and “nonrenewal” apply to non-tenured tenure-line faculty. 

14

15 Reviews and decisions for appointment, reappointment, renewal, promotion, and tenure are 

16 separate actions. Appointment does not guarantee reappointment or renewal, nor does 

17 appointment at any rank confer tenure, except where specifically provided in the contract. 

18 Promotion at any time from any rank to any other rank does not confer tenure. 

19 4.2 Nonrenewal of Non-Tenured Tenure Line Faculty

20

21 When deciding whether to renew the contract of a non-tenured tenure-line faculty member the 

22 university follows two general principles: 

23

24 1. To select, given available resources, faculty members who will best contribute to its 

25 distinctive goals and academic mission. Consequently, the university has the authority

26 and discretion, within the limits of academic freedom, to determine which non-tenured 

27 tenure-line faculty members will be retained. 

28

29 2. To have no reasonable doubt as to the faculty member’s qualifications for tenure before it 

30 reaches a favorable decision on the renewal that results in tenure. The quality of 

31 academic programs and therefore the good of the university require careful selectivity in 

32 renewal based on the individual faculty member’s qualifications and the needs of the 

33 university. Anything that undermines the selective process erodes tenure and quality.

34

35 Non-tenured tenure-line faculty members are subject to an annual probationary review (see 

36 Chapter 3). Renewal decisions are made in conjunction with the annual probationary review.

37 Although there is no guarantee of renewal, non-tenured tenure line faculty are entitled to 

38 consideration for renewal. Nonrenewal decisions must be based on criteria as described in this 

39 Faculty Handbook, and selected from those listed below:

40

41 1. Teaching and learning;

42 2. Scholarship, research, or other creative activities;

43 3. Service;

44 4. Professional advancement, such as the completion of a terminal degree or certificate. 

45 This criterion is especially applicable when there is a particular interest or a previous 

46 understanding with the faculty member regarding this advancement;

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 70 of 188 PageID #:70
July 1, 2018

4

1 5. Responsible participation in university processes and activities that are generally 

2 considered faculty responsibilities;

3 6. Change in academic program, such as:

4 o termination or reduction in size of the academic program to which a faculty 

5 member is assigned;

6 o change in an area of specialization or in emphasis in a program;

7 7. Financial conditions of the university as a whole or in any particular part, requiring 

8 reduction in the size of the faculty;

9 8. Professional and ethical conduct.

10

11 Nonrenewal may rest on a single criterion or a combination of several criteria, reflecting the 

12 faculty member’s role in the academic unit and the needs of the university. The rationale for the 

13 renewal decision must be explained and supported with evidence and with reference to the 

14 appropriate criteria. 

15

16 The dean and the faculty of the local academic unit must follow the procedures specified in 

17 Chapter 3 in making renewal recommendations. Every faculty member in an academic unit is 

18 entitled to be judged according to consistent criteria and documentation. Conflicts of interest must 

19 be avoided in all faculty evaluations. Any judgment based on a faculty member’s ideological and 

20 political positions is a violation of academic freedom.

21

22 As detailed in Chapter 3, the local academic unit normally makes a recommendation on annual 

23 renewal and nonrenewal. If the dean does not concur in the recommendation of a local academic 

24 unit, the dean shares his or her recommendation with the local academic unit. The local academic 

25 unit may appeal the dean’s recommendation to the provost. In such cases, the dean and the local 

26 academic unit must provide the provost with written reasons for their respective positions. The 

27 provost makes the final decision and reports it to the candidate. A faculty member who is not 

28 renewed may file an appeal. (See Chapter 5).

29

30 The non-tenured tenure-line faculty member is entitled to:

31

32 (a) an opportunity to submit materials supporting renewal. The non-tenured tenure-line faculty 

33 member will be notified at least 28 calendar days before the local academic unit’s review. The 

34 candidate must submit supporting materials to the local academic unit officer at least 14 calendar 

35 days prior to the local academic unit review;

36

37 (b) written notification of the decision on renewal. The notification must include the reasons for 

38 the decision. A notification to renew should include an assessment of the faculty member’s 

39 qualifications, noting those conditions which should be fulfilled for future renewal or tenure. A 

40 notification of nonrenewal must include the reasons for the decision, the faculty member’s appeal 

41 rights, and the procedures for such appeals as described in Chapter 5.

42

43 The university follows the AAUP guidelines for notice of renewal. Notice of nonrenewal, or of 

44 intention not to recommend renewal, should be given in writing in accordance with the following 

45 standards and the calendar specified in Chapter 3.

46

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 71 of 188 PageID #:71
July 1, 2018

5

1 1. On or before March 1 of the first academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the 

2 end of that year; or, if a one year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least 

3 three (3) months in advance of its termination.

4 2. On or before December 15 of the second academic year of service, if the appointment expires 

5 at the end of that year; or, if an initial two year appointment terminates during an academic 

6 year, at least six (6) months in advance of its termination.

7 3. At least twelve (12) months before the expiration of an appointment after two (2) or more 

8 years in the institution. Notices of reappointments and contract renewal are based on the 

9 university’s annual budget cycle.

10

11 Notification by these dates shall constitute sufficient notification for not offering another contract 

12 even though appeal and subsequent review might mean that the final decision is rendered less 

13 than a year before the end of the final contract. 

14

15 A non-tenured tenure-line faculty member informed that his or her contract is not to be 

16 renewed may appeal the decision not to renew. See Chapter 5, Appeals and Grievances.

17

18 4.3 Tenured Faculty

19

20 Tenure creates the presumption of continuing employment. Tenured faculty may be dismissed

21 only under provisions set out in this handbook. Tenured faculty are not renewed annually.

22

23

24 4.4 Disciplinary Actions Including Dismissal or Suspension for Misconduct

25 4.4.1 Misconduct

26 The university’s response to allegations of faculty misconduct may vary according to the nature 

27 of the misconduct, its seriousness, its impact on the university’s reputation or the well-being of 

28 other members of the university community, and any prior record of misconduct by the faculty 

29 member. Disciplinary sanctions may apply to any full-time faculty member, including, but not 

30 limited to, all tenure-line faculty. Faculty members who hold administrative appointments are 

31 subject to these provisions with respect to their role as faculty members.

32

33 Misconduct includes, but is not limited to, violations of university policies, including the Faculty 

34 Handbook and anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies; violations of academic or 

35 scholarly integrity; a pattern or practice of failing to meet university contractual obligations; or a 

36 pattern of extreme intimidation and aggression towards other members of the university 

37 community. 

38

39 Disciplinary proceedings are reserved for situations that warrant the imposition of a major or a 

40 minor sanction. Inadequate performance in teaching, scholarship/research/creative activities, or 

41 service that does not rise to the level of misconduct must be dealt with during the standard 

42 processes for faculty review and/or reappointment/renewal.

43

44 All procedures are to be carried out as expeditiously as is reasonably possible. All time guidelines 

45 in this section refer only to calendar or business days within regular academic terms — Fall, 

46 Winter, and Spring quarters or Fall and Spring semesters— and are to be construed as 

47 recommended maximums.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 72 of 188 PageID #:72
July 1, 2018

6

1 4.4.2 Categories of Disciplinary Sanctions: 

2

3 • Minor sanctions: sanctions short of suspension or dismissal 

4 • Major sanctions: suspension or dismissal 

5

6 4.4.3 Initiation of Disciplinary Actions in All Disciplinary Cases Involving Faculty:

7

8 1. The dean initiates an investigation of alleged faculty misconduct, except in situations 

9 where initiation of disciplinary action is based on OIDE findings, in which case the dean 

10 will work in consultation with OIDE. 

11 2. The dean should attempt to resolve the issue through an informal process resulting in 

12 both parties agreeing with the outcome. 

13 3. If informal resolution fails, the dean will present the faculty member with a statement of 

14 charges. The faculty member will be provided an opportunity to submit a rebuttal within 

15 two weeks of the presentation of the statement of charges. If the faculty member 

16 perceives that the dean has a conflict of interest, he or she may simultaneously request in 

17 writing that the dean appoint a designee. The dean may deny the request with written 

18 reasons. 

19 4. After the statement of charges is presented, either party may invite a DePaul colleague to 

20 act as an advisor. The advisor may attend but not participate in any meeting related to the 

21 case. Within four weeks of the presentation of the charges, the dean or the designee will 

22 conduct a detailed review of the charges and the rebuttal, if any, and prepare a report. 

23 5. The faculty member may examine the report and any evidence referenced in the report 

24 and will be given two weeks to provide a final statement before a decision is reached.

25 6. In all cases, the burden of proof is with the dean and a recommendation for sanctions 

26 must be supported by a preponderance of evidence.

27 7. The dean shall make a decision within eight weeks of the presentation of the charges. 

28 This decision may be one of the following: (1) to dismiss the case; (2) to impose a minor 

29 sanction; or (3) to refer the case to the provost for major sanctions.

30

31 The dean shall file with the office of the provost the statement of charges, the faculty member’s 

32 rebuttal, the report, the final statement by the faculty member and the dean’s own written 

33 decision. The office of the provost shall maintain this information

34

35 In cases involving minor sanctions:

36 The dean makes the decision on the sanctions to be imposed. The faculty member may grieve the 

37 decision according to the grievance procedures of Chapter 5. To the extent possible, the dean and 

38 the provost will not release any information about the sanctions. 

39

40 In cases involving major sanctions:

41 If the dean’s written decision includes a recommendation for major sanctions, the provost (or 

42 designee) will conduct a detailed review of the charges and any evidence provided by the parties 

43 at the college level. The provost (or designee) may interview the parties or consult additional 

44 experts and request additional evidence from the parties. 

45

46 The provost will make a decision within ten weeks of the presentation of the statement of the 

47 charges. 

48

49 The provost’s decision will be one of the following:

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 73 of 188 PageID #:73
July 1, 2018

7

1

2 1. dismiss the case; or

3 2. issue a minor sanction; or

4 3. (in the case of term faculty only) impose a major sanction without a formal hearing (in 

5 this case, the term faculty member has the right to appeal to the Faculty Committee on 

6 Appeals according to procedures in Chapter 5); or

7 4. (in the case of tenure-line of faculty) refer the case for a formal faculty hearing with a 

8 recommendation for a major sanction (see below for detailed procedure). 

9 4.4.4 Formal Hearing in Cases Involving Major Sanctions Against Tenure-Line 

10 Faculty

11

12 4.4.4.1 Initiation of a formal hearing 

13 1. The provost will notify the faculty member of the intent to refer the case for a formal 

14 faculty hearing with a recommendation for a major sanction. The faculty member may 

15 waive the right to the hearing and choose to have the case decided by the provost. In that 

16 case, the provost’s decision will be final and may not be appealed or grieved further. 

17 Otherwise, the provost will initiate a request for a formal Hearing Committee and appoint 

18 a designee to serve as complainant (“university representative”) in the disciplinary 

19 proceeding. If a conflict of interest is perceived, the faculty member may request, with 

20 justification, a different university representative which can be denied by the provost with 

21 written reasons.

22 2. The university representative must file a detailed statement of charges with the Faculty 

23 Council President, a copy of which will simultaneously be provided to the faculty 

24 member.

25 3. The faculty member will have four weeks to submit a written response to the charges 

26 once they have been filed with Faculty Council.

27 4. The university representative will forward the following information to the Hearing 

28 Committee: (a) the statement of charges; (b) the response; (c) a list of individuals who 

29 may have pertinent information about the case; (d) and the records of any earlier 

30 investigations or decisions. 

31 5. The burden of proof rests with the university. The charges against the faculty member 

32 must be established by a preponderance of evidence. 

33

34 4.4.4.2 Rules and procedures for the Hearing Committee

35 1. The Hearing Committee will be comprised of three tenured faculty members selected in 

36 the following manner: Faculty Council shall identify a panel of nine tenured faculty 

37 members not affiliated with the college or school of the faculty member. Faculty Council, 

38 in conjunction with both parties will develop a process for interviewing the nine selected 

39 faculty members. In alternating fashion, with the university going first, each party 

40 excludes three members from the panel. The remaining members of the panel constitute 

41 the Hearing Committee. The committee shall select its own chair.

42 2. The Hearing Committee shall not disclose the evidentiary record, including deliberations 

43 and findings, except to those with a legitimate need to know.

44 3. The Hearing Committee may attempt an informal resolution of the case before 

45 proceeding to a formal hearing. If it cannot resolve the matter informally, then it will 

46 schedule a formal hearing.

47 4. The university will assume all costs directly incurred by the Hearing Committee.

48 5. The Hearing Committee will conduct a prehearing meeting with the faculty member and 

49 the university representative to clarify the issues, stipulate facts, finalize the list of 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 74 of 188 PageID #:74
July 1, 2018

8

1 individuals who may have information relevant to the hearing, provide for the exchange 

2 of documentary or other information, and identify other appropriate objectives to make 

3 the hearing fair, effective, and expeditious. The committee will provide both parties with 

4 a written record of its decisions. 

5 6. The chair of the Hearing Committee will notify all concerned parties of the time and 

6 location of the hearing. Notice of the hearing must be in writing and made at least two 

7 weeks prior to the hearing. Time extension or rescheduling requests by the faculty 

8 member or the university representative may be granted by the chair for good reason. 

9 7. At any time before the start of the hearing, the faculty member may choose not to 

10 participate in person but may choose to submit a written response to the specific charges. 

11 In the event the faculty member does not participate in person he or she may still deny 

12 the charges or assert that the charges do not support a finding for a major sanction. 

13 8. The hearing will proceed in the absence of either the faculty member or the university 

14 representative who fails to appear at the hearing after receiving notification. Only 

15 circumstances that are beyond a party’s control and that prevent a party’s attendance at 

16 the hearing will constitute good reason to reschedule the hearing. The Hearing 

17 Committee will make the determination as to whether there is good reason for the 

18 absence. 

19 9. The Hearing Committee (on its own or at the request of either party) may invite persons 

20 from inside or outside the university to give testimony relevant to the matter. University 

21 personnel will make every effort to cooperate with the committee in securing witnesses 

22 and making evidence available. The parties shall have the right to cross-examine all 

23 witnesses. 

24 10. The faculty member may receive the assistance of counsel of her or his choosing and at 

25 her or his cost. If the faculty member employs an attorney for the hearing, and the 

26 decision is not for a major sanction, the University will reimburse the faculty member for 

27 at least one-half of the reasonable legal expenses, the precise proportion to be decided by 

28 the Hearing Committee, depending on the degree to which the University case had merit.

29 11. All hearings are closed to the public. The Hearing Committee, at its sole discretion, may 

30 remove participants in the hearing who disrupt the process. 

31 12. The hearing will be transcribed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties shall have 

32 unrestricted access to the full evidentiary record and a copy of the complete transcript. 

33 The parties will be given a reasonable period of time, specified by the committee, to 

34 examine this record. After examining the record, the faculty member and the university 

35 may file closing statements, copies of which will be provided by the chair to the other 

36 parties. 

37 13. Subsequent to filing the closing statements, the Hearing Committee will deliberate in a 

38 closed session.

39 14. The findings of the Hearing Committee may be only one of the following: (1) adequate 

40 cause for dismissal, (2) adequate cause for suspension, (3) adequate cause for a minor 

41 sanction, or (4) adequate cause has not been established for major or minor sanctions. If 

42 the finding is for a sanction other than dismissal, the Hearing Committee shall include in 

43 its report recommendations for appropriate sanctions.

44 15. The findings and the decision of the Hearing Committee on appropriate sanctions must be 

45 supported by a majority vote and be specified in a written report. The chair of the 

46 Hearing Committee will submit the report to the provost and the faculty member. 

47 16. The provost (or president if the provost has a conflict of interest) may either accept the 

48 decision of the Hearing Committee or resubmit this decision to the committee with 

49 specific objections. In the latter case, the committee will then reconsider only points to 

50 which the provost has objections, receiving new evidence if necessary. After its 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 75 of 188 PageID #:75
July 1, 2018

9

1 reconsideration, the Hearing Committee will deliver its final decision to the provost (or 

2 president if the provost has a conflict).

3

4 4.4.5 Appealing the Decision of the Hearing Committee in Cases Involving Major 

5 Sanctions Against a Tenure-Line Faculty Member

6

7 In cases involving major sanctions against tenure-line faculty either party (the provost/president 

8 on behalf of the university or the faculty member) has the right to appeal a decision by the 

9 Hearing Committee to an Appeals Board. 

10

11 Grounds for appeal could be one or more of the following: 

12 1. Procedural violations that compromised the ability of a party to present arguments or 

13 evidence or to do so in a timely manner; procedural violations that compromised the 

14 committee’s consideration of the evidence and arguments presented;

15 2. Failure of the committee to apply appropriate standards under which the charges were 

16 brought and under which the charges should have been considered; failure of the 

17 committee to consider relevant evidence actually presented;

18 3. Arbitrary decisions of the committee that could not reasonably follow under the standards 

19 applied and given the evidence presented. 

20

21 Makeup of the Appeals Board:

22 1. Two deans (excluding the dean involved in the case) selected by the Council of Deans.

23 2. Two faculty members (without a conflict of interest in the case) selected by the Faculty 

24 Council from among the twelve members of the Faculty Committee on Appeals.

25 3. One additional member selected jointly by the president of the university and the 

26 president of Faculty Council.

27

28 The Appeals Board may take one of the following actions:

29 1. Accept the decision of the Hearing Committee; or 

30 2. Send back the matter to the Hearing Committee with specific recommendations for 

31 additional actions or changes. This action should be taken if the Appeals Board believes 

32 that the decision was influenced by the procedural or standards violations, but those 

33 violations can be remedied by the Hearing Committee. In this case the Hearing 

34 Committee shall take appropriate action taking into account the Appeals Board’s 

35 recommendations and issue a revised report with a final decision; or

36 3. Reject the Hearing Committee’s decision and conduct a new hearing. This action may 

37 only be taken if the Appeals Board can demonstrate that no reasonable decision-maker 

38 could have arrived at the conclusion of the Hearing Committee based on the facts 

39 presented, or the procedural violations were so egregious that they compromised the 

40 integrity of the process. Should the Appeals Board initiate such a rehearing, it must issue 

41 a written opinion with its findings regarding the deficiencies in the Hearing Committee 

42 decision before commencing its rehearing. In conducting a rehearing the Appeals Board 

43 will follow the same operating procedures required of the Hearing Committee.

44

45 In all three cases, there is no further appeal from this decision within the university.

46

47 4.5 Emergency Suspension

48

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 76 of 188 PageID #:76
July 1, 2018

10

1 In an emergency where potentially serious harm must be prevented and immediate action must be 

2 taken before initiating the disciplinary procedures set out in this chapter, the provost may suspend 

3 a faculty member. The provost shall inform the faculty member in writing of the terms of the 

4 suspension. Within a reasonable timeframe of issuing the written notice, the provost shall either 

5 lift the suspension or initiate the formal disciplinary procedures. The suspension will not continue 

6 beyond the time required to remove the actual or potential harm, ordinarily not beyond the 

7 academic year. 

8

9 A faculty member may grieve a suspension under this section only if the dean declines to initiate 

10 formal disciplinary procedures. SEE CHAPTER 5 APPEALS AND GRIEVANCES.

11

12 The faculty member suspended from active service to the university will receive full 

13 compensation during the suspension until the time of justifiable dismissal for misconduct.

14 4.6 Termination Due to Financial Exigency 

15 4.6.1 Financial Exigency

16

17 Termination of an appointment with tenure may occur due to financial exigency of the 

18 university. Financial exigency is a financial crisis that fundamentally compromises the 

19 academic integrity of the institution as a whole. The crisis usually results from substantial 

20 and recurring financial deficits that cannot be offset by prudent use of the university’s 

21 reserves.

22

23 Prior to declaring exigency, the university president, provost, and executive vice 

24 president will retrench operations in all areas before taking steps that could lead to the 

25 termination of tenured faculty. These retrenchments will be made up to the point where 

26 there would be a danger of seriously jeopardizing the academic quality or the essential 

27 operations of the university. 

28

29 With the exception of the work of the identified committees, all of the steps specified 

30 below in Subsections 4.6.2 thru 4.6.7 (inclusive) must be initiated, conducted, and 

31 completed within the regular academic year calendar – from the opening date of regular 

32 day and evening Autumn quarter classes to the date of the last final exam in Spring 

33 quarter. Any steps that remain uncompleted at the close of business on the date of the last 

34 final exam in Spring quarter shall be suspended until the following autumn quarter 

35 commences.

36

37 4.6.2 Provost Statement

38

39 The provost shall issue a formal statement to the president of the Faculty Council and the 

40 president of the Staff Council, indicating and providing documentary support of the 

41 existence of financial exigency. The statement will address the following points: 

42

43 1. Evidence of financial exigency and the need for serious retrenchments involving the 

44 termination of tenured faculty; 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 77 of 188 PageID #:77
July 1, 2018

11

1 2. Evidence in support of assumptions underlying projections of future revenues and 

2 costs;

3 3. Dollar amount and distribution of the retrenchments that have been made or can be 

4 made in all parts of the university without terminating tenured faculty appointments, 

5 including possible administrative salary reductions; and 

6 4. Dollar amount of decrease in expenditures to be realized in colleges that will result in 

7 the termination of tenured faculty appointment(s). 

8

9 4.6.3 Financial Exigency Committee

10

11 The statement by the provost shall be reviewed by a Financial Exigency Committee to 

12 determine whether there is sufficient evidence to declare financial exigency. The 

13 committee shall consist of four tenured faculty members (none of whom hold 

14 administrative appointments at the level of Associate Dean or above), one staff member, 

15 one student, one representative of the Board of Trustees, the executive vice president and 

16 the provost (ex officio). The committee will select one of its members to act as chair. 

17 Faculty Council will appoint the faculty members; Staff Council will select the staff 

18 member; Student Government Association will select the student member; and the Board 

19 of Trustees will select its representative. Members of the committee may be chosen from 

20 any area of the university. The executive vice president shall convene the committee 

21 within two weeks upon receipt of the statement from the provost. 

22

23 Within two weeks of request, the university shall provide the Financial Exigency

24 Committee with all university data necessary to evaluate the provost’s statement. This 

25 data must include (1) records of current and past operations and financial position, and 

26 (2) projections of future operations and financial position. When necessary, the 

27 committee may also invite faculty, staff, or other knowledgeable persons to provide 

28 information. The committee shall keep a formal record of its deliberations and votes

29 within 30 days of receipt of the requested financial information, the committee will 

30 evaluate the financial data, and vote on whether a condition of financial exigency exists 

31 that requires the termination of tenured faculty. The committee will issue a report. If the 

32 committee finds that financial exigency exists, its report on financial reductions shall 

33 consider the university’s complete set of financial statements, not simply revenues and 

34 costs. The committee shall carefully consider whether and how the university’s real 

35 estate and other assets might be sold, refinanced or otherwise reallocated.

36 If the committee concludes that such financial exigency exists, the report must include 

37 the amount of reduction needed (1) in the areas of academic affairs that are not part of the 

38 schools and colleges, and (2) in the colleges and schools. If the committee concludes that 

39 no such financial exigency exists, the report must include a rationale for this conclusion. 

40

41 The report of this committee will be sent to the Faculty Council, Staff Council, and the 

42 Student Government Association for review and comment. All comments are due to the 

43 Financial Exigency Committee within 30 days of receipt. The Financial Exigency 

44 Committee will send its report and any comments from the councils and SGA to the 

45 university president for final decision. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 78 of 188 PageID #:78
July 1, 2018

12

1

2

3 4.6.4 Retrenchment Committee

4

5 In the event that the president of the university concludes that financial exigency exists, 

6 the provost will prepare a proposal indicating the specific methods for dealing with the 

7 financial exigency, including (1) the amount of the financial reductions outside of the 

8 schools and colleges, (2) the amount of financial reductions within each school and

9 college, (3) the nature and timing of the retrenchments, and (4) the effects of these 

10 retrenchments on specific academic programs.

11

12 This proposal will be submitted to a Retrenchment Committee consisting of three tenured 

13 faculty members (none of whom hold administrative appointments at the level of 

14 Associate Dean or above) appointed directly by the Faculty Council, one college dean 

15 chosen by the Dean’s Council, and the provost. The committee will select one of its 

16 members to act as chair. The three tenured faculty members must be chosen from 

17 different colleges within the university. Members of the committee must understand and 

18 agree that they do not represent their academic units. They must take into account the 

19 seriousness of the situation and make decisions based on the best long-term interests of 

20 the university. 

21

22 The provost shall also submit the proposal to the dean of each affected school or college 

23 who, after consulting with his/her faculty, may present a written recommendation to the 

24 Retrenchment Committee as to how the required reduction could be achieved.

25

26 Before the Retrenchment Committee reaches any decision, it must provide the affected 

27 faculty and staff the recommendations and the opportunity to respond in writing to the 

28 provost’s and deans’ recommendations. The Retrenchment Committee will also convene 

29 a meeting open to all tenured faculty, at which it will consult the faculty and respond to 

30 their concerns. The provost’s recommendation, as well as any dean’s recommendation, 

31 must be made available to the tenured faculty no less than two weeks before the open 

32 meeting.

33

34 To achieve the specified amount of financial reduction, the Retrenchment Committee will 

35 make a final decision that states:

36

37 1. The dollar amount of reduction required of each school or college, other than by 

38 termination of full-time faculty;

39 2. The dollar amount of reduction in each college through the termination of full-time 

40 faculty; and

41 3. A list of academic units financially capable of absorbing faculty transfers/affiliation 

42 from other units including an estimate of the number of tenured positions that could

43 be accommodated in each.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 79 of 188 PageID #:79
July 1, 2018

13

1 The Retrenchment Committee shall send its final decision to the provost, the deans of 

2 affected colleges and schools, the president of Faculty Council, the president of Staff 

3 Council, and the president of the Student Government Association.

4 4.6.5 Termination Committee(s)

5

6 Based on the decision of the Retrenchment Committee, Faculty Council shall constitute a 

7 Termination Committee for each college that must terminate faculty due to the 

8 retrenchment. Each Termination Committee shall consist of three tenured faculty 

9 members appointed directly by Faculty Council; the members shall be drawn from 

10 outside the affected college and shall not be affiliated with the programs or departments 

11 in which retrenchments have been mandated. Faculty members who hold administrative 

12 appointments at the level of associate dean or above are ineligible to serve. The 

13 Committee shall select one of its own members as chair.

14 The chair of each Termination Committee shall call for the dean of the affected college to 

15 consult with local academic unit officers and then submit to the Termination Committee a 

16 proposal specifying which faculty will be terminated. If a college is to be phased out or if 

17 colleges are to be merged, the provost shall submit the proposal after consultation with 

18 the local academic unit officers and relevant deans.

19 Faculty from affected units will be given the opportunity to submit written statements, 

20 including CVs and other relevant materials that discuss their qualifications and the 

21 rationale for their retention. 

22 The dean or provost, in making his or her proposals for termination, and the Termination 

23 Committee, in evaluating the proposals, are to decide according to the following criteria 

24 and in this order of priority:

25

26 1. Program viability: faculty required for a viable academic program may be 

27 retained if the program itself is not to be phased out. Quality of faculty 

28 performance may be considered in evaluating whether a faculty member is 

29 required for a viable academic program. In extraordinary circumstances, where a 

30 serious distortion of the academic program would otherwise result, one or more 

31 non-tenured faculty members may be retained. Materials submitted by the 

32 affected faculty member(s) must be considered by the Termination Committee 

33 along with other relevant material. 

34 2. Tenure: tenured faculty are to be retained over non-tenured faculty; and

35 3. Seniority: more senior faculty are to be retained over less senior faculty. Seniority 

36 is defined first by rank and second by years in rank. 

37

38 In evaluating the proposals and the application of the above criteria, the Termination 

39 Committee will comply with the university’s equal employment opportunity policies and 

40 procedures. 

41

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 80 of 188 PageID #:80
July 1, 2018

14

1 The Termination Committee(s) will submit their recommendations to the provost, the 

2 deans of the affected units, the department chairs or program heads, and the president of 

3 the Faculty Council.

4

5 The provost makes the final determination on termination. Only in rare instances and for 

6 compelling reasons will the provost overturn a recommendation made by the Termination 

7 Committee. If the provost’s decision differs from the recommendation, the provost must 

8 prepare a written explanation and provide it to the deans of the affected units, the 

9 department chairs or program heads, and the president of the Faculty Council.

10

11 4.6.6 University Obligations upon Termination of Tenured Faculty

12

13 1. If a tenured faculty member designated for termination believes he or she is 

14 qualified to be transferred, he or she must identify at least one local academic unit 

15 or college which was identified by the retrenchment committee as capable of 

16 absorbing faculty transfers. The affected faculty member will have the 

17 opportunity to submit a written statement regarding his or her fitness to serve as a

18 tenured faculty member in each of the identified units. The faculty member is 

19 entitled to attach to his or her written statement any relevant documents or 

20 materials. The faculty member may describe any additional training that might be 

21 appropriate. The faculty member has the right to access all relevant available 

22 information within the university to assist in identifying the units in which he or 

23 she would be qualified to serve and to assist in preparing the written statement.

24

25 If the faculty member designated for termination requests a transfer, the local 

26 academic unit officer of each of the identified units 

27 a) Must call a meeting of all the eligible faculty of that unit to vote on the 

28 transfer of the faculty member to that unit, 

29 b) Must circulate, prior to that meeting, to all such eligible faculty, on a 

30 confidential basis, the faculty member’s written statement,

31 c) Must provide an opportunity for the faculty member to make an oral 

32 presentation to the eligible faculty of the unit and to answer questions,

33 d) Must hold a vote of eligible faculty when a quorum is present. A majority vote 

34 of the eligible tenured faculty in attendance is necessary and sufficient to 

35 accept the faculty member. 

36

37 Should more than one unit accept the faculty member, the faculty member must select 

38 one. Upon the faculty member’s selection of a unit for transfer, the provost will take 

39 necessary steps to effectuate the transfer. 

40

41 2. Should no unit accept the faculty member, then the terminated faculty member shall 

42 be entitled to no less than twelve months’ notice of termination or a payment equal to 

43 the faculty member’s contract salary and benefits for an equal length of time. A 

44 faculty member who has been tenured at the university for fifteen years or more of 

45 continuous tenured service shall be entitled to a minimum of twenty-four months’

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 81 of 188 PageID #:81
July 1, 2018

15

1 notice of termination or a payment equal to the faculty member’s contract salary and 

2 benefits for an equal length of time.

3

4 3. The university is obligated not to approve new full-time faculty hires in a terminated 

5 faculty member’s areas of expertise (defined as courses that the faculty member has 

6 either previously taught or is qualified and willing to teach) within a three-year period 

7 unless the terminated faculty member has been offered reinstatement with reasonable 

8 time in which to accept or decline. Within this three-year period after retrenchment 

9 and termination, no more than three additional quarter-length or two semester-length 

10 course sections per year may be offered by adjunct or term faculty within the 

11 terminated faculty member’s areas of expertise. In instances where the University 

12 finds compelling need to offer more than three additional quarter-length or two 

13 semester-length course sections per year in a terminated faculty member’s areas of 

14 expertise through the use of adjunct or term faculty, the provost will bring a proposal 

15 to Faculty Council for its approval.

16

17 4. The university is obligated not to approve additional full-time faculty positions 

18 outside of terminated faculty members’ areas of expertise, including in other 

19 academic programs or units of the university over a three-year period except in 

20 extraordinary circumstances where such faculty appointments are needed to sustain 

21 growth or maintain academic programs. In such instances, the provost will bring a 

22 proposal to Faculty Council for its review. Only in rare instances and for compelling 

23 reasons will the provost overturn the recommendations of Faculty Council. 

24

25 4.6.7 Appeal of Termination 

26

27 A tenured faculty member notified of termination because of financial exigency has a 

28 right to appeal to a faculty committee regarding the selection of the area and type of 

29 retrenchment and selection of specific faculty appointments to be terminated. See 

30 Chapter 5.

31 4.7 Termination of Tenured Faculty Due to Discontinuance or Substantial 

32 Reduction of an Academic Unit or Program

33

34 The university may discontinue or substantially reduce an academic unit or program. Such 

35 decisions must be based on educational concerns and the institution's overall educational mission. 

36 If a proposal for discontinuance or substantial reduction involves curricular change but not 

37 termination of tenured faculty, it shall be vetted according to Faculty Council’s regular policies 

38 and procedures. If the proposal does involve termination of tenured faculty, then the following 

39 steps must be followed instead.

40

41 All of the specified steps must take place during the normal academic year.

42

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 82 of 188 PageID #:82
July 1, 2018

16

1 4.7.1 Step 1

2 The dean of the college responsible for the academic unit in question or the provost shall submit a 

3 formal proposal (“the Proposal”) to the Faculty Council. The dean or provost shall also share the 

4 Proposal with the faculty of the unit(s) affected by the proposed changes.

5

6 The Proposal should address the following:

7

8 1. The extent and scope of the discontinuance or substantial reduction of the academic unit or 

9 program, including the number of faculty to be terminated and the nature of the curricular 

10 change, if any;

11 2. Justification and rationale for the proposed reduction or discontinuance of the academic unit 

12 or program (including criteria typically used to evaluate the discontinuance or substantial 

13 reduction of programs); 

14 3. Justification and rationale for the termination of faculty as a result of the discontinuance or 

15 substantial reduction of the academic unit or program; 

16 4. Explanation of how the discontinuance or substantial reduction of the academic unit or 

17 program, including the termination of faculty, aligns with the university’s academic priorities 

18 and educational mission; 

19 5. Description of how the discontinuance or substantial reduction of the academic unit or 

20 program, including the termination of faculty, will affect the academic quality of the 

21 institution; 

22 6. Description of the specific steps to be taken in restructuring or phasing out the unit and a 

23 proposed timeline (e.g., merging with another unit, shrinking or discontinuing a particular 

24 program within or across units). 

25

26 4.7.2 Step 2

27 Faculty Council shall constitute a Review Committee of five tenured faculty members to evaluate 

28 the Proposal and prepare a report and recommendations for the Faculty Council. No member of 

29 the Review Committee may be from a unit to be affected by the discontinuance or substantial 

30 reduction. The Review Committee shall submit the Proposal and its report to the Faculty Council 

31 and to the tenure-line faculty members attached to any unit directly affected by the proposed 

32 reductions or eliminations. The tenured faculty members also have a right to submit, individually 

33 and/or as a group, a statement to Faculty Council. This statement must be submitted, within 

34 twenty calendar days of the receipt of the documents, to Faculty Council. 

35

36 4.7.3 Step 3

37 Faculty Council, after receiving the report of the Review Committee and statements from tenured 

38 faculty members at the Faculty Council meeting, will vote on the Proposal within two months.

39 All votes on discontinuance or substantial reduction must be conducted by secret ballot. If 

40 Faculty Council accepts the Proposal from the dean/provost, it will forward its decision to the 

41 university president.

42

43 If Faculty Council rejects the Proposal, it will provide its reasons and rationale and make specific 

44 recommendations for revision to the dean/provost. It may also request a meeting with 

45 dean/provost in order to discuss its concerns and make its reservations clear. The dean/provost 

46 may then revise the Proposal in light of these recommendations and resubmit the Proposal to 

47 Faculty Council for its final vote. 

48

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 83 of 188 PageID #:83
July 1, 2018

17

1 4.7.4 Step 4

2 If Faculty Council accepts the Proposal, it will forward its decision to the university president and 

3 full-time faculty members of all affected units or programs. The tenure-line faculty members 

4 attached to any unit directly affected by the proposed reductions or eliminations have a right to 

5 the records used in the deliberation process. The tenured faculty members also have a right to 

6 submit, individually or as a group, within twenty calendar days of the Faculty Council decision, a 

7 statement to the university president explaining a position contrary to that decision. 

8

9 The university president shall not make a decision without considering the statements submitted 

10 by the tenured faculty members affected by proposed discontinuance or substantial reduction. The 

11 university president shall either accept the Proposal or, under exceptional circumstances, revise 

12 the Proposal and resubmit to Faculty Council for a vote within thirty calendar days of notification 

13 of the Faculty Council decision. 

14

15 Faculty Council will make the final decision on the Proposal. 

16 4.7.5 Step 5

17 Should the Proposal be accepted by the university president, Faculty Council, within fifteen 

18 calendar days, shall constitute a Termination Committee of three tenured faculty members; the 

19 members shall be drawn from outside the affected college and shall not be affiliated with the 

20 affected academic units or programs. Faculty members who hold administrative appointments at 

21 the level of associate dean or above are ineligible to serve. The Termination Committee shall 

22 select one of its own members as chair. 

23

24 Within fifteen calendar days of the president’s decision, the dean of the affected college, in 

25 consultation with local academic unit officers, will submit to the Termination Committee a 

26 proposal (“Termination Proposal”) specifying which faculty affiliated with the affected program 

27 or unit will be terminated. If a college is to be eliminated or if colleges are to be merged, the 

28 provost shall consult with the local academic unit officers and relevant deans and then submit the 

29 Termination Proposal to the Termination Committee. 

30 The tenured faculty members from affected units will be given the opportunity to submit written 

31 statements, including CVs and other relevant materials that discuss their qualifications and the 

32 rationale for their retention to the Termination Committee. 

33

34 The dean or provost, in making his or her Termination Proposal, and the Termination Committee, 

35 in evaluating the Termination Proposal, are to decide according to the following criteria and in 

36 this order of priority:

37

38 1. Program viability: faculty required for a viable academic program may be retained if the 

39 program itself is not to be phased out. Quality of faculty performance may be considered 

40 in evaluating whether a faculty member is required for a viable academic program. In 

41 extraordinary circumstances, where a serious distortion of the academic program would 

42 otherwise result, one or more non-tenured faculty members may be retained. In such 

43 circumstances the Termination Committee must explain why a particular faculty 

44 member’s expertise is no longer needed. Materials submitted by the affected faculty 

45 member(s) must be considered by the Termination Committee along with other relevant 

46 material. 

47 2. Tenure: tenured faculty are to be retained over non-tenured faculty; and

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 84 of 188 PageID #:84
July 1, 2018

18

1 3. Seniority: more senior faculty are to be retained over less senior faculty. Seniority is 

2 defined first by rank and second by years in rank. 

3

4 In evaluating the Termination Proposal and the application of the above criteria, the Termination 

5 Committee will comply with the university’s equal employment opportunity policies and 

6 procedures.

7

8 The Termination Committee, within thirty calendar days of receiving the Termination Proposal, 

9 will submit its recommendations to the provost, the deans of the affected units, the department 

10 chairs or program heads, and the president of the Faculty Council.

11

12 The provost makes the final determination on termination. Only in rare instances and for 

13 compelling reasons will the provost overturn a recommendation made by the Termination 

14 Committee. If the provost’s decision differs from the recommendation, the provost must prepare a 

15 written explanation and provide it to the deans of the affected units, the department chairs or 

16 program heads, and the president of the Faculty Council.

17

18 4.7.6 University Obligations upon Termination of Tenured Faculty 

19 1. If a tenured faculty member designated for termination believes he or she is qualified to 

20 be transferred, he or she must identify at least one local academic unit or college. The 

21 affected faculty member will have the opportunity to submit a written statement 

22 regarding his or her fitness to serve as a tenured faculty member in each of the identified 

23 units. The faculty member is entitled to attach to his or her written statement any relevant 

24 documents or materials. The faculty member may describe any additional training that 

25 might be appropriate. The faculty member has the right to access all relevant available 

26 information within the university to assist in identifying the units in which he or she 

27 would be qualified to serve and to assist in preparing the written statement. Within thirty 

28 calendar days of receipt of the information from the university, the faculty member must 

29 submit a request for transfer to each of the identified units.

30

31 If the faculty member designated for termination requests a transfer, the provost must 

32 inform the local academic unit officers of each of the identified units. Within forty five 

33 calendar days of the provost’s notification, the local academic unit officers of the 

34 identified units; 

35 a) Must call a meeting of all the eligible faculty of that unit to vote on the transfer of the 

36 faculty member to that unit; 

37 b) Must circulate, prior to that meeting, to all such eligible faculty, on a confidential 

38 basis, the faculty member’s written statement;

39 c) Must provide an opportunity for the faculty member to make an oral presentation to 

40 the eligible faculty of the unit and to answer questions;

41 d) Must hold a vote of eligible faculty when a quorum is present. A majority vote of the 

42 eligible tenured faculty in attendance is necessary and sufficient to accept the faculty 

43 member. 

44

45 Should more than one unit accept the faculty member, the faculty member must 

46 select one. Upon the faculty member’s selection of a unit for transfer, the provost will 

47 take necessary steps to effectuate the transfer. 

48

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 85 of 188 PageID #:85
July 1, 2018

19

1 2. Should no unit accept the faculty member, the university will make every effort to place the 

2 faculty member concerned in another suitable university position for which the person is 

3 qualified. If placement in another university position would be facilitated by a reasonable 

4 period of training, financial and other support for such training will be proffered. 

5

6 3. If no position is available within the institution, with or without retraining, or if the faculty 

7 member chooses not to pursue another position within the university, the tenured faculty 

8 member's appointment will be terminated. The terminated tenured faculty member shall be 

9 entitled to a severance payment equal to twenty-four months’ contract salary and benefits.

10

11 4. The university is obligated not to approve new full-time faculty hires in a terminated faculty 

12 member’s areas of expertise (defined as courses that the faculty member has either previously 

13 taught or is qualified and willing to teach in any academic unit) within a three-year period 

14 unless the terminated faculty member has been offered reinstatement with reasonable time in 

15 which to accept or decline. Within this three-year period, no more than three additional 

16 quarter-length or two semester-length course sections per year may be offered by tenured or 

17 non-tenured faculty within that faculty member’s areas of expertise. In instances where the 

18 university finds compelling need to offer more than three additional quarter-length or two 

19 semester-length course sections per year in a terminated faculty member’s areas of expertise 

20 through the use of tenured or non-tenured faculty, the provost will bring a proposal to Faculty 

21 Council for its approval.

22

23 4.7.7 Appeal of Termination 

24 A tenured faculty member notified of termination because of discontinuance or substantial 

25 reduction of an academic unit or program has the right to appeal to a faculty committee regarding 

26 the selection of his or her specific faculty appointment for termination. See Chapter 5. 

27

28 4.8 Termination of Tenured Faculty Due to Medical Leave Exceeding Thirty-Six 

29 Months

30

31 If illness or disability prevents a faculty member from performing his or her university 

32 obligations and duties, the faculty member may request a medical leave under the university’s 

33 Family and Medical Leave Act policy and the Sick Pay, Short and Long Term Disability policy. 

34 All medical leaves are subject to the policies and procedures of the applicable leave and benefit 

35 programs, including physician certification of illness or disability and ability to return to work. 

36 Information about university leave and benefit programs are described at the Human Resources 

37 website.

38

39 A tenured faculty member who goes on approved Long Term Disability leave may resume his or 

40 her university position at any time within thirty-six consecutive months of the first day of Short 

41 Term Disability leave if the faculty member is able to fulfill his or her university obligations and 

42 duties, with or without reasonable accommodation. If, after the thirty-six month period, the 

43 tenured faculty member remains unable to fulfill his or her university obligations and duties, with 

44 or without a reasonable accommodation, the tenured appointment may be terminated. 

45

46 If a faculty member’s appointment is terminated under this section and he or she thereafter 

47 becomes able to return to work and resume the obligations and duties of a tenured faculty 

48 member, and the faculty member’s former appointment is vacant, he or she will be returned to the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 86 of 188 PageID #:86
July 1, 2018

20

1 former appointment at the same rank. If the former appointment is no longer available and there 

2 is a vacant faculty appointment for which he or she is qualified, the university will give the 

3 former faculty member’s application strong consideration. Such a faculty member, if appointed, 

4 shall be appointed at his or her prior rank and at the salary associated with the vacant faculty 

5 appointment. 

6

7 A tenured faculty member whose appointment is terminated under this section may appeal the 

8 termination. See Chapter 5.

9

10 4.9 Resignation

11

12 A faculty member who wishes to resign shall do so by submitting a written notice of resignation 

13 to the dean and local academic unit officer with a proposed effective date.

14

15 4.10 Retirement

16

17 A faculty member who wishes to retire shall do so by submitting a written notice of retirement to 

18 the dean and local academic unit officer with a proposed effective date. DePaul University has no 

19 mandatory retirement age for faculty.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 87 of 188 PageID #:87
July 1, 2018

1

1 CHAPTER 5. APPEALS AND GRIEVANCES 

2

3 5.1 Appeals ..................................................................................................................................... 2

4 5.1.1 Appeals Committee and General Process.......................................................................... 2

5 5.1.1.1 Faculty Committee on Appeals............................................................................... 2

6 5.1.1.2 Notification of Intent............................................................................................... 2

7 5.1.1.3 Preliminary Review ................................................................................................ 3

8 5.1.1.4 Investigation and Determination............................................................................. 3

9 5.1.1.5 Modified Procedures When Academic Freedom Violation is Alleged (Term 

10 Faculty) 3

11 5.1.1.6 Modified Procedures When Academic Freedom Violation is Alleged (Tenure-Line 

12 Faculty) 4

13 5.1.2 Tenure-Line Faculty Appeals ........................................................................................... 6

14 5.1.2.1 Nonrenewal of Untenured Tenure-Line Faculty Prior to the Tenure Decision ..... 6

15 5.1.2.2 Dismissal of Untenured Tenure-Line Faculty During the Term of a Probationary 

16 Period Contract for Reasons Other than Misconduct.............................................................. 7

17 5.1.2.3 Denial of Promotion or Tenure .................................................................................. 8

18 5.1.2.4 Termination of Tenured Faculty Due to Medical Leave Exceeding Thirty-Six 

19 Months 9

20 5.1.2.5 Termination of Tenured Faculty Due to Financial Exigency .................................. 10

21 5.1.2.6 Termination of Tenured Faculty Due to Discontinuance or Substantial Reduction of 

22 an Academic Unit ................................................................................................................. 11

23 5.1.3.2 Non-Reappointment of Term Faculty................................................................... 14

24 5.1.4 Other Faculty .................................................................................................................. 14

25 5.2 Grievances.............................................................................................................................. 16

26 5.2.1 Definition ........................................................................................................................ 16

27 5.2.2 Procedures for Faculty Grievances................................................................................. 17

28 5.2.2.1 Administrative Grievance Process........................................................................... 17

29 5.2.2.2 Grievance Board Procedures.................................................................................... 18

30 5.3. Right to Review Personnel Records ................................................................................. 19

31

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 88 of 188 PageID #:88
July 1, 2018

2

1 CHAPTER 5. APPEALS AND GRIEVANCES 

2

3 Appeal procedures are limited to: dismissal or nonrenewal of contract for tenure-line faculty; 

4 denial of tenure and promotion for tenure-line faculty; dismissal during the contract term for 

5 term faculty, and non-reappointment of term faculty.

6

7 Grievance procedures are available to all faculty for issues other than denial of promotion and 

8 tenure, dismissal, nonrenewal and non-reappointment. A grievance is a written complaint 

9 concerning a decision made by a person with authority in the University. The grievance must be 

10 filed by the individual adversely affected by the decision.

11

12 5.1 Appeals

13

14 Appeals are to be conducted in accordance with the procedures specified below. Each procedure is 

15 specific to the type of appeal.

16 5.1.1 Appeals Committee and General Process

17

18 The faculty member bears the burden of proof. Failure by the faculty member to submit requested 

19 materials within designated deadlines shall constitute a failure to meet the burden of proof. The standard 

20 of proof is preponderance of the evidence. 

21

22 5.1.1.1 Faculty Committee on Appeals

23

24 The Faculty Committee on Appeals is a standing committee of the Faculty Council. It comprises twelve

25 tenured faculty members selected by the Faculty Council through the usual committee selection process. 

26 If the committee finds that, in a given case, a member has either a conflict of interest or the appearance of 

27 one, the committee will exclude the member from participation. Grounds for recusal include serving in 

28 the appellant’s local academic unit, participating in evaluation of the appellant, or having a significant 

29 personal relationship with the appellant. 

30

31 The Faculty Committee on Appeals will assign three of its members to serve as an Appeals Board to hear 

32 a case.

33

34 If the appellant raises an allegation of discrimination, the Appeals Board must refer the discrimination 

35 allegation to University EEO Resources which, in coordination with the Appeals Board, will conduct an 

36 investigation and submit a report to the Appeals Board in a timely manner.

37

38 5.1.1.2 Notification of Intent 

39

40 A faculty member begins an appeal by filing a written notice of intent to appeal with the president of 

41 Faculty Council who will forward the notice to the chair of the Faculty Committee on Appeals. The notice

42 must specify the grounds for appeal. The appellant may not add or change appeal grounds after 

43 submitting the notice of intent to appeal. 

44

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 89 of 188 PageID #:89
July 1, 2018

3

1 5.1.1.3 Preliminary Review

2

3 When a faculty member appeals, the Appeals Board will conduct a preliminary review to determine 

4 whether the allegations as stated in the appeal, if fully substantiated after investigation, could reasonably 

5 be found to establish one or more of the grounds for appeal. If one of the grounds is discrimination, the 

6 Appeals Board must consult with the Office of Employee Engagement and Equal Employment 

7 Opportunity or the Title IX Coordinator, as appropriate (“University EEO Resources”)before making a 

8 determination on that ground. Each ground appealed requires a separate determination as to whether the 

9 appeal will go forward on that ground. If, after the preliminary review, the Appeals Board determines 

10 that an appeal should go forward on one or more grounds, it will then investigate the faculty member’s 

11 allegations.

12

13 If the Appeals Board decides by a majority that an appeal does not satisfy the criteria, the Appeals Board

14 will forward its recommendation to the appropriate academic officer (either the provost or the president), 

15 with a copy to the faculty member and the lower-level academic officers. The recommendation must state 

16 the reasons for not considering the appeal. The appropriate academic officer (either the provost or the 

17 president) may affirm the Appeals Board’s recommendation or remand the case to the Faculty Committee 

18 on Appeals. If the case is remanded, the Faculty Committee on Appeals will assemble an alternate 

19 Appeals Board from the remaining members to investigate the faculty member’s allegations.

20

21 The Appeals Board transactions are confidential and not open to persons other than those explicitly 

22 invited to participate. Written minutes shall be kept of its meetings which shall be available only to the 

23 appropriate academic officer (either the provost or the president). 

24 5.1.1.4 Investigation and Determination

25

26 If an appeal moves forward, the Appeals Board may request interviews with, and materials from, the 

27 faculty member, the dean, and any evaluating committee. The Appeals Board may take any reasonable 

28 action that it deems appropriate or helpful to its deliberations. In every case the Appeals Board must 

29 interview the author of any report that recommended against renewal or promotion and tenure and any 

30 academic officer who recommended dismissal. The Appeals Board is charged only with reviewing the 

31 basis of the appeal; it does not perform an independent evaluation of the faculty member’s qualifications.

32 Each ground appealed requires a separate determination.

33

34 5.1.1.5 Modified Procedures When Academic Freedom Violation is Alleged (Term Faculty)

35

36 A term faculty member’s allegation of an academic freedom violation is serious, not to be made or 

37 received lightly. 

38

39 The university has no obligation to reappoint term faculty members beyond the terms of their contracts. 

40

41 If a term faculty member alleges a violation of academic freedom, the Appeals Board will conduct a 

42 preliminary review as described in Section 5.1.1.3. If the Appeals Board concludes that the appeal does 

43 not satisfy the criteria for a violation of academic freedom, the faculty member will have the option to 

44 submit a written response to the report which must be provided to the provost and the Appeals Board for 

45 inclusion in the appeal record. The provost may affirm the Appeals Board’s recommendation or remand 

46 the case to the Faculty Committee on Appeals. If the case is remanded, the Faculty Committee on 

47 Appeals will assemble an alternate Appeals Board from the remaining members to investigate the faculty 

48 member’s allegations.

49

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 90 of 188 PageID #:90
July 1, 2018

4

1 If an appeal moves forward on this ground, the Appeals Board shall receive from the complaining term 

2 faculty member a written statement indicating the basis for the academic freedom allegation. The 

3 Appeals Board shall receive from the faculty member’s dean a written statement of the reason(s) for the 

4 challenged decision and/or a statement of the procedures followed in reaching the challenged decision. 

5 The dean must submit these items to the Appeals Board within ten business days after the chair of the 

6 Appeals Board requests them. The Appeals Board will afford the term faculty member and the dean the 

7 opportunity to respond in writing and may also request further information. 

8

9 For the Appeals Board to conclude that the challenged decision violated the faculty member’s academic 

10 freedom, a majority of the Board must find that the violation was the causal basis for non-reappointment

11 or termination. 

12

13 The Appeals Board will prepare a written analysis and conclusion regarding the allegation of an academic 

14 freedom violation. This written analysis and conclusion and all relevant documentation will be sent to the 

15 provost for final decision, with copies to the faculty member and dean.

16

17 5.1.1.6 Modified Procedures When Academic Freedom Violation is Alleged (Tenure-Line Faculty)

18

19 A tenure-line faculty member’s allegation of an academic freedom violation is serious, not to be made or 

20 received lightly. 

21

22 The university has no obligation to renew the contracts of untenured tenure-line faculty members.

23 Tenured faculty have the right to a continuous appointment except as provided in Chapter 4 of the Faculty 

24 Handbook. 

25

26 If a tenure-line faculty member alleges a violation of academic freedom, the Appeals Board will conduct 

27 a preliminary review on this ground. If the Appeals Board decides by a majority that an appeal does not 

28 satisfy the criteria for a violation of academic freedom, the Appeals Board will forward its 

29 recommendation to the appropriate academic officer (either the provost or the president), with a copy to 

30 the faculty member and the lower-level academic officers. The recommendation must state the reasons for 

31 not considering the appeal. The faculty member will have the option to submit a written response to the 

32 report which must be provided to the appropriate academic officer (either the provost or the president) 

33 and the Appeals Board for inclusion in the appeal record.

34 The appropriate academic officer (either the provost or the president) may affirm the Appeals Board’s 

35 recommendation or remand the case to the Faculty Committee on Appeals. If the case is remanded, the 

36 Faculty Committee on Appeals will assemble an alternate Appeals Board from the remaining members to 

37 investigate the faculty member’s allegations.

38

39 If an appeal moves forward on this ground, the Appeals Board shall receive from the complaining faculty 

40 member a written statement indicating the basis for the allegation of an academic freedom violation. The 

41 Appeals Board shall receive from the faculty member’s dean or provost, where applicable, a written 

42 statement of the reason(s) for the challenged decision and/or a statement of the procedures followed in 

43 reaching and reviewing the challenged decision. The dean or provost must submit these items to the 

44 Appeals Board within ten business days after the request by the chair of the Appeals Board.

45

46 Upon receipt of the written statements, the Appeals Board will conduct a formal hearing in order to make 

47 a recommendation on the alleged academic freedom violation. 

48

49 The two parties have the following prerogatives in the formal hearing:

50

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 91 of 188 PageID #:91
July 1, 2018

5

1 1. To obtain in advance of the hearing a list of witnesses the other party intends to call;

2

3 2. Upon written request, to inspect before the formal hearing all documents that the Appeals 

4 Board in its prehearing meetings has collected and deemed relevant to its deliberations, in 

5 a manner determined by the Appeals Board (provided that the Appeals Board shall 

6 require both parties to keep the contents in strict confidence); 

7

8 3. To select an academic advisor or counsel of their own choosing, provided that advisor or 

9 counsel may not participate in the hearing but may be present;

10

11 4. To cross examine witnesses;

12

13 5. To have sufficient time to prepare evidence and to have adjournments upon the valid 

14 claim of unforeseen occurrences during the hearing.

15

16 The faculty member has the following additional prerogatives in the formal hearing:

17

18 1. To decline to testify, without prejudice, at the hearing without restricting the prerogative 

19 of supporting evidence;

20

21 2. To invite a representative of a responsible educational association as an observer to the 

22 hearing.

23

24 The responsibilities and prerogatives of the hearing Appeals Board in conducting its procedures are:

25

26 1. It has the right to all the information and documents it needs, without being obligated by 

27 strict rules of legal evidence and legal procedures, exercising due precaution not to 

28 divulge the contents of documents normally considered confidential;

29

30 2. It may conduct prehearing meetings to clarify issues and otherwise provide for an 

31 effective and efficient hearing;

32 3. It may take whatever time is required for a fair and complete hearing, while avoiding 

33 unnecessary delays;

34

35 4. It may formulate its own additional rules of procedure not contrary to the procedures of 

36 this document;

37

38 5. It shall keep a verbatim record of the hearings, which shall be available to the parties 

39 without cost.

40

41 The university will assume all costs directly incurred by the hearing Appeals Board. If the faculty 

42 member employs an attorney for the hearing, and the appeal is upheld, the university will reimburse the 

43 faculty member for at least one-half of the reasonable legal expenses incurred during the formal hearing, 

44 the precise proportion to be decided by the Appeals Board.

45

46 During the process of the hearing, neither party may make public statements about the proceedings. The 

47 Appeals Board may make public statements regarding the status of the proceedings. 

48

49 In order for the Appeals Board to come to the conclusion that the challenged decision violated the faculty 

50 member’s academic freedom, a majority of the Appeals Board must find that the violation was the causal 

51 basis for the challenged decision.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 92 of 188 PageID #:92
July 1, 2018

6

1

2 The Appeals Board will prepare a written analysis and conclusion regarding the alleged academic 

3 freedom violation. This written analysis and conclusion and all relevant documentation will be sent to the 

4 provost or president, as appropriate, for final decision, with copies to the faculty member and dean. 

5

6 5.1.2 Tenure-Line Faculty Appeals

7

8 Untenured tenure-line faculty may appeal:

9

10 1. Nonrenewal prior to the tenure decision (Section 5.1.2.1)

11

12 2. Dismissal during the contract period prior to tenure (Section 5.1.2.2)

13

14 3. Denial of promotion or tenure (Section 5.1.2.3)

15

16 Appeals Board recommendations on appeals for denials of promotion and tenure go to the president for 

17 final decision. Appeals Board recommendations on other types of appeals for untenured tenure line 

18 faculty go to the provost for final decision.

19

20 Tenured faculty may appeal:

21

22 1. Termination due to Medical Disability or for Medical Reasons (Section 5.1.2.4)

23

24 2. Termination due to Financial Exigency (Section 5.1.2.5)

25

26 3. Termination due to Discontinuance or Substantial Reduction of an Academic Unit 

27 (Section 5.1.2.6)

28

29 4. Denial of Promotion (Section 5.1.2.3)

30

31 Tenured faculty may not appeal suspension or termination for misconduct but have the right to pre32 dismissal and pre-suspension hearings as described in Chapter 4.

33

34 Appeals Board recommendations on appeals go to the provost or president, as specified in the applicable 

35 section, for final decision.

36 5.1.2.1 Nonrenewal of Untenured Tenure-Line Faculty Prior to the Tenure Decision

37 Grounds for Appeal

38 An untenured tenure-line faculty member may appeal the decision not to renew his or her probationary 

39 period contract. The appeal must be based on one or more of the following grounds:

40

41 1. The nonrenewal violated the faculty member’s academic freedom.

42

43 2. The evaluation of the candidate deviated from procedures in the Faculty 

44 Handbook or in college or local academic unit guidelines, and the deviation was material 

45 to the final decision. 

46

47 3. The nonrenewal was the result of discriminatory practices prohibited by 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 93 of 188 PageID #:93
July 1, 2018

7

1 university policies or applicable federal, state, or local laws.

2

3 The Appeals Board will conduct a preliminary review, and if appropriate, an investigation and submit its 

4 findings in a report to the faculty member, the dean, and the provost that includes the majority and any 

5 minority views. The faculty member will have the option to submit to the provost and dean a written 

6 response to the report.

7 Final Decision

8 The final decision on the appeal rests with the provost. The provost must state the grounds for his or her 

9 decision in writing to the faculty member and the relevant lower-level academic officers. If the provost 

10 affirms the appeal, he or she may determine the appropriate remedy for the matter based on the facts and 

11 circumstances presented by the appeal, including but not limited to renewing the faculty member’s 

12 contract. The provost’s decision is final.

13 Calendar for the Appeals Process

14 By June 30, the faculty member must state his or her intent to appeal in writing to the provost and the 

15 president of Faculty Council. By the first day of fall term of the following academic year, the faculty 

16 member must submit the written appeal and all supporting documentation to the Faculty Council 

17 President who will then forward it to the Appeals Board. 

18

19 By September 30, the Appeals Board must establish a clear timeline for each case, which it will distribute 

20 to the faculty member, the local academic unit officer, the dean, the provost, the Faculty Council 

21 president, and when appropriate, University EEO Resources.

22

23 The Appeals Board must send its final written recommendation to the provost no later than January 15. 

24 The provost must issue a final decision by January 31. 

25

26 All review procedures are to be carried out as expeditiously as is reasonably possible, consistent with 

27 obtaining sound judgments and qualified, balanced review panels. All time guidelines set forth above 

28 refer only to calendar or business days within regular academic terms — Fall, Winter, Spring quarters or 

29 Fall and Spring semesters— and are to be construed as recommended maximums. However, a failure by 

30 the affected faculty member to adhere to any time guidelines, except under extraordinary circumstances, 

31 shall result in forfeiture of all review rights.

32 5.1.2.2 Dismissal of Untenured Tenure-Line Faculty During the Term of a Probationary Period 

33 Contract for Reasons Other than Misconduct

34 Untenured tenure line faculty have no right of appeal under this section in cases in which they have had a 

35 hearing under section 4.4

36 Grounds for Appeal

37 An untenured tenure-line faculty member may appeal dismissal during the term of a probationary period 

38 contract. The appeal must be based on one or more of the following grounds: 

39

40 1. The dismissal violated the faculty member’s academic freedom.

41

42 2. The process by which the decision to dismiss was made applied inappropriate standards, 

43 applied appropriate standards unfairly, or failed to meet reasonable standards of 

44 thoroughness.

45

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 94 of 188 PageID #:94
July 1, 2018

8

1 3. The dismissal was the result of discriminatory practices prohibited by university policies 

2 or applicable federal, state, or local laws.

3

4 The Appeals Board will conduct a preliminary review, and if appropriate, an investigation and submit its 

5 findings in a report to the faculty member, the dean, and the provost that includes the majority and any 

6 minority views. The faculty member will have the option to submit to the provost and dean a written 

7 response to the report.

8 Final Decision

9 The final decision on the appeal rests with the provost. The provost must state the grounds for his or her 

10 decision in writing to the faculty member and the relevant lower-level academic officers. If the provost 

11 affirms the appeal, he or she may determine the appropriate remedy for the matter based on the facts and 

12 circumstances presented by the appeal, including but not limited to reinstating the faculty member for the 

13 remainder of the contract term. The provost’s decision is final.

14 Calendar for the Appeals Process

15 Within 10 business days of being informed in writing of the dismissal, the faculty member must state his 

16 or her intent to appeal in writing to the provost, and the president of Faculty Council. Within 20 business 

17 days of submitting the written notice of intent to appeal, the candidate will submit their supporting 

18 documentation. Within 10 business days upon receipt of this documentation, the chair will convene the

19 preliminary review by the Appeals Board.

20

21 At this preliminary review, the Appeals Board must establish a clear timeline for this appeal, which it 

22 will distribute to the faculty member, the local academic unit officer, the dean, the provost, the Faculty 

23 Council president, and when appropriate, University EEO Resources.

24

25 The written recommendation from the Appeals Board must be sent to the provost within 30 business days 

26 of the preliminary review. The provost must issue a final decision no later than 10 business days after 

27 receipt of the Appeals Board’s written recommendation.

28

29 All review procedures are to be carried out as expeditiously as reasonably possible, consistent with 

30 obtaining sound judgments and qualified, balanced review panels. All time guidelines set forth above 

31 refer only to calendar or business days within regular academic terms — Fall, Winter, Spring quarters or 

32 Fall and Spring semesters — and are to be construed as recommended maximums. However, a failure by 

33 the affected faculty member to adhere to any time guidelines, except under extraordinary circumstances, 

34 shall result in forfeiture of all review rights.

35 5.1.2.3 Denial of Promotion or Tenure

36

37 Grounds for Appeal

38 A faculty member may appeal the decision to deny an application for tenure or promotion. The appeal 

39 must be based on one or more of the following grounds:

40

41 1. The decision violated the faculty member’s academic freedom.

42

43 2. The evaluation of the candidate deviated from procedures in the Faculty 

44 Handbook or in college or local academic unit guidelines, and the deviation was material 

45 to the final decision. 

46

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 95 of 188 PageID #:95
July 1, 2018

9

1 3. The decision was the result of discriminatory practices prohibited by 

2 university policies or applicable federal, state, or local laws.

3

4 The Appeals Board will conduct a preliminary review, and if appropriate, an investigation and submit its 

5 findings in a report to the president. The faculty member will have the option to submit to the president a 

6 written response to the report.

7 Final Decision

8 The final decision on the appeal rests with the president. The president must state the grounds for his or 

9 her decision in writing to the faculty member, the provost, and the relevant lower-level academic officers. 

10 If the president affirms the appeal, he or she may determine the appropriate remedy for the matter based 

11 on the facts and circumstances presented by the appeal, including but not limited to awarding tenure or 

12 promotion. The president’s decision is final.

13 Calendar for the Appeals Process

14 By June 30, the faculty member must state his or her intent to appeal in writing to the president and the 

15 president of Faculty Council. By the first day of fall term of the following academic year, the faculty 

16 member must submit the written appeal and all supporting documentation to the Faculty Council 

17 President who will then forward it to the Appeals Board. 

18

19 By September 30, the Appeals Board must establish a clear timeline for each case, which it will distribute 

20 to the faculty member, the local academic unit officer, the dean, the provost, the president, the Faculty 

21 Council president, and when appropriate, University EEO Resources. 

22

23 The Appeals Board must send its final written recommendation to the president no later than January 15. 

24 The president must issue a final decision by January 31. 

25

26 All review procedures are to be carried out as expeditiously as is reasonably possible, consistent with 

27 obtaining sound judgments and qualified, balanced review panels. All time guidelines set forth above 

28 refer only to calendar or business days within regular academic terms — Fall, Winter, Spring quarters or 

29 Fall and Spring semesters— and are to be construed as recommended maximums. However, a failure by 

30 the affected faculty member to adhere to any time guidelines, except under extraordinary circumstances, 

31 shall result in forfeiture of all review rights.

32

33 5.1.2.4 Termination of Tenured Faculty Due to Medical Leave Exceeding Thirty-Six Months

34 Grounds for Appeal

35 A tenured faculty member may appeal termination under Chapter 4, Section 4.8. The appeal must be 

36 based on one or more of the following grounds: 

37

38 1. The termination violated the faculty member’s academic freedom.

39

40 2. The process by which the decision to terminate was made applied inappropriate 

41 standards, applied appropriate standards unfairly, or failed to meet reasonable standards 

42 of thoroughness.

43

44 3. The termination was the result of discriminatory practices prohibited by university 

45 policies or applicable federal, state, or local laws.

46

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 96 of 188 PageID #:96
July 1, 2018

10

1 The Appeals Board will conduct a preliminary review, and if appropriate, an investigation and will submit 

2 its findings in a report to the faculty member, the provost, and the president that includes the majority and 

3 any minority views. The faculty member will have the option to submit to the president, provost and dean

4 a written response to the report.

5 Final Decision

6 The final decision on the appeal rests with the president. The president must state the grounds for his or 

7 her decision in writing to the faculty member and the relevant lower-level academic officers. If the 

8 president affirms the appeal, he or she may determine the appropriate remedy for the matter based on the 

9 facts and circumstances presented by the appeal. The president’s decision is final.

10 Calendar for the Appeals Process

11 Within 10 business days of being informed in writing of the dismissal, the faculty member must state his 

12 or her intent to appeal in writing to the provost, and the president of Faculty Council. Within 20 business 

13 days of submitting the written notice of intent to appeal, the candidate will submit their supporting 

14 documentation. Within 10 business days upon receipt of this documentation, the chair will commence the 

15 preliminary review by the Appeals Board. 

16

17 At the preliminary review, the Appeals Board must establish a clear timeline for the appeal and

18 distribute it to the faculty member, the local academic unit officer, the dean, the provost, the Faculty 

19 Council president, and when appropriate, University EEO Resources. 

20

21 The written recommendation from the Appeals Board must be sent to the president within 30 business 

22 days of the preliminary review. The president must issue a final decision no later than 10 business days 

23 after receipt of the Appeals Board’s written recommendation.

24

25 All review procedures are to be carried out as expeditiously as is reasonably possible, consistent with 

26 obtaining sound judgments and qualified, balanced review panels. All time guidelines set forth above 

27 refer only to calendar or business days within regular academic terms — Fall, Winter, Spring quarters or 

28 Fall and Spring semesters — and are to be construed as recommended maximums. However, a failure by 

29 the affected faculty member to adhere to any time guidelines, except under extraordinary circumstances, 

30 shall result in forfeiture of all review rights.

31

32 5.1.2.5 Termination of Tenured Faculty Due to Financial Exigency

33 Grounds for Appeal

34 A tenured faculty member notified of termination because of financial exigency has a right to appeal. The 

35 appeal must be based on one or more of the following grounds: 

36

37 1. The selection of the area and type of retrenchment was not in accordance with the 

38 procedures set out in Chapter 4, Section 4.6. 

39 2. The selection of specific faculty appointments to be terminated was not in accordance with 

40 the procedures set out in Chapter 4, Section 4.6. 

41 3. The dismissal was the result of discriminatory practices prohibited by university policies 

42 or applicable federal, state, or local laws.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 97 of 188 PageID #:97
July 1, 2018

11

1 4. The university failed to meet its obligations as specified in Section 4.6.6 of the Faculty 

2 Handbook. A unit’s vote not to accept the faculty member may be appealed only for failure 

3 to satisfy one or more of the criteria listed in section 4.6.6 (1)(a-d). 

4

5 The Appeals Board will conduct a preliminary review, and if appropriate, an investigation and will submit 

6 its findings in a report to the faculty member, the provost, and the president that includes the majority and 

7 any minority views. The faculty member will have the option to submit to the president, provost and dean

8 a written response to the report.

9

10 Final Decision

11 The final decision on the appeal rests with the president. The president must state the grounds for his or 

12 her decision in writing to the faculty member and the relevant lower-level academic officers. If the 

13 president affirms the appeal, he or she may determine the appropriate remedy for the matter based on the 

14 facts and circumstances presented by the appeal. The president’s decision is final.

15 Calendar for the Appeals Process

16 Within 10 business days of being informed in writing of the dismissal, the faculty member must state his 

17 or her intent to appeal in writing to the provost, and the president of Faculty Council. Within 20 business 

18 days of submitting the written notice of intent to appeal, the candidate will submit his or her supporting 

19 documentation. Within 10 business days upon receipt of this documentation, the chair will commence the 

20 preliminary review by the Appeals Board. 

21

22 At this preliminary review, the Appeals Board must establish a clear timeline for the appeal, which it 

23 will distribute to the faculty member, the local academic unit officer, the dean, the provost, the Faculty 

24 Council president, and when appropriate, University EEO Resources. 

25

26 The written recommendation from the Appeals Board must be sent to the president within 30 business 

27 days of the preliminary review. The president must issue a final decision no later than 10 business days 

28 after receipt of the Appeals Board’s written recommendation.

29

30 All review procedures are to be carried out as expeditiously as reasonably possible, consistent with 

31 obtaining sound judgments and qualified, balanced review panels. All time guidelines set forth above 

32 refer only to calendar or business days within regular academic terms — Fall, Winter, Spring quarters or 

33 Fall and Spring semesters — and are to be construed as recommended maximums. However, a failure by 

34 the affected faculty member to adhere to any time guidelines, except under extraordinary circumstances, 

35 shall result in forfeiture of all review rights.

36

37 5.1.2.6 Termination of Tenured Faculty Due to Discontinuance or Substantial Reduction of an 

38 Academic Unit

39 Grounds for Appeal

40 A tenured faculty member notified of termination because of discontinuance or substantial reduction of an 

41 academic unit or program has the right to appeal the selection of his or her specific faculty appointment 

42 for termination. The appeal must be based on one or more of the following grounds: 

43

44

45

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 98 of 188 PageID #:98
July 1, 2018

12

1 1. The selection of specific faculty appointments to be terminated was not in accordance 

2 with the procedures set out in Chapter 4, Section 4.7.

3

4 2. The dismissal was the result of discriminatory practices prohibited by university policies 

5 or applicable federal, state, or local laws.

6

7 3. The university failed to meet its obligations as specified in Section 4.7.6 of the Faculty 

8 Handbook. A unit’s vote not to accept the faculty member may be appealed only for 

9 failure to satisfy one or more of the criteria listed in Section 4.7.6 (1)(a-d).

10

11 4. The termination decision violated the faculty member’s academic freedom. 

12

13 The Appeals Board will conduct a preliminary review, and if appropriate, an investigation and will submit 

14 its findings in a report to the faculty member, the provost, and the president that includes the majority and 

15 any minority views. The faculty member will have the option to submit to the president, provost and dean 

16 a written response to the report.

17

18 Final Decision

19 The final decision on the appeal rests with the president. The president must state the grounds for his or 

20 her decision in writing to the faculty member and the relevant lower-level academic officers. If the 

21 president affirms the appeal, he or she may determine the appropriate remedy for the matter based on the 

22 facts and circumstances presented by the appeal. The president’s decision is final.

23 Calendar for the Appeals Process

24 Within 10 business days of being informed in writing of the termination, the faculty member must state 

25 his or her intent to appeal in writing to the provost, and the president of Faculty Council. Within 20 

26 business days of submitting the written notice of intent to appeal, the candidate will submit supporting 

27 documentation. Within 10 business days upon receipt of this documentation, the chair will commence the 

28 preliminary review by the Appeals Board. 

29

30 At this preliminary review, the Appeals Board must establish a clear timeline for the appeal, which it will 

31 distribute to the faculty member, the local academic unit officer, the dean, the provost, the Faculty 

32 Council president, and when appropriate, University EEO Resources.

33

34 All review procedures are to be carried out as expeditiously as is reasonably possible, consistent with 

35 obtaining sound judgments and qualified, balanced review panels. All time guidelines set forth above 

36 refer only to calendar or business days within regular academic terms — Fall, Winter, Spring quarters or 

37 Fall and Spring semesters — and are to be construed as recommended maximums. However, a failure by 

38 the affected faculty member to adhere to any time guidelines, except under extraordinary circumstances, 

39 shall result in forfeiture of all review rights.

40

41 5.1.3 Term Faculty Appeals 

42

43 Term faculty are limited to appeals of: (1) major sanctions during the contract term, and (2) non44 reappointment on the grounds of a violation of academic freedom or discrimination in violation of 

45 university policies or federal, state, and local laws. 

46

47 5.1.3.1 Major Sanctions within the Contract Period 

48

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 99 of 188 PageID #:99
July 1, 2018

13

1 Grounds for Appeal 

2

3 The appeal must be based on one or more of the following grounds: 

4

5 1. The major sanction violated the faculty member’s academic freedom. 

6

7 2. The process by which the major sanction was imposed applied inappropriate standards, applied 

8 appropriate standards unfairly, or failed to meet reasonable standards of thoroughness. 

9

10 3. The imposition of the major sanction was the result of discriminatory practices prohibited by university 

11 policies or applicable federal, state, or local laws. 

12

13 The Appeals Board will conduct a preliminary review, and if appropriate, an investigation and submit its 

14 findings in a report to the faculty member, the dean, and the provost that includes the majority and any 

15 minority views. The faculty member will have the option to submit to the provost and dean a written 

16 response to the report.

17

18

19 Final Decision

20 The final decision on the appeal rests with the provost. The provost must state the grounds for his or her 

21 decision in writing to the term faculty member and the dean. If the provost affirms the appeal, he or she

22 may determine the appropriate remedy for the matter based on the facts and circumstances presented by 

23 the appeal, including but not limited to reinstating the term faculty member for the remainder of the 

24 contract term. The provost’s decision is final.

25 Calendar for the Appeals Process

26 Within 10 business days of being informed in writing of the dismissal, the faculty member must state his 

27 or her intent to appeal in writing to the provost, and the president of Faculty Council. Within 20 business 

28 days of submitting the written notice of intent to appeal, the candidate will submit their supporting 

29 documentation. Within 10 business days upon receipt of this documentation, the chair will convene the 

30 preliminary review by the Appeals Board. 

31

32 At this preliminary review, the Appeals Board must establish a clear timeline for the appeal, which it will 

33 distribute to the faculty member, the local academic unit officer, the dean, the provost, the Faculty 

34 Council president, and when appropriate, University EEO Resources.

35

36 The written recommendation from the Appeals Board must be sent to the provost within 30 business days 

37 of the preliminary review. The provost must issue a final decision no later than 10 business days after 

38 receipt of the Appeals Board’s written recommendation.

39

40 All review procedures are to be carried out as expeditiously as reasonably possible, consistent with 

41 obtaining sound judgments and qualified, balanced review panels. All time guidelines set forth above 

42 refer only to calendar or business days within regular academic terms — Fall, Winter, Spring quarters or 

43 Fall and Spring semesters — and are to be construed as recommended maximums. However, a failure by 

44 the affected faculty member to adhere to any time guidelines, except under extraordinary circumstances, 

45 shall result in forfeiture of all review rights.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 100 of 188 PageID #:100
July 1, 2018

14

1 5.1.3.2 Non-Reappointment of Term Faculty

2 Grounds for Appeal

3 A term faculty member may appeal the decision not to reappoint him or her. The appeal must be based on 

4 one or both of the following grounds: 

5

6 1. The non-reappointment violated the faculty member’s academic freedom.

7

8 2. The non-reappointment was the result of discriminatory practices prohibited by university 

9 policies or applicable federal, state, or local laws.

10

11 The Appeals Board will conduct a preliminary review, and if appropriate, an investigation and submit its 

12 findings in a report to the faculty member, the dean, and the provost that includes the majority and any 

13 minority views. The faculty member will have the option to submit to the provost and dean a written 

14 response to the report.

15 Final Decision

16 The final decision on the appeal rests with the provost. The provost must state the grounds for his or her 

17 decision in writing to the faculty member and the relevant lower-level academic officers. If the provost 

18 affirms the appeal, he or she may determine the appropriate remedy for the matter based on the facts and 

19 circumstances presented by the appeal, including but not limited to renewing the faculty member’s 

20 contract. The provost’s decision is final.

21 Calendar for the Appeals Process

22 By June 30, the faculty member must state his or her intent to appeal in writing to the provost and the 

23 president of Faculty Council. By the first day of fall term in the following academic year, the faculty 

24 member must submit the written appeal and all supporting documentation to the Faculty Council 

25 President who will then forward it to the Appeals Board. 

26

27 By September 30, the Appeals Board must establish a clear timeline for the case, which it will distribute 

28 to the faculty member, the local academic unit officer, the dean, the provost, the Faculty Council 

29 president, and when appropriate, University EEO Resources.

30

31 The Appeals Board must send its final written recommendation to the provost no later than January 15. 

32 The provost must issue a final decision by January 31. 

33

34 All review procedures are to be carried out as expeditiously as reasonably possible, consistent with 

35 obtaining sound judgments and qualified, balanced review panels. All time guidelines set forth above 

36 refer only to calendar or business days within regular academic terms — Fall, Winter, Spring quarters or 

37 Fall and Spring semesters— and are to be construed as recommended maximums. However, a failure by 

38 the affected faculty member to adhere to any time guidelines, except under extraordinary circumstances, 

39 shall result in forfeiture of all review rights.

40

41 5.1.4 Adjunct Faculty Appeals

42

43 Adjunct faculty are limited to appeals of suspension or dismissal during the contract period. The contract 

44 period is defined in the adjunct faculty’s letter of appointment and is defined on a course by course basis. 

45 .

46 5.1.4.1 Suspension or Dismissal During the Contract Period

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 101 of 188 PageID #:101
July 1, 2018

15

1

2 Grounds for Appeal

3 The appeal must be based on one or more of the following grounds:

4

5 1. The suspension or dismissal violated the faculty member’s academic freedom. 

6

7 2. The process by which the suspension or dismissal was imposed applied inappropriate standards, 

8 applied appropriate standards unfairly, or failed to meet reasonable standards of thoroughness. 

9

10 3. The imposition of the suspension or dismissal was the result of discriminatory practices prohibited by 

11 university policies or applicable federal, state, or local laws. 

12

13 As outlined in Section 5.1.1.1, the Appeals Board will included three tenured faculty members. For an 

14 adjunct faculty appeal, the Faculty Committee on Appeals will select an adjunct faculty member who will 

15 act as a non-voting consultant to the Appeals Board. The role of the consultant will be to provide 

16 expertise on issues that uniquely affect adjunct faculty.

17

18 The Appeals Board will conduct a preliminary review, and if appropriate, an investigation. The Appeals 

19 Board shall submit its findings in a report to the faculty member, the dean, and the provost that includes 

20 the majority and any minority views. The preliminary review will follow the process described in the 

21 Faculty Handbook Section 5.1.1.3. The faculty member will have the option to submit to the provost and 

22 dean a written response to the report.

23 Final Decision

24 The final decision on the appeal rests with the provost. The provost must state the grounds for his or her 

25 decision in writing to the adjunct faculty member and the dean. If the provost grants the appeal, he or she 

26 may determine the appropriate remedy for the matter based on the facts and circumstances presented by 

27 the appeal. If the appeal is granted, the adjunct faculty member will be paid the amount due under the 

28 original contract appointment. The provost’s decision is final.

29

30 Calendar for the Appeals Process

31 Due to the timing of adjunct faculty appointments, which frequently occur on a term-by-term basis, an 

32 expedited appeals process is necessary.

33

34 Within 5 business days of being informed of the suspension or dismissal, the adjunct faculty member 

35 must write to the provost and the president of Faculty Council, stating the adjunct’s intent to appeal. 

36 Within 10 business days of submitting the written notice of intent to appeal, the adjunct faculty member 

37 will submit his or her supporting documentation. Within 5 business days of receipt of this 

38 documentation, the chair of the Faculty Committee on Appeals will convene the preliminary review by 

39 the Appeals Board.

40

41 The written recommendation from the Appeals Board must be completed and sent to the provost within 

42 10 business days of the preliminary review. An allegation of discrimination will follow the timeline used 

43 in University EEO Resources. The provost must issue a final decision no later than 5 business days after 

44 receipt of the Appeals Board’s written recommendation.

45

46 All review procedures are to be carried out as expeditiously and reasonably as possible, consistent with 

47 obtaining sound judgments and qualified, balanced review panels. All time guidelines set forth above are 

48 to be construed as maximums.

49

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 102 of 188 PageID #:102
July 1, 2018

16

1 A failure by the affected adjunct faculty member to adhere to any time guidelines, except under 

2 extraordinary circumstance, shall result in forfeiture of all review rights. A failure by the Appeals Board 

3 or provost to adhere to any time guidelines, except under extraordinary circumstances, shall result in the 

4 adjunct faculty member being paid the amount due under the original contract appointment.

5

6 5.1.5 Other Faculty

7 Faculty with special appointments (as defined in 2.3.3) may not appeal reappointment or dismissal during 

8 their contract terms.

9 5.2 Grievances

10

11 Grievance procedures are available to all faculty (including all full-time and adjunct faculty) for issues 

12 other than denial of promotion and tenure, dismissal, nonrenewal, and non-reappointment. The grievance 

13 must be filed by the individual adversely affected by the decision.

14

15 Grievances are to be conducted in accordance with the procedures specified below. 

16

17 5.2.1 Definition

18

19 A grievance is a written complaint concerning a decision made by a person with authority in the 

20 university. Grievances are limited strictly to the questioned decision and are open only to the persons 

21 directly and adversely affected by that decision. Grievances may not be used to question or change policy. 

22 A decision being grieved remains in effect unless the decision is suspended.

23

24 A decision is grievable if it meets all of the three following criteria: 

25

26 1. It adversely affects the interests of an individual;

27 2. The affected individual is being treated differently from other persons of similar 

28 circumstances or the decision violates any policy of the university or the relevant academic unit; 

29 and 

30

31 3. There is insufficient justification for the different treatment or the failure to comply with 

32 policy. 

33

34 Specifically outside the scope of the grievance process are:

35

36 1. University policies.

37

38 2. Policy crafted by a deliberative faculty body. 

39

40 3. Allegations of violations of the university’s Anti-discrimination and Anti-harassment 

41 policy, which are handled by University EEO Resources. 

42

43 Persons involved in the grievance process may share information concerning the process and substance of 

44 a grievance with other persons having a legitimate need for the information. Wider distribution creates 

45 potential risks to fairness and privacy. The grievance process is a key element of the university’s shared 

46 governance. Deterioration of fairness and privacy, or even the perception of deterioration, would 

47 undermine the effectiveness of the university’s faculty grievance process. 

48

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 103 of 188 PageID #:103
July 1, 2018

17

1 A tenured faculty member has the right to a formal grievance hearing after the fact if suspended by the 

2 provost without a prior hearing (Chapter 4, Section 4.4).

3

4 5.2.2 Procedures for Faculty Grievances

5

6 Prior to initiating a formal grievance, a faculty member should seek to resolve complaints with the 

7 individual who made the decision in question. 

8

9 A formal grievance must be filed in writing with the faculty member’s dean within 60 days after 

10 communication of the decision.

11

12 The grievance procedure has two steps: 

13

14 1. Formal administrative grievance process

15

16 2. Faculty Grievance Board process

17

18 Faculty grievances begin with formal administrative process. This must be completed before the faculty 

19 member proceeds to the Faculty Grievance Board. 

20

21 If a faculty member alleges discrimination at any point in a grievance, the dean or the Grievance Board 

22 must refer the grievance to University EEO Resources which, in consultation with the dean (if raised 

23 during the formal administrative process) or Grievance Board (if raised during the Grievance Board), will 

24 conduct an investigation and submit a report to the dean or Grievance Board in a timely manner.

25

26 5.2.2.1 Administrative Grievance Process 

27

28 The dean of a college conducts the formal administrative grievance process. If the grievance challenges a 

29 decision of the faculty member’s dean, the grievance will be heard by another dean selected by the 

30 provost with approval of the aggrieved faculty member. 

31

32 Throughout the formal administrative grievance process, the burden of proof rests on the faculty member.

33

34 The faculty member must submit to the dean hearing the grievance a written statement explaining: 

35

36 1. the precise nature of the grievance 

37

38 2. information and evidence supporting the faculty member’s position 

39

40 3. a description of all informal attempts to resolve the complaint and the reasons why any 

41 proposed resolutions identified during the informal procedures were unsatisfactory to the 

42 faculty member, and 

43

44 4. the remedies that the faculty member would consider satisfactory. 

45

46 At the same time, the faculty member will provide a copy to the individual whose decision is being 

47 challenged. That individual may submit a written statement to the dean within ten business days of 

48 receipt of the faculty member’s statement, with a copy to the faculty member.

49

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 104 of 188 PageID #:104
July 1, 2018

18

1 The dean hearing the grievance provides a written report to the faculty member and the individual whose

2 decision is being challenged within thirty calendar days after receiving their written statements. In the 

3 written report, the dean shall state the decision and what action, if any, is required to implement the 

4 decision. 

5

6 Either party may appeal the dean’s decision to the provost within ten business days of receiving the 

7 decision. The appeal must be in writing and supported by reasons for not accepting the dean’s decision. 

8 The appealing party must provide the other party with a copy of the appeal to the provost. The provost

9 may conduct another review and. will enter a written decision, within thirty calendar days after receipt of 

10 the appeal. The provost must send the written decision to both parties.

11

12 5.2.2.2 Grievance Board Procedures

13

14 If the faculty member who filed the grievance is unsatisfied with the provost’s decision, he or she may, 

15 within ten business days of receiving the provost’s decision, refer that decision to the judgment of faculty 

16 peers. The faculty member must submit a written request to the president of the Faculty Council to direct 

17 the Faculty Council Committee on Committees to select three tenured faculty members to serve as a 

18 Grievance Board. For a term or adjunct faculty grievance, the Committee on Committees will select a 

19 corresponding term or adjunct faculty member who will act as a non-voting consultant to the Grievance 

20 Board. The role of the consultant will be to provide expertise on issues that uniquely affect adjunct or 

21 term faculty. Faculty chosen for the Grievance Board may not serve in a grievant’s local academic unit or 

22 have a significant personal relationship with the grievant. In cases brought to a Grievance Board, the 

23 burden of proof rests on the faculty member to establish that the administrative decision was unfair.

24

25 Within five business days of the establishment of the Grievance Board, the faculty member must submit

26 to the Grievance Board and the provost a statement indicating the reasons why the decision of the provost 

27 is unfair. The provost may submit a response to the faculty member’s statement within an additional five 

28 business days. The Grievance Board must request, and the provost must provide, the written record of the 

29 formal administrative process. New complaints, new evidence, and other new matters not addressed 

30 during the formal administrative process may not be introduced for the first time to the Grievance Board. 

31 Preliminary Review

32 Upon receipt of the faculty member’s grievance submission, the chair of the Grievance Board shall 

33 schedule the grievance for a preliminary review by the Grievance Board as soon as practicable. The 

34 Grievance Board has sole and unreviewable discretion whether to schedule the preliminary review 

35 meeting during the spring or summer break or wait until the university is back in regular session.

36

37 At the preliminary review meeting, the Grievance Board will determine:

38

39 1. whether the grievance is timely;

40

41 2. whether the matter grieved about is grievable under the procedures;

42

43 3. whether the formal administrative grievance process has been followed; and 

44

45 4. whether the grievance materials submitted to the Grievance Board, if fully 

46 substantiated after investigation, could reasonably be found to satisfy the criteria set forth 

47 in this chapter. 

48

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 105 of 188 PageID #:105
July 1, 2018

19

1 If the Grievance Board decides by a simple majority that the grievance is not timely, is not grievable, did 

2 not follow the formal administrative grievance process, or could not reasonably be found to satisfy the 

3 criteria, the Grievance Board will forward its written decision to the provost, with a copy to the faculty 

4 member. The decision must state the reasons for not considering the grievance.

5 Investigation and Review

6 If, after the preliminary review, the Grievance Board determines that the grievance warrants further 

7 consideration, the Grievance Board will conduct a review. If, in the opinion of the Grievance Board, the 

8 materials already submitted are not sufficient to make a determination, the Grievance Board may request 

9 interviews with, or materials from, the faculty member or other individuals named in the grievance. The 

10 Grievance Board may take any other reasonable actions that it deems appropriate or helpful to its 

11 deliberations. 

12

13

14 The Grievance Board will prepare a written report of its findings and recommendation, including the 

15 majority and any minority views. The Grievance Board will forward the report to the president, with 

16 copies provided to the faculty member and the provost. 

17

18 If a tenured faculty member has grieved over a sanction imposed on him or her and if the Grievance 

19 Board declines to affirm the grievance, the faculty member may ask the president to make a final 

20 determination. Otherwise, the decision of the Grievance Board is final. 

21

22 If implementing the decision of the Grievance Board requires financial resources beyond what is usually 

23 and customarily allocated to similarly situated faculty, the Grievance Board shall seek the approval of the 

24 provost. If the provost does not approve the expenditure on the ground that sufficient resources are not 

25 immediately available, the provost must provide in writing a reasonable timeline for implementing the 

26 Grievance Board’s decision or seek mutually agreed upon alternative ways to address the inequity or 

27 remedy the unfair decision against the grievant.

28

29 5.3. Right to Review Personnel Records

30

31 Illinois law governs the right of employees to review their own personnel records. University policy 

32 establishes the process for requesting such records.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 106 of 188 PageID #:106
July 1, 2018

1

1

2 CHAPTER 6. FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

3

4 6.1 Academic Freedom...................................................................................................... 3

5 6.2 Diversity Guidelines ..................................................................................................... 3

6 6.3 Academic Support......................................................................................................... 3

7 6.3.1 Faculty Development and Research....................................................................... 3

8 6.3.2 Memberships.......................................................................................................... 4

9 6.3.3 Travel Expenses..................................................................................................... 5

10 6.4 Faculty Responsibilities................................................................................................ 5

11 6.4.1 Members of the Academic Profession ................................................................... 5

12 6.4.2 Members of DePaul University ............................................................................. 6

13 6.4.3 Teacher of Students................................................................................................ 6

14 6.4.4 Academic Administrators ...................................................................................... 6

15 6.5 Instructional Responsibilities....................................................................................... 7

16 6.5.1 Class Attendance................................................................................................... 7

17 6.5.2 Class Cancellation.................................................................................................. 7

18 6.5.3 Inability to Meet a Class/Substitute Teaching ...................................................... 7

19 6.5.4 Class Hours............................................................................................................ 8

20 6.5.5 Syllabus Requirements........................................................................................... 8

21 6.5.6 Course Examinations............................................................................................ 8

22 6.5.7 Time for Submitting Final Grades........................................................................ 8

23 6.6 Workload....................................................................................................................... 8

24 6.6.1 Faculty Assignments............................................................................................. 9

25 6.6.2 Responsibility for Assignments............................................................................ 9

26 6.6.3 Teaching................................................................................................................ 9

27 6.6.3.1 Full-time and Part-time Faculty...................................................................... 9

28 6.6.3.2 Administrators................................................................................................ 9

29 6.6.3.3 Graduate Assistants and Fellows................................................................. 10

30 6.6.3.4 Summer Session Assignments..................................................................... 10

31 6.6.4 Activities Outside the University........................................................................ 10

32 6.7 Leaves of Absence ...................................................................................................... 11

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 107 of 188 PageID #:107
July 1, 2018

2

1 6.8 Salaries........................................................................................................................ 12

2 6.9 Academic Policies....................................................................................................... 12

3 6.10 Establishing a New University Policy ...................................................................... 12

4

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 108 of 188 PageID #:108
July 1, 2018

3

1 CHAPTER 6. FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

2

3

4 DePaul University generally follows AAUP guidelines, except in instances where a policy is 

5 otherwise defined in this Handbook.

6

7 6.1 Academic Freedom

8

9 DePaul accords academic freedom a prominent position as an integral part of the university’s 

10 scholarly and religious heritage. The university attempts to create an environment in which 

11 persons engaged in learning and research exercise this freedom and respect it in others as 

12 contributing to the God-given dignity of individual persons and enhancing the academic process. 

13 University precept and tradition protect this freedom from infringement. Not only the faculty but 

14 also students and other members of the university community enjoy this freedom as they 

15 participate in the various forms of open inquiry and debate, as for example, classroom 

16 presentation and discussion, research and publication, public statements made as a citizen in 

17 one’s own name, and other forms of creative expression.

18

19 DePaul University is guided by the AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom 

20 and Tenure (with 1970 Interpretive Comments). However, the university expressly reserves the 

21 right to amend, alter, modify, and delete the same with the assent of the Faculty Council.

22

23 6.2 Diversity Guidelines

24

25 DePaul University has a long-standing commitment to ethnic and cultural diversity of its faculty, 

26 staff, and student body. As a university with a strong Catholic and Vincentian heritage, this 

27 commitment is particularly integral to our mission. It is also recognized that a multicultural 

28 experience is an essential part of DePaul.

29

30 Consistent with the Catholic and Vincentian heritage, DePaul University is committed to 

31 preserving an environment that respects the personal rights and dignity of each member of the 

32 community. Therefore, DePaul University does not tolerate harassment or discrimination, as, for 

33 example, set forth in the Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy and Procedures.

34

35 6.3 Academic Support

36

37 6.3.1 Faculty Development and Research 

38 Since the university’s mission statement places “highest priority on programs of instruction and 

39 learning.” To further this objective, university sponsors a variety of professional development 

40 programs and awards recognizing outstanding achievement in teaching, scholarship, and/or 

41 creative activities, and service. Development opportunities and awards include, among others: 

42

43 • Paid faculty leaves

44 • University Excellence in Teaching Award

45 • Spirit of Inquiry Award

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 109 of 188 PageID #:109
July 1, 2018

4

1 • Competitive instructional grants

2 • Summer stipends

3 • Departmental initiative grants

4 • Competitive research grants

5 • Research conference program.

6

7 The Office of Faculty Development & Research seeks to fulfill the university’s commitment to 

8 academic excellence by developing teacher/scholars at all academic career levels. The Office has 

9 responsibility for programs, resources, and guidelines that support development, promotion, and 

10 retention of talented and diverse faculty. Through the Office of Faculty Development & 

11 Research, the provost provides internal grants to support faculty development initiatives and 

12 sponsors awards to recognize outstanding faculty achievements. 

13 The Office of Faculty Development and Research provides university-wide support for faculty 

14 development through the Quality of Instruction Council (QIC), the University Research Council 

15 (URC), and the Public Service Council (PSC). The Associate Vice President for the Office of 

16 Faculty Development and Research chairs the three councils, which are composed of faculty and 

17 academic administrators.

18 The Office also sponsors other opportunities, including new faculty orientation, tenure and paid19 leave workshops, and select international faculty language immersion programs. All programs 

20 are intentionally competitive in nature to ensure the best use of available funds and to encourage 

21 the development of proposal-writing skills. Applications regularly exceed available funding, and 

22 applicants are encouraged to submit well-crafted projects that advance their scholarly objectives. 

23 Faculty grants, awards, stipends, and leaves are peer reviewed by one of three academic councils. 

24 The Associate Vice President for Faculty Development & Research chairs all three academic 

25 councils. Council members are appointed by Faculty Council. The University Research Council 

26 (URC) reviews and awards research grants, leaves, and the Spirit of Inquiry Awards. The Quality 

27 of Instruction Council (QIC) reviews and awards instructional grants and leaves and the 

28 Excellence in Teaching Awards. The Public Service Council (PSC) reviews and awards 

29 instructional and research grants related to service learning courses and university-community 

30 research projects. The PSC also reviews Excellence in Public Service Awards.

31 A more complete listing of professional development initiatives and guidelines can be found at 

32 the Office of Faculty Development and Research. 

33

34 6.3.2 Memberships

35

36 Although professional membership fees are the responsibility of individual faculty, the university 

37 may reimburse individual a full-time faculty member up to $50.00 per membership for up to three 

38 professional organizations per year, provided that the faculty member pays the first $25 of each 

39 fee. The university does not pay for memberships in private clubs except with the president’s 

40 approval. 

41

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 110 of 188 PageID #:110
July 1, 2018

5

1 6.3.3 Travel Expenses

2

3 The university provides each academic unit with a travel budget to support faculty participation in 

4 meetings of learned societies. Top priority for travel support belongs to the faculty member who 

5 presents a paper, serves on a panel, acts as an officer of the society, represents the university (on 

6 the authority or request of the chair or dean) in recruiting faculty, or serves in another official 

7 capacity. Travel support is provided only from travel funds within the budget of the academic unit 

8 and upon approval of the chair or dean, who is responsible for distributing travel funds among the 

9 faculty who travel in an official role. Depending on the amount of money available in the travel 

10 budget and the demands for these funds, the faculty members may receive partial or no support.

11

12 Travel compensation may be given for national or regional meetings. For meetings in the 

13 metropolitan Chicago area, support is limited to incidentals such as registration fees. In all 

14 instances, the university reimburses actual expenses for allowable items.

15 Faculty who attend meetings without taking one of the active roles listed above are usually 

16 expected to cover their own expenses. However, if travel funds remain in the budget, the chair or 

17 dean may approve support for not more than half of the travel expenses. Faculty members are 

18 encouraged to plan travel as far in advance as possible and to keep chairs and deans advised to 

19 these plans before budgets are prepared. For specific procedures, forms and guidelines, see the 

20 Office of Financial Affairs.

21

22 6.4 Faculty Responsibilities

23

24 Membership in the academic profession, in professional societies and associations of higher 

25 education, and in DePaul University entails special responsibilities. The more important of these 

26 responsibilities are summarized here as a code of professional ethics. They are subject to 

27 amendment from time to time through appropriate university action. Failure to comply with these 

28 responsibilities renders a faculty member liable to appropriate sanction within the procedural 

29 safeguards and provision for peer judgment.

30

31 6.4.1 Members of the Academic Profession

32

33 As a member of the academic profession, the faculty member has these obligations:

34

35 1. To seek truth; to improve scholarly competencies for this purpose; to engage in 

36 productive scholarship, research or other creative activities; and to uphold the scholarly 

37 standards of one’s academic discipline.

38 2. To practice intellectual honesty; to acknowledge academic debts to others; and to 

39 exercise impartiality in passing professional judgments on colleagues.

40 3. To respect the rights of other persons to hold and express different intellectual positions; 

41 and to protect the rights, well-being, and privacy of persons involved in scientific inquiry.

42 4. To be accurate in making public statements in one’s own name and to be mindful that in 

43 making such statements the public may judge the faculty member’s profession and 

44 institution from these statements.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 111 of 188 PageID #:111
July 1, 2018

6

1

2 6.4.2 Members of DePaul University

3

4 As members of DePaul University, the faculty member has these obligations:

5

6 1. To respect the religious character of the university and the religious beliefs of persons 

7 affiliated with the university.

8 2. To adhere to non-discriminatory norms in [interacting with other university personnel].

9 3. To preserve confidentiality in personnel and administrative deliberations when 

10 confidentiality is explicitly required.

11 4. To avoid unauthorized use of university resources or facilities for personal, commercial,

12 or political purposes.

13 5. To assume a fair share of faculty responsibilities for university governance and to accept 

14 and fulfill committee appointments and other responsibilities associated with faculty 

15 status.

16 6. To comply with duly approved regulations and procedures.

17 7. To attend general university commencements and convocations.

18

19 6.4.3 Teacher of Students

20

21 As a teacher, a faculty member has these obligations:

22

23 1. To present to students subject matter compatible with course descriptions appearing in 

24 official university bulletins and catalogues; to avoid significant intrusion of material 

25 unrelated to the course; and to meet classes and hold examinations as scheduled.

26 2. To evaluate students only on the basis of academic performance and to evaluate their 

27 work without undue or unexcused delay.

28 3. To hold office hours, to be available to students enrolled in the faculty member’s courses,

29 and to serve as a faculty advisor to other students according to the policies of the 

30 academic unit.

31 4. To avoid any exploitation of students for personal advantage or any coercion of the 

32 judgment or conscience of students.

33

34 6.4.4 Academic Administrators

35

36 A member of the faculty who holds an administrative position has these obligations:

37

38 1. To establish adequate means of communication for matters that materially affect the 

39 members of the particular academic unit and to be reasonably available for the faculty 

40 and staff of the unit.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 112 of 188 PageID #:112
July 1, 2018

7

1 2. To provide opportunity for joint planning and effort where appropriate and to set up and 

2 apply the structures necessary for joint action.

3 3. To make personnel decisions impartially; to give responses as soon as circumstances 

4 allow; and to give reasons for refusing a request if asked to do so by the person refused 

5 unless the disclosure of the reason would breach confidentiality.

6 4. To remain current with developments in higher education related to the sphere of the 

7 particular administrative position.

8

9 6.5 Instructional Responsibilities 

10

11 At times it is important for faculty to convey messages to students through announcements made 

12 in class. Instructors’ cooperation in making these announcements is appreciated.

13 6.5.1 Class Attendance

14

15 Instructors are expected to take attendance during the first week of class and again after receipt of 

16 an “update” roster (approximately the fifth week of class). This helps academic officers to 

17 identify and correct errors before grade sheets are printed. Individual faculty have the prerogative 

18 to establish course attendance guidelines. These should be stated in the course syllabus.

19

20 6.5.2 Class Cancellation

21

22 It is imperative that instructors meet classes for each scheduled class. In the event that an 

23 instructor is unable to attend a class because of illness or unplanned absence, he/she must inform 

24 the local academic unit officer at the first opportunity. The local academic unit officer will then 

25 make arrangements to provide continued student learning during the instructor’s absence.

26

27 6.5.3 Inability to Meet a Class/Substitute Teaching

28

29 A faculty member who is unable to meet a class is responsible for seeing that students are not 

30 thereby deprived of learning opportunities. This responsibility may be met by scheduling the 

31 necessary number of make-up classes at a time convenient to the students, requesting the 

32 assignment of a substitute instructor, or making other appropriate arrangements. In all instances 

33 of absence, the faculty member must inform the local academic unit officer of the facts regarding 

34 the absence, the reasons for it, and the measures taken to provide the students with the requisite 

35 learning experiences. The local academic unit officer may require the faculty member to provide 

36 this information in writing.

37

38 If a class is to be cancelled, the instructor shall inform the students beforehand, if at all possible. 

39 When the students have not been informed, the local academic unit officer will attempt to let the 

40 students know that the class has been cancelled, particularly an evening class attended 

41 predominantly by part-time students.

42

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 113 of 188 PageID #:113
July 1, 2018

8

1 6.5.4 Class Hours

2

3 It is essential that students have a minimum of three hours of contact time per week with their 

4 instructor in each four quarter hour course. Faculty members are expected to conduct class for the 

5 full period and to begin and end at scheduled times.

6

7 6.5.5 Syllabus Requirements 

8

9 All faculty are required to prepare written course syllabi for each course they teach at DePaul. At 

10 a minimum, syllabi should contain the following information:

11

12 1. A rationale for the course stated in the context of the aims of the local academic unit;

13 2. A statement on the types of instruction (i.e., lecture; lecture-discussion; lab; etc.);

14 3. Specific materials required for the course (books, pamphlets, library materials, etc.);

15 4. Proposed major and minor topics to be covered in the course;

16 5. Specific required readings, and written and oral assignments (inclusion of tentative dates 

17 for such assignments is desirable);

18 6. Specific descriptions of the criteria and methods to be used by the instructor in 

19 evaluating students’ academic performance, such as the nature of quizzes and 

20 examinations;

21 7. Statement on plagiarism; and,

22 8. Instructor’s office number and office hours for the term in which the course is being 

23 offered.

24 Each faculty member must, by the first class session, make available to each student a copy of the 

25 syllabus that satisfies the guidelines outlined above. A copy must be submitted to the college or 

26 school.

27

28 6.5.6 Course Examinations

29

30 In all courses at the midpoint of the quarter, students will be informed of their achievement to 

31 date. Normally courses conclude with a final examination. To provide additional flexibility for 

32 faculty members, a formal mid-term or final examination is not required if the instructor has other 

33 comparable ways of evaluating student achievement.

34

35 6.5.7 Time for Submitting Final Grades

36

37 As a matter of administrative policy, all final grades are to be submitted within five business days 

38 of the last examination in all academic units of the university, except for the College of Law, 

39 which follows a different calendar.

40

41 6.6 Workload

42

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 114 of 188 PageID #:114
July 1, 2018

9

1 6.6.1 Faculty Assignments

2

3 Formal assignments comprise only part of a faculty member’s academic life. As professionals, 

4 faculty members are expected to engage in many activities that are not official duties, particularly 

5 those that contribute to the good of the public and the university, their academic discipline, and 

6 their own professional development.

7

8 6.6.2 Responsibility for Assignments

9

10 The local academic unit officer makes faculty assignments, subject to approval by the dean. 

11

12 6.6.3 Teaching

13

14 6.6.3.1 Full-time and Part-time Faculty

15

16 The primary function of DePaul University is instruction; hence, teaching constitutes the majority 

17 of faculty assignments. The normal teaching load is nine full courses per academic year, usually 

18 three per quarter. Exceptions may arise if, for example, the established policy of a given academic 

19 unit or a particular faculty contract specifies the contrary. This load may be reduced if particular 

20 faculty courses place especially extensive demands on faculty time or if faculty members receive 

21 formal assignment in other functions. Only in exceptional instances is a faculty member asked to 

22 teach more than a normal load. In such instances, the faculty member receives additional 

23 compensation not less than the salary paid to a part-time faculty member for teaching a 

24 comparable course.

25

26 A teaching assignment may include student advisement, which requires that faculty members 

27 keep a sufficient number of regularly scheduled office hours at times that are of mutual 

28 convenience and appropriate for the needs of the students. A teaching assignment also entails 

29 services normally associated with faculty status and responsibilities. Supervision of independent 

30 study is entirely voluntary and is not calculated as part of the teaching load. Faculty receive no 

31 pay for supervising independent study. However, supervision of independent study is considered 

32 as an element of faculty performance in evaluations for salary adjustment, contract renewal, and 

33 tenure or promotion.

34

35 Faculty assignments to off-campus instruction generally are incorporated into the regular teaching 

36 load, warranting no additional compensation. Part-time faculty may be assigned to off-campus 

37 instruction on the same basis as on-campus assignments.

38

39 6.6.3.2 Administrators

40

41 Administrators may have teaching assignments; however, they normally are not entitled to 

42 additional compensation for teaching. Administrators or staff personnel whose responsibilities do 

43 not include teaching, and who almost invariably do not have faculty status, may, in special 

44 instances, be assigned to teach a course. This teaching assignment is normally considered an 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 115 of 188 PageID #:115
July 1, 2018

10

1 integral part of the person’s responsibilities for which the university provides no additional 

2 compensation. 

3

4 Should another higher education institution invite an administrator to teach a course, he or she 

5 would be under the same restrictions applicable to faculty teaching outside the university.

6

7 Administrative personnel who have faculty status may receive a teaching assignment during the 

8 summer session. As the university considers the assignment to replace some administrative 

9 functions during this period, the administrator is not entitled to additional compensation.

10

11 6.6.3.3 Graduate Assistants and Fellows

12

13 Assignment of full responsibility of teaching a course is limited to persons who have full-time or 

14 part-time faculty appointments in the university. In exceptional cases a graduate assistant may be 

15 given such an assignment if the graduate assistant is in a doctoral program and has already 

16 successfully completed the Master’s degree or its equivalent.

17

18 6.6.3.4 Summer Session Assignments

19

20 Faculty members with 10-month contracts may accept or decline courses offered to them during 

21 the summer.

22

23 6.6.4 Activities Outside the University

24

25 Faculty members are encouraged to pursue activities outside the university that contribute to 

26 DePaul’s mission, including social, civic, and religious activities, and service to one’s professions 

27 and professional associations. However, because a full-time faculty appointment implies a full 

28 commitment to DePaul University, outside activities must conform to the following limits:

29

30 1. They must not interfere with the faculty member’s commitment to the full academic life 

31 of the university, including teaching, research, student advisement, governance, and 

32 related responsibilities.

33 2. During the regular academic year, the faculty member must give precedence to university 

34 responsibilities.

35 3. Two additional limits apply to outside activities for which the faculty member receives 

36 remuneration:

37

38 • They must be professional activities that contribute to the professional development 

39 of the faculty member or provide expertise to the community; and

40

41 • Over the course of a year, they must not exceed the equivalent of one day per work 

42 week.

43

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 116 of 188 PageID #:116
July 1, 2018

11

1 4. The faculty member will arrange privately for whatever support services his or her 

2 outside activities may require. Only with prior approval of the dean may a faculty 

3 member enlist the services of university personnel or employ university supplies and 

4 equipment for outside activities.

5

6 5. Each January, faculty members must submit an annual report on their work-related 

7 activities with any outside firm, agency, or institution if they (i) serve on a continuing 

8 basis as a consultant or in a similar role; (ii) are continuing members or officers of the 

9 outside entity, or (iii) normally provide services for the outside entity at least once a 

10 week, even if for less than a full day. The report goes to the dean, with a copy to the 

11 local academic unit officer in colleges organized into departments.

12

13 6. The faculty member is primarily responsible for determining whether outside activities 

14 are compatible with the responsibilities of a faculty member. Nevertheless, the dean must 

15 ultimately decide whether a faculty member’s outside activities conform to the limits 

16 enumerated above. Deans may place specific restrictions on outside activities in order to 

17 satisfy policy requirements.

18

19 7. Teaching at another higher education institution while under contract at DePaul is 

20 permitted only in those specific instances for which the dean has given written approval.

21

22 8. Material violation of this policy is considered a violation of the faculty contract and could 

23 be cause for abrogation of contract and termination of tenure in accordance with the 

24 policies and procedures in Chapter 4.

25 6.7 Leaves of Absence

26

27 Leaves of absence may be granted for advanced study and research, a temporary position 

28 elsewhere compatible with one held at DePaul, medical need or disability in accordance with 

29 university policy, or personal reasons. The duration of a leave may be a full academic year or one 

30 or more terms. Only in exceptional cases will a leave be granted for more than one year.

31 Non-medical leaves are generally granted without salary. For other types of leave, the salary is

32 reduced by one-third for each quarter of leave; for faculty of the College of Law, salary is

33 reduced by one-half for each semester of leave.

34 University sponsored paid leaves are available through the Quality of Instruction Council and the 

35 University Research Council. These types of leaves have their own unique policies and 

36 procedures. For further details, please see the guidelines and applications forms for the Quality of 

37 Instruction Council and University Research Council. 

38 A request for a full year of leave should be submitted in writing on or before January 15 of the 

39 preceding academic year. A request for leave for an academic term should be submitted in writing 

40 no later than the beginning of the term preceding the one for which leave is sought.

41 The local academic unit officer, the college dean, and the provost must approve a leave. They 

42 consider, among other factors, the effect of the faculty member’s absence on the department or 

43 college and the possibility of finding a qualified replacement on a temporary basis. In granting 

44 leaves, the university accords priority to projects that will contribute to the faculty member’s 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 117 of 188 PageID #:117
July 1, 2018

12

1 professional development and to projects for which the faculty member has obtained funding 

2 from external sources. The university does not normally grant simultaneous leaves to more than 

3 one faculty member of an academic unit.

4

5 University policies and procedures on renewal and termination apply to faculty on leave. 

6 Information regarding the continuation of employee benefits during a leave is available in the 

7 Office of Human Resources and should be confirmed prior to the start of the leave.

8 If a college or department sponsors a separate leave program, a faculty member can obtain details 

9 through the college or departmental office.

10 6.8 Salaries

11

12 The university makes decisions regarding salary in accordance with its budget guidelines.

13 Normally, salary decisions result in a merit increase and, when budgets permit, may include 

14 increases for such things as equity and market adjustments. The salary recommendation is made 

15 by the college dean.

16

17 Full-time faculty are paid on a biweekly basis in twenty-six payments per fiscal year. Part-time 

18 faculty are paid biweekly during each quarter in which they are teaching (usually five pay periods 

19 per quarter). During summer sessions, faculty are paid in two or three equal payments per 

20 summer session. The Payroll Department determines payroll dates.

21

22 6.9 Academic Policies

23

24 In fulfillment of its governance role as defined in section 1.2.1 of the Faculty Handbook: Primary 

25 Responsibilities of the Faculty, Faculty Council has its own proper guidelines to govern the 

26 creation of academic policies, leading to approval of proposed policies and policy revisions by 

27 the President. 

28 After approval of policies and procedures that fall within Faculty Council’s areas of 

29 responsibility, the documents should be integrated into the university’s online policy and 

30 procedures manual. While the President and the Board of Trustees have authority to reverse 

31 faculty decisions that fall within areas of primary faculty responsibility, the university expects 

32 that they would do so only in exceptional circumstances and would communicate the reasons to 

33 the faculty.

34 6.10 Establishing a New University Policy

35 Except with respect to the establishment of academic policies under Faculty Council authority, 

36 the Office of the Secretary coordinates the establishment, archiving, revision, approval, and 

37 publication of all university policies and procedures. 

38 Details on academic policy and process appear on the University Policies and Procedures web 

39 site.

40

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 118 of 188 PageID #:118
Exhibit 2

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 119 of 188 PageID #:119
COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION RECOMMENDATION OF CONTINUATION 

OR TERMINATION OF UNTENURED FACULTY CONTRACT 

TO: Salma Ghanem, Dean, College of Communication 

FROM: Personnel Committee, College of Communication 

DATE: March 7, 2015 

SUBJECT: College Recommendation on Lisa Calvente 

FACULTY MEMBER'S RANK: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 

START DATE OF TENURE-TRACK CONTRACT: 2011-2012 

CREDIT FOR PRIOR TEACHING: NONE 

PROBATIONARY YEAR AT DEPAUL: FOURTH1

HIGHEST ACADEMIC DEGREE RECEIVED: Ph.D

PERSONNEL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: TERMINATION

VOTES IN FAVOR OF RETENTION 1

VOTES AGAINST RETENTION 6

PERSONNEL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROGRESS 

TOWARD TENURE: 

YES: 0 NO: 7 In Teaching 

YES: 0 NO: 7 In Research

YES: 5 NO: 2 In Service

TENURED FACULTY SUPPORT FOR RECOMMENDATION: 

VOTES IN FAVOR 

VOTES AGAINST 

TENURED FACULTY SUPPORT FOR RECOMMENDATION REGARDING 

PROGRESS TOWARD TENURE: 

COLLEGE RECOMMENDATION AND RATIONALE: 

Based on a thorough review of her credentials in the areas of teaching, research, and 

service, the Personnel Committee and the tenured faculty of the College of 

Communication recommend that Lisa Calvente’s contract not be renewed. The 

Personnel Committee finds that Lisa is making poor progress towards tenure in the area 

1 We are awaiting confirmation about whether this is the third or fourth year of Lisa’s probationary 

period.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 120 of 188 PageID #:120
of teaching, poor progress towards tenure in the area of research, and fair to good 

progress towards tenure in the area of service.

TEACHING

In order to assess the effectiveness of Lisa’s teaching, the Personnel Committee 

examined undergraduate and graduate course materials, peer observation reports 

and teaching evaluations from the past two years. Additional information about 

Lisa's teaching was solicited from past course enrollees through the Personnel 

Committee student representative. Finally, members of the Committee discussed 

teaching with Lisa in an interview setting. 

Since arriving at DePaul, Lisa has taught six graduate level (or undergraduate cross 

listed) courses and five undergraduate courses, six of which were new offerings for 

the college. Her courses regularly engage the cross section of cultural studies, race, 

media, and performance theory, serving a range of needs for the college and 

university—most directly the Organizational and Multicultural MA program, the 

undergraduate intercultural major, and the Liberal Studies Sophomore Seminar on 

multiculturalism. In her 2013 formal review, Lisa’s teaching was evaluated as 

good/very good, marking several developing strengths, while noting specific 

concerns about course organization and the reference to students feeling 

intimidated in the student representative report. 

Previous problems identified in teaching have grown more significant since the last 

review period, eliciting very strong concerns regarding Lisa’s approach to general 

student learning, her commitment to each DePaul student, and the classroom 

environment she fosters. In terms of quantitative measures, Lisa’s evaluations have 

been consistently strong, routinely keeping in close range to the college’s very high 

numbers. Qualitatively, however, Lisa’s course evaluations indicate a range of 

recurrent and somewhat polarizing themes. Evaluations suggest that a strong 

number of students appreciate the rigor and demands of her courses, while other 

students experience the course climate to be intimidating and unwelcoming to 

diverse opinion and perspective. One student from her Winter 2014 INTC 308 

course raved, “I've taken many classes with Dr. Calvente, and if I could, I would load 

my course schedule with nothing but her classes. She pushes students to think 

critically in ways that are rarely demanded of undergraduate students. Just when 

I've thought I completely grasped a concept, Dr. Calvente would reveal that I've just 

scratched the surface.” These types of highly enthusiastic statements make 

appearances in many of her course evaluations, although there is an additional 

trend that suggests some students struggle to find their voices and feel diminished 

in her courses. In the same Winter 2014 INTC 308 course, another student wrote 

that the “Instructor often made students feel inferior. She rolled her eyes at some 

questions asked and often misunderstood students concerns. Students eventually 

became afraid to speak at all in fear of ridicule.”

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 121 of 188 PageID #:121
While the majority of Lisa’s course evaluations repeat both themes of adamant 

support/appreciation with feelings of intimidation and dismissal, this tension is 

elevated in her lower level core classes (CMN 103, INTC 230, LSP 200). As these are 

required courses for many students, the academic interests of the students in these 

courses is likely more diverse and varied. In her Fall 2014 CMN 103 course, several 

students note the helpfulness of the course for encouraging them to see the world 

from more critical perspectives. However, many students also made reference to the 

negative classroom climate, suggesting it lacked encouragement, felt intimidating, 

was experienced as silencing, and was perceived as “hostile.” One student 

commented, “Dr. Calvente was insistent on students dropping the class on the first 

day and was shocked when student’s hadn’t the second day.” In the personnel 

interview, Lisa was asked about those students who might feel disenfranchised from 

the class, and she replied “Most students drop. I advise them to drop.” The 

committee was deeply troubled about our students experiencing this level of 

hostility and intimidation on the first day of class, suggesting all DePaul students are 

not wanted in our classrooms. Lisa disagreed, stating, “Telling them to drop is 

honest.” The personnel committee does not have access to an instructor’s drop 

rates, and so there is not a quantitative number to detail what is meant when she 

says “most students drop.” When asked to clarify this approach in a required college 

core course, where many of our students have demanding work and course 

schedules that limit their flexibility and require they enroll in a specific class offered 

on a particular day or time, she explained, “If it’s scary, they should drop. I say go to 

another class. I have a lot of colleagues you can take this class from.” In response to 

student feedback about intimidation, the committee asked if there were parts of her 

teaching she felt she needed to work on. She did say she might email students who 

were not participating in class, but clarified, “Are you asking me, do I want them all 

in my class? No, not really.” Referencing her students in response to questions about 

how she seeks to support students who are struggling or seem disenfranchised, Lisa 

replied, “They have to approach me. That is their job. It’s not my job.” 

Students across several of her courses made continual reference to the high 

standards Dr. Calvente requires of students. Some students found the workload to 

be manageable and were excited by the challenge. Others firmly believed that the 

readings were too advanced, and too much in quantity, for the class to process and 

engage. For example, more than one student in the Qualitative Methods course from 

Spring 2014 felt the class was constantly behind and was always playing catch-up. It 

is important to contextualize that some of these responses are likely a product of 

undergraduate/graduate crosslisted classes.

In his observation of her cross-listed course (Social) Death, Citizenship and the 

Media, Associate Professor Daniel Makagon noted “almost every student spoke and 

approached the discussion with the confidence that they could talk through the 

issues. Lisa might push them, but she gave them the room to figure out the ideas and 

their responses to the issues.” Both Professors Makagon and Winchatz noted Lisa’s 

strategic use of silence in the classroom. Winchatz explained, “After Lisa asked a 

question, she was clearly comfortable with sitting in silence until the students had 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 122 of 188 PageID #:122
processed what she was asking and were ready to share. The students seemed to be 

used to this approach as well. “ Both reviewers, however, did note the course was, at 

points, difficult to follow, and suggested Lisa could better assist the class with more 

deliberate transitions, paraphrasing of ideas, and clarity of structure throughout the 

course. In the student report, this opportunity for greater clarity, time management, 

and structure was also reiterated, along with a reference to previous mentioned 

concerns about climate—what the student representative called “the pattern of 

intimidation.” When asked to clarify an example of this pattern he mentioned the 

rolling of eyes and Dr. Calvente’s dismissal of a student question with “why don’t 

you know this?” He stated, however, that based on his interpretation of the data, 

that “if the students survive the atmosphere, they do well.” 

For the vast majority of her courses Lisa did not provide materials beyond the 

course syllabus. Her syllabi do a very good job setting forth rules, policies and 

instructor expectations, yet she might take some steps to further distinguish the 

content of her courses from one another. As an example, her course INTC 230 and 

her course LSP 200 have a tremendous amount of overlap in assignment structure 

and design, including the focus on “Bastard Out of Carolina” for several weeks in the 

course. Additionally, the theoretical readings comprise the majority of the content 

listed in the course schedule, regardless of course level, and are often used to define 

the class time (as opposed to a topic, theme, objective, or an activity). By identifying 

the theme or topic of the day, as well as the objectives, the clarity of structure might 

be more apparent to help frame student expectations. This is reiterated in the 

student report and student evaluations, where there was a recurrent theme of 

suggesting more explicit clarity of goals and content. Furthermore, especially for the 

100 and 200 level classes, a more intentional balance between theoretical source 

texts and disciplinary texts from the field of intercultural communication might help 

some of the students who are struggling with the density of the readings and an 

understanding of the course. 

After the review of her materials, reports, evaluations, and her interview, the 

Personnel Committee found that her teaching is fair and that she is making poor

progress toward tenure in this area.

RESEARCH

Since Lisa’s last review, in the Winter of 2013, she has published one co-authored 

essay (with Guadalupe García), titled “The City Speaks: Dis/articulating 

Revolutionary Havana, Cuba and Global Belonging” in the journal Cultural Studies

(Calvente is listed as first author). The essay is a visual exploration and analysis of 

the city of Havana, examining how the performative notions of revolution are 

present in the city’s landscape. She also presented work at the Critical Ethnic 

Studies Association Conference in 2013, CUNY-Baruch College in 2014, and 

Crossroads Association for Cultural Studies Conference in 2014. At the time of her 

last formal review, Lisa had published one book review. For the current fourth year 

review, the Personnel Committee evaluated Lisa’s total publication record since 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 123 of 188 PageID #:123
arriving at DePaul: one book review and one co-authored peer reviewed journal 

article. 

Looking forward, Lisa reports several projects in various stages of development. 

Lisa has plans to co-write an introduction and conclusion for a book she is coediting. In addition, Lisa is the solo author of an essay under review at Cultural 

Studies. Although these materials cannot be considered for this review period, 

looking toward her future productivity, Lisa has stated that the book contract is 

signed and the article is currently listed on her CV and in her personal statement as 

a revise and resubmit. Although the committee requested on two occasions via 

email prior to the Personnel Committee interview that Lisa provide a signed book 

contract and an editorial communication (e.g. email or letter from Cultural Studies) 

formally requesting a revise and resubmit of her article manuscript, the committee 

was not provided with the requested documentation of the status of either of these 

projects in time for the review. 

In her 2013 review, her research was determined as satisfactory from the faculty, 

and the personnel committee strongly recommended diversifying her publication 

strategies alongside the ongoing pursuit of her solo book contract. The book project 

and proposal is not reported to have made any significant progress (with two 

completed chapters), yet the successful publication of her co-authored essay and the 

article under review indicate that she has been more active in moving her previous 

conference papers towards publication. 

Lisa is scheduled for flex time for the current 2014-15 academic year, wherein she is 

teaching three courses in the fall and winter, in order to focus her time on research 

in the spring. This is in addition to a year-long leave she has successfully applied for 

through the URC for the 2015-16 academic year, which will be co-funded through 

her successful application for a Woodrow Wilson Junior Faculty Grant Award. 

According to the grant application, “The objective of the fellowship program is to aid 

the scholarly research and intellectual growth of junior faculty (men and women) 

and improve their chances for success as tenured university scholars by offering 

support for twelve months of research and writing.” Thus, Lisa has secured 

substantial time to focus solely on research in the next fifteen months. There is 

concern about the amount of time invested and the choices made regarding the 

research projects she is pursuing, as her current research output fails to 

demonstrate sufficient progress or a successful balance of energies in the move 

towards tenure. In addition, given the shortage of research she has fostered to 

publication, devoting time and energies to a co-edited book project is cause for 

additional concern. It is believed that Lisa has not made the necessary progress 

needed towards tenure and would be better served by continuing to focus greater 

time and energies on shepherding her conference presentations and the research 

from her ongoing book project to peer reviewed journals, preferably diversifying 

her CV with solo authored works in a greater range of journal outlets. 

The Personnel Committee agrees that her research is fair and that she is making 

poor progress toward tenure in this area.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 124 of 188 PageID #:124
SERVICE

During her second year review in 2013, the faculty evaluated Lisa’s service 

contributions to be very good, marking her work on a one-year search committee, a 

college task force, and a university task force. Since her previous review, Lisa 

continues as an affiliate to the African Black Diaspora Studies Program and the 

Latino Studies Program. Lisa serves on the College Non-Tenure Track Review Board 

and the Local Review Board of the College of Communication. As part of the Collegewide symposium on violence in 2014, DePaul Talks, Lisa was one of the eight event 

leaders, and she organized one of the spotlight panel discussions, bringing together 

a panel of scholars and activists for one of the two evening programs. She works 

with the Office of Multicultural Student Success in the Men of Color Initiative for 

student retention and success, as well as the Liberal Studies Council’s Task Force on 

Personal Transformation and Responsibility/ Global and Transnational Programs. 

She has successfully chaired a college thesis committee, and is currently working as 

chair of a second thesis. She has written three comprehensive exam questions (2 

more currently), and has served as undergraduate senior thesis advisor on two 

student projects. She has served on the editorial board of Cultural Studies since 2012 

and Text and Performance Quarterly since 2013. Lisa reviews for these journals and 

also reviews papers for her division in her national organization. In the personnel 

meeting, it was reiterated that she will need to obtain letters from committee chairs 

to describe and detail specific committee work for review processes, as per college 

policy. 

The Personnel Committee agrees that her service is fair to good and that she is 

making fair to good progress toward tenure in this area, although two personnel 

committee members indicated she was not making satisfactory progress toward 

tenure in service.

Conclusion

Based on the Personnel Committee’s unanimous evaluation that Lisa is not making 

progress toward tenure in teaching or research, we do not recommend retention 

and contract renewal.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 125 of 188 PageID #:125
Exhibit 3

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 126 of 188 PageID #:126
1

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION RECOMMENDATION 

OF CONTINUATION OR TERMINATION OF UNTENURED FACULTY CONTRACT

TO: Salma Ghanem, Dean, College of Communication

FROM: Personnel Committee, College of Communication

DATE: November 17, 2017

SUBJECT: College Recommendation on Lisa B. Y. Calvente

FACULTY MEMBER’S RANK: Assistant Professor

DATE OF FIRST CONTRACT: Fall 2011

PROBATIONARY YEAR AT DEPAUL: Third Review, Fifth Year

HIGHEST ACADEMIC DEGREE RECEIVED: Ph.D.

TENURED FACULTY RECOMMENDATION: Termination

VOTES IN FAVOR OF RETENTION 8

VOTES AGAINST RETENTION 13

TENURED FACULTY EVALUATION: Progress Toward Tenure

YES: 4 NO: 17 in Teaching

YES: 15 NO: 6 in Research

YES: 4 NO: 17 in Service

COLLEGE RECOMMENDATION AND RATIONALE

The tenured faculty of the College of Communication voted to recommend that Dr. Lisa 

Calvente’s contract not be renewed (13 No to 8 Yes). The recommendation is based upon a

thorough review of Lisa’s credentials in the areas of teaching, research, and service. The College 

Personnel Committee finds Lisa’s teaching in this review period to be very good and she is 

making very good/fair progress toward tenure in the area of teaching; Lisa’s scholarship to be 

excellent in this review period and she is making very good/fair progress toward tenure in the 

area of research; Lisa’s service record to be very good over this review period and she is making 

fair progress toward tenure in the area of service. Fifteen of 21 voting members of the tenured 

faculty agree that Lisa is making satisfactory progress toward tenure in the area of research,

while 17 of 21 voting members of the tenured faculty believe Lisa is not making satisfactory 

progress toward tenure in the areas of teaching and service, respectively.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 127 of 188 PageID #:127
2

TEACHING

In order to assess the effectiveness of Lisa’s teaching, the College Personnel Committee

examined her undergraduate and graduate course materials (syllabi, assignments, quizzes, and a

sample precis) since her previous review, student teaching evaluations, two peer observation 

reports, and a report produced by the Personnel Committee’s student representative, 

summarizing survey data solicited from past enrollees in Lisa’s courses. Members of the 

Personnel Committee also discussed teaching with Lisa in an interview setting. 

Since arriving at DePaul, Lisa has taught 14 different or modified courses, comprising 3 

graduate, 7 undergraduate, and 4 cross-listed classes. Since her the last review in Winter 2015, 

she has taught 6 different courses at both levels with a strong focus on race, intercultural 

communication, and performance, including 3 sections of CMN 103-Intercultural 

Communication (a core undergraduate course); 2 sections of INTC 367-Performance for Social 

Change; 1 section of CMNS 230-Performance, Communication, & the Body; and1 section of 

CMNS 501-Communication in Cultural Contexts. Lisa has also developed and taught 2 special 

topics classes –(Social) Death, Citizenship, & the Media and Communicating Health, Race, and 

Reproductive Rights– both are cross-listed within our college and with other units/programs. In 

reviewing Lisa’s course materials, the Personnel Committee identifies both areas of strength and 

those that require continued improvement. The syllabi for these courses are well organized and 

each covers in-depth content. She includes clear course objectives, course policies, and learning 

assessments. Her assignments range across many formats; including, quizzes, in-class 

discussions, presentations, reading themes and questions to essays, written reports, 

performances, and community-based service learning. These activities are detailed in assignment 

worksheets in 2 of Lisa’s classes (CMN 103 and CMN 230). For the remaining 4 classes, the 

Personnel Committee only has access to her course syllabi, which provide descriptions of 

pertinent activities and differential expectations for undergraduate and graduate students in 

cross-listed classes.

Lisa’s teaching and her classroom environment were, overall, positively evaluated by her 

colleagues in peer observation reports. During a visit to the CMNS 230 (Performance, 

Creativity, & the Body) class in Spring 2017, Dr. Jay Baglia was impressed by the high level of 

mutual support and camaraderie of the students in this class. “This is something that doesn't 

happen by magic or is the result of a serendipitous collection of students who happen to like each 

other; this is the result of a cultivated atmosphere as informed by the instructor,” he stated. These 

comments are echoed by Dr. Leah E. Bryant, who reported that the supportiveness of the 

learning environment of the class was “extraordinary.” Both Bryant and Baglia took notes of 

Lisa’s candor in providing her students with feedback, which “unpacks their performance” and 

offers “rationale,” by linking it to pertinent readings of the day. According to the peer observers, 

although the classroom climate was highly interactive, Lisa could consider ways to better engage 

quiet students in the class discussion, which largely involved some active contributors.

In her personal statement, Lisa expresses her desire to create “an enriching, knowledgeinciting and knowledge-producing atmosphere at DePaul." Lisa wants her students to feel that 

“they are critical, productive thinkers with access to agency and the ability to make change in the 

world.” Learning opportunities are created by the critical production of knowledge that combines 

theory and practice, past and present, classroom activities and experiences gained from 

community engagement. As part of such efforts, Lisa has co-written (with her students) and 

directed 2 performances for her class activities since 2015. At both the graduate and 

undergraduate levels, Lisa has pushed her students’ “comfort level” and left a strong impact on 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 128 of 188 PageID #:128
3

them. Several students found her classes to be “challenging,” but “rewarding,” “eye-opening,” 

and “mind-blowing.” A student in her CMN 103 (Winter 2015) wrote: “It is an excellent course. 

It really opened my eyes to the world and was really among the best courses I’ve selected at this 

university.” Graduate students came away from her courses having “learned and explored a lot”

(CMNS 501, Spring 2017) and “grown” as critical thinkers (CMNS 509, Fall 2016). Lisa was 

described as a “very knowledgeable” and “very intelligent” professor, who “has an obvious 

passion for what she teaches.” Quantitatively, teaching evaluations demonstrate Lisa’s strong 

command of the subject matter (from 4.9 to 5), her high level of preparedness (from 4.8 to 5), her 

ability to stimulate interest in the subject (from 4.6 to 5). Ratings of the overall quality of courses

were in the 4.2-4.9 range and overall teaching effectiveness in the 4.1-5.0 range. Lisa 

consistently received 4 or above on most other measures. There were a few instances where she 

scored above 3.5 but under 4 on items gauging class time use, careful response, and increased 

knowledge or skills. In student evaluations of Communicating Health, Race, and Reproductive 

Rights (Fall 2016), which only contain 5 common university measures as the course was 

assigned to Critical Ethnic Studies, Lisa scored between 4.5 and 4.9.

The survey of Lisa’s past students, conducted in September 2017, further confirms the

key attributes of her teaching. In quantitative terms, for all five survey questions, she scored 

between 4.52 and 4.83 on a 5-point scale. Students ranked her command of course content and 

her ability to engage them in making connections between course content and lived experience 

on top, followed by teaching methods, overall assessment, and then an environment of respectful 

interactions. Students consistently addressed Lisa’s high expectations, expert knowledge, and her

investment in stimulating critical thinking. “She has a strong command of the subject material 

and holds her class to a high standard,” one surveyed student wrote. “She is able to get to the 

root of people’s arguments to better explain them, especially when talking about complicated or 

touchy subjects in Intercultural Communication. She does a good job of asking questions and 

asking people to substantiate their stances/opinions.” According to another student, “there were 

times when I disagreed with her or a classmate, and I felt comfortable (respectfully) expressing 

that disagreement and wrestling with the thought process.” When the survey asked about their 

most memorable moments with Lisa, some mentioned Lisa’s supportiveness and accessibility.

Lisa’s instruction has been recognized in both the ENGAGE Teaching and Mentorship 

for Social Justice Award and her second nomination for the Excellence in Teaching Award in 

2015. Lisa was previously nominated for this teaching award in 2014.

At the interview, the Personnel Committee commended Lisa’s positive growth in 

teaching over the past two years, although Lisa said that she had not changed anything 

significantly in her curriculum or teaching strategies, beyond updating discussion and lectures 

with current events and experimenting with techniques to engage quiet students in discussion, 

which worked for some but did not for others. Although Lisa has proven to be an impactful 

teacher, our analysis of the student representative report, teaching evaluations, peer observations, 

and course materials since 2015 has shown a range of areas that require continued improvement. 

Many of the needed changes had been identified in the last review (2015) as improvements 

“which would need to occur before she is capable of receiving tenure.” When asked in the 

interview if Lisa had made any of these changes, she stated that she would have to agree with 

them and she stated that she did not. Therefore, her earlier statement that she had not made any 

changes to her teaching indicated she dismissed the changes that were called for in her previous 

formal review. Looking at evidence independently from the prior review periods, however, we 

found similar pedagogical issues reflected in the qualitative data for this period, which run 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 129 of 188 PageID #:129
4

parallel to Lisa’s solid teaching performance in other areas captured by quantitative measures. 

We believe it is problematic that Lisa has ignored these long-standing issues and that the 

developmental recommendations shared in previous reports of the Personnel Committee and the 

tenured faculty seem at least partially dismissed by her.

The Personnel Committee would like to see further substantive steps taken by Lisa in 

responding to problems identified in students’ responses to her teaching:

-References to students feeling “intimidated” or “uncomfortable” still showed up in this 

review cycle, though at low frequency. In her personal statement and at the interview, Lisa 

attributed this phenomenon to the sensitive nature of the discussions of race in her classes and of 

her being a minority faculty member studying race and racism. In order to address this issue, she 

relied on “honesty and candor,” which “can be at times shocking or off-putting.” In a careful 

review of student comments, the Personnel Committee believes that the instances of negative

feedback highlighted a communication issue rather than students’ discomfort with course content 

or Lisa’s pedagogical approach. Several students appreciated her directness and the way she 

challenged and pushed them to think critically about difficult topics. Yet, even those who felt 

“comfortable” took note of Lisa having a “very firm set of ideas” and an “expressive” way of 

communicating, which can sometimes “thwart conversation” or create “heated tension,” thereby 

making some students less ready to talk in class. A student in her CMN 103 class (Spring 2017) 

offered an insightful observation: “The course is great but you [Lisa] certainly come on a little 

strong. I didn’t mind it but it’s possible some people didn’t feel comfortable opening up because 

of it.” Our students are diverse in several ways. Students who possess higher levels of 

understanding and communicating complexity are more likely to thrive. Meanwhile, this 

communication style might not invite students who are less outspoken or are still exploring their 

voice and ideas to grow intellectually. Lisa wrote: “My goal for every class is to interrogate ways 

in which marginalized and often silenced voices can talk back to, and act against, social 

inequality and political oppression.” If we were to teach students to speak up and resist, we 

would lead by example. In the classroom, the instructor –regardless of race, gender, or origin–

represents authority. The way the instructor communicates conveys power. Unnecessary, strong 

verbal and non-verbal cues from the instructor can serve to discourage those students who 

struggle, thereby creating a barrier to students’ learning.

- For 4 out of 6 classes Lisa taught in the current review period, the Personnel Committee 

was not provided teaching materials beyond course syllabi. Although the syllabi include 

descriptions of assignments and instructor expectations, we believe that having specific 

instructions and grading rubrics or at least grading criteria for all assignments would add clarity 

to student learning assessment. Some students in CMN 103 (Winter 2015, Fall 2016), for 

example, found the writing inquiry descriptions and prompts “slightly vague in regards to what is 

expected” and suggested that Lisa could have discussed writing assignments in more detail in 

class. Writing in her observation report, Dr. Bryant detected “a bit of confusion about the 

specifics” of the workshop assignment in her CMNS 230 class and “it might be helpful to 

provide a handout, or blurb on the board, that provided specific outcomes for the workshop (or 

what is expected of the students).” In addition, it is a requirement in our college to develop 

separate syllabi (and not just separate expectations or assignments) for undergraduate and 

graduate students in order to communicate clearly distinct expectations in cross-listed courses. 

- A recurring suggestion for improvement from the students centers on time management 

in Lisa’s classes. In every quarter of this review period, students reported a pattern of going over 

time, running behind, and rushing toward the end. Consequently, important discussions were not 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 130 of 188 PageID #:130
5

addressed or clearly explained, and class activities got pushed, all of which affected student 

learning. According to one student in the survey report, “our final exam period ended about one 

hour after class ended. I understand Dr. Calvente does not keep a close eye on time but this is 

excessive; you cannot expect students to stay in class until after 10:00 p.m. just because you did 

not leave enough time for individual presentations.” In his observation report, Dr. Baglia also

expressed a desire for “more signposting, more awareness that time is a factor in any classroom.” 

Students often feel anxious as time kicks in and they expect from Lisa a better organized, more 

stringent schedule. By the same token, some in her CMNS 230 stated that the professor should 

“take into account the time it takes for the students to prepare for a performance as well as the 

time it takes to perform.” In some instances, they reportedly had only one week to complete a 

performance. 

- On a related point, several students suggested that Lisa could be more selective in 

assigning textbooks/readings in her classes. That way, more valuable time would be dedicated to 

the most important content. According to course syllabi, Lisa often required 3 or 4 books for 

non-performance classes. In her performance courses, she listed 2 for INTC 367 and none for 

CMNS 230. The Personnel Committee urges Lisa to also consider open educational resources 

(OERs) as an option when adopting multiple textbooks for a class. 

- A common theme in student feedback underscores the need for visual aids and a wider 

range of media Lisa could employ in the classroom. This was also one of the changes required 

from her last formal review, to alter her pedagogical techniques beyond seminar-style. A 

combination of multiple teaching methods will better accommodate different needs and learning 

styles, thereby helping retain attention, facilitate information processing, and enhance overall 

student learning. The all-discussion format of seminar-style courses makes it difficult for 

students to retain material or to focus for longer class periods. A graduate student (CMNS 501, 

Spring 2017) wrote: “I am a visual learner, and I need variety; other graduate classes I have 

taken have accommodated a variety of learning styles including in-class activities, dissecting a 

video/cultural text it through discussion, PowerPoint lecture, watching films, attending oncampus events, etc. I had a hard time focusing on a discussion for 3.25 hours week after week 

with no variety in how a topic was being approached. Again, I think Dr. Calvente has a wealth of 

knowledge to provide, but I could have gotten more out of the course if it was presented in ways 

that appeal to a variety of learning styles.” The incorporation of various instructional tools serves 

to make complex concepts and dense readings more accessible and explanatory to students at the 

introductory level. This is also applicable to performances classes, where students could spend 

time watching videos of performance artists. At the interview, Lisa said she did not use 

PowerPoint because she runs graduate classes as seminars and her students in undergraduate 

courses created PowerPoint slides for their own presentations. In CMN 103, Lisa screened 2 

films, but she did not use video in performance classes due to student workload and time 

constraints. 

In sum, all evidence suggests that Lisa’s teaching in this review period is very good, and 

that Lisa is making very good/fair progress toward tenure in the area of teaching. 

RESEARCH

Lisa’s scholarship centers on race and social justice on a local and global scale. Within 

this research area, she primarily draws on critical race frameworks and employs ethnographic 

methods developed by cultural studies and performance scholars. 

Before her arrival at DePaul, Lisa had published 1 book chapter and 2 encyclopedia 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 131 of 188 PageID #:131
6

entries. In previous review periods, she produced 1 co-authored journal article and 1 book 

review. Her research record prior to the current review raised concerns about her ability to 

produce the quality and range of work necessary to achieve tenure. 

The past 2 years mark a sharp turn in Lisa’s research productivity with 2 journal articles 

(1 solo-authored, 1 co-authored) and an edited book in which she wrote the introduction and cowrote a chapter. In 2015, Lisa was selected as a recipient of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation 

Career Enhancement Fellowship for Junior Faculty ($31,500) to pursue her research. A review of 

her most recent publications and other projects in progress indicates that Lisa has developed a 

coherent line of scholarly work. 

In early 2017, Lisa published a solo article titled, “From the Rotten Apple to the State of 

Empire: Neoliberalism, hip hop, and New York City’s crisis” (Souls: A Critical Journal of Black 

Politics, Culture, & Society). This article analyzes how hip hop in New York City in the 1990s 

became a focal point of urban racial and class crisis through media representation and argues that 

hip hop culture arose from the particular context of neoliberalism. It highlights how the 

representation of hip hop culture served as the scapegoat for the death of young peoples of the 

black Diaspora. 

Lisa is the first author of another journal article she co-wrote with Josh Smicker, “Crisis 

subjectivities: Resilient, recuperable, and abject subjects in the new hard times” (Social 

Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation, & Culture, 2017). This article examines media 

representations through films, television shows, news stories, and popular sociopolitical accounts

to identify three main types of crisis subjectivities (or embodiments of economic and political 

crises.) According to the authors, in the logics of postracism and postfeminism, civil rights and 

feminist movements achieved their goals. Yet these advancements only addressed limited 

elements of the ongoing crises. They have not addressed the deep-rooted structural inequalities.

Lisa and Guadalupe García are co-editors of “Imprints of Revolution: Visual 

Representations of Resistance” (Rowman & Littlefield International, 2016), a book comprising 

case studies contributed by 9 other scholars. This volume highlights the power of visual images

in communicating and articulating revolutions and revolutionary moments at different parts of 

the world. As the primary editor of the collective work, Lisa authored “Introduction: 

Decolonizing revolution through visual articulations,” which provides historical context and 

offers an overview of the case studies included in the volume. She also co-wrote with García a 

chapter in this book, “Image in revolution: Articulating visual arts and becoming Cuban,” which

analyzes how visual arts plays a significant role in Havana’s urban space through political 

transitions, hardships, and economic recovery in Cuba. This chapter flowed out of a journal 

article Lisa co-authored in the previous review period (2014) as a result of archival research and 

ethnographic stay in Havana and ethnographic work at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los 

Angeles.

Beside these publications, in the past 2 years, Lisa has presented 6 refereed research

papers at international and national conferences (Association for Caribbean Historians, National 

Communication Association). On several occasions, she has also appeared on research panels or 

invited presentations. 

Looking forward, Lisa has 4 research projects in different stages of development, most of 

which are linked to her Woodrow Wilson Foundation fellowship, DePaul University Research 

Council (URC) Grant, and URC Paid Leave award. These consist of a solo-authored book 

manuscript (in progress since 2012 with no publisher contract as of yet), 2 co-authored book 

chapters (under contract), and a co-authored journal article (abstract under review). At the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 132 of 188 PageID #:132
7

interview, Lisa said she planned to update the status of her book chapters, secure her book 

contract by May 2018, and submit 2 solo-authored manuscripts to journals in Fall 2018. 

The Personnel Committee is impressed with Lisa’s research productivity in the last two 

years. We strongly recommend that Lisa further push her publication rate, particularly with more 

journal articles, to make up for slower output in prior years, considering the limited amount of 

time left on the move to tenure. We discussed with Lisa the different ways in which publications 

will be viewed at the time of presenting a case for tenure, based on whether the manuscript is 

under contract versus in page proofs or published, with greater weight being given to those 

publications that are actually published. We also emphasized the wisdom of taking into account 

the time it can take for reviews, revisions, and so on.

Overall, the Personnel Committee agrees that Lisa’s scholarship in this review period is 

excellent and she is making very good/fair progress toward tenure in the area of research.

SERVICE

In the previous review period, Lisa’s contributions within the College of Communication

were linked to her work as a member of the Contingent Faculty Review Board and the Local 

Review Board, an event leader of the symposium on violence, a thesis committee 

chair/undergraduate senior thesis advisor, and a comprehensive exam writer. At the university 

level, she served as an affiliate to the African Black Diaspora Studies Program and the Latino 

Studies Program and contributed to the Office of Multicultural Student Success in the Men of 

Color Initiative, as well as the Liberal Studies Council’s Task Force on Personal Transformation 

and Responsibility/Global and Transnational Programs. In her service to the academy, Lisa 

reviewed manuscripts for 2 journals as part of their editorial board (Cultural Studies, Text and 

Performance Quarterly) and papers for her national organization’s conferences. In the current 

review, Lisa continued several of her existing services and took on some others.

At the college level, Lisa has joined the Term Faculty Review Committee since Spring 

2015 (and has begun her actual service since the 2016-2017 academic year due to her research 

leave). Associate Dean Alexandra Murphy appreciated her valuable, hard work as well as her 

insights into the candidate’s strengths and areas for improvement. She continued her role as part 

of the Local Review Board until Fall 2016, when this service was terminated due to new IRB 

procedures. Under this service, Lisa reviewed 2 IRB applications. Since 2015, she has chaired 2 

graduate thesis and project committees, advised a master’s project, and administered 

comprehensive exam questions. In Fall 2016, Lisa volunteered to help Dr. Lucy Lu in reviewing

the syllabi for CMN 103 that non-tenure/tenure track faculty used for Intercultural 

Communication to ensure quality control. She also participated in some faculty searches and 

attended the graduation foundation course, college meetings and other events, such as award 

ceremonies and alumni receptions. 

At the university level, Lisa has collaborated actively across programs at DePaul. She has

both expertise and passion for interdisciplinary work across colleges. Lisa has been an affiliated 

faculty of the African and Black Diaspora Studies Program (ABD) since 2012 and a member of 

the ADB Advisory Committee since 2015. According to ADB Program Director, Amor Kohli, 

she has served actively and thoughtfully and been invested in the broader culture and activity of 

ABD. Since 2016, Lisa has become an affiliate to the Critical Ethnic Studies MA program (CES) 

in the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. CES Director Laura Kina expressed her 

appreciation for Lisa’s commitment as an invaluable member, who has impacted CES students in 

a number of ways. Lisa has continued her existing role as an affiliate to the Latino Studies 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 133 of 188 PageID #:133
8

Program (LALS) and has been part of Liberal Studies Council Survey Review Subcommittee, 

which (according to Director of Liberal Studies John Shanahan) drafted recommendations based 

on the General Education Task Force report and feedback from colleges in spring 2017. LALS 

Chair, Lourdes Torres, acknowledged Lisa’s contributions over the past 5 years, including her 

participation in a tenure-track hire in the past year. In addition, Lisa has reached out to the 

Women and Gender Studies Graduate Program to offer her service in mentoring their students.

Lisa’s service record extends to the academy and the community. As part of the editorial 

board of 2 journals (Text & Performance Quarterly and Cultural Studies), she has reviewed 

approximately one manuscript per year for each journal. In 2016, Lisa reviewed the 7th edition of 

James Neuliep’s Intercultural communication: A contextual approach (Sage). She has also been 

active at conferences as a paper reviewer, panelist, respondent/discussant, and a member of the 

Welcome Team. Lisa’s community service includes her commitment to the Chicago Alliance 

against Racist and Political Repression (CAARPR), where she has also created community-based 

service learning for her students. In addition, Lisa has volunteered at the Juvenile Justice 

Program to help troubled youths at the Organization for the North East (ONE) community 

center. 

At the interview, Lisa spoke of her willingness to take on committee work and her 

decision to engage in cross-college outreach efforts as part of the Vincentian mission. While we 

commend Lisa’s dedicated service, there is room for improvement. The Personnel Committee 

emphasized to Lisa the need to take a more visible and significant role within her unit and at the 

college. Her service record at this advanced stage of her probationary period remains quite 

modest, considering the typical load for her peers. At the university level, there are several 

opportunities where Lisa could make even greater impacts by serving on university teams, 

committees, or task forces. The documentation of her service, as well as the construction of her 

vita and personal statement, would benefit from a clearer organization. According to the 

college’s tenure and promotion guidelines, candidates use the AAUP’s format for the c.v. to 

maintain college uniformity. The committee suggests Lisa attend tenure review workshops, 

which will continue to reinforce expectations and best practices in drafting personal statements, 

and preparing and organizing review and promotion materials. 

In sum, the Personnel Committee finds that Lisa’s service record to be very good over 

this review period, and she is making fair progress toward tenure in the area of service.

TENURED FACULTY RECOMMENDATION:

The Tenured Faculty of the College of Communication met on November 17, 2017 and 

voted against retention and contract renewal (13 No to 8 Yes). Ten of 21 voting members 

endorsed the Personnel Committee’s recommendation in the areas of teaching and research, 

agreeing that Lisa was making very good/fair progress toward tenure in these areas. Eleven

members concurred with the Personnel Committee’s evaluation that Lisa was making fair

progress toward tenure in the area of service. Three abstained from ranking Lisa’s performance 

in each area. The remaining members were split on their votes, which dissent from the Personnel 

Committee’s recommendation in either direction. Specifically, in the area of teaching, 4

members of the tenured faculty believed Lisa was making very good progress toward tenure, 3

voted fair, and 1 voted unsatisfactory. In the area of research, 6 members of the tenured faculty 

found Lisa was making very good progress toward tenure, while 2 voted fair. In the area of 

service, 5 members of the tenured faculty believed Lisa was making very good/fair progress 

toward tenure, while 2 voted unsatisfactory. According to the College Tenure and Promotion 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 134 of 188 PageID #:134
9

Criteria, by the time of the second formal review, no ranking should be below very good; and 

additional reviews should demonstrate the clear promise of meeting the requirements listed for 

the tenure review, by which a faculty member’s performance should be excellent in at least two 

of three areas, and very good in the third.

Teaching:

The faculty agreed that there is a significant number of positive student comments about 

Lisa’s teaching and that several of her qualitative and quantitative evaluations portray a highly 

impactful and passionate professor. This is recognized in the ENGAGE Teaching and 

Mentorship for Social Justice Award and Lisa’s two nominations for the QIC Excellence in 

Teaching Award. Meanwhile, the discussion highlighted serious concerns about long-standing 

pedagogical issues and about Lisa’s ability to incorporate constructive criticism into teaching 

practices. According to four members of the tenured faculty, the positive comments outweigh the 

negative ones in student evaluations of Lisa’s teaching, though she could do better to respond to 

developmental feedback. However, the majority of voting members raised questions about her

pedagogical style and whether it adheres to Vincentian core values. They also took issue with a 

lack of willingness to acknowledge and/or to address outstanding problems repeatedly 

emphasized as areas that require changes from her first formal review (2013), through the second 

review (2015), and into the current review period. When the Personnel Committee asked Lisa to

reflect on continued development in pedagogy, she stated that she had not changed anything 

significantly in her curriculum or teaching strategies and expressed a dismissive view of

recommendations previously shared by the tenured faculty.

A major theme in qualitative comments throughout Lisa’s teaching career at DePaul 

pertains to students feeling “intimidated” or “uncomfortable” in her classroom. In the current 

review period, such sentiments were visible every quarter and mentioned explicitly and 

implicitly in more than 55 percent (5 out of 9) of Lisa’s course evaluations. This phenomenon 

was also reported in the student survey. In her personal statement and at the interview, Lisa 

attributed student comments about the intimidating, uncomfortable, or hostile atmosphere to the 

sensitive nature of the race discourse as well as to her being a minority faculty teaching race

content. In a subsequent email, Lisa recounted her efforts to address this matter by 

communicating to students a grading policy that is based strictly upon “their critical reflection 

and application of the content to their everyday lives”; reaching out and meeting with students 

who seem “quiet, resistant, or apprehensive” to discuss their feelings and their work; and 

allowing students to submit drafts/outlines and to rewrite papers. The tenured faculty discussed 

the challenges in the discussion of race in the current political context, as well as its implications 

for classroom dynamics, and emphasized that it was possible to teach challenging coursework 

related to race and social justice while maintaining an environment of safety for all students.

Some tenured faculty members noted that many College of Communication faculty

members teach courses that critically engage racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, and classism and 

the same comments about feeling “intimidated” or “uncomfortable” do not appear in those 

teaching evaluations. Moreover, the pattern of sustained comments about classroom environment 

raise concerns about Lisa’s reflexivity about the links between teaching methods and course 

content. That is, the first comments appeared in the 2013 student report. At that time, the 

Personnel Committee read the comments as being about course content since there was not a 

sustained record of student feedback about intimidation or feeling uncomfortable. Since that 

time, the tenured faculty has seen recurring comments about this issue. For the faculty members

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 135 of 188 PageID #:135
10

who find such comments to be a major reason for non-renewal, there is a point at which the 

student responses reflect a problematic pattern that should have been addressed through forms of 

pedagogy that can invite students to critically examine a range of social injustices. Finally, some 

faculty members who were most troubled by the student evaluations raised questions about 

Lisa’s responses to the student feedback. Lisa notes in her personal statement that such feedback

reflects racism among students; however, this response assumes that only Caucasian students are 

writing about feeling “intimidated” or “uncomfortable.”

While Lisa’s teaching demonstrates her commitment to pushing her students’ comfort 

level to grow as critical thinkers, several members of the faculty expressed grave concerns about 

her ability to foster a classroom that reinforces DePaul’s teaching philosophy of Vincentian 

personalism. Lisa tends to assign dense theoretical course materials for her classes, including 

those at the introductory level (e.g., Marx, Foucault, and Gramsci in CMN 103). This approach

might be appropriate for students with higher levels of understanding and articulating 

complexity, but less so for those who need support to grow intellectually. Moreover, 

developmental feedback, including that from students who were comfortable with the learning 

experience, documents cases in which Lisa’s “very firm set of ideals” as well as her way of 

communicating led some students to feel discouraged, judged, or even marginalized. Peer 

observation reports in all review periods since 2013 have documented the pattern of one select 

group of few students being allowed to over-contribute and a lack of strategies to invite and 

include less confident students in class discussions. It is noteworthy that Lisa’s reputed

dismissive communication style manifested in contexts other than the discussion of race in Lisa’s 

classes. A student in CMNS 501 (Spring 2017) reported: “In the first day of class, Dr. Calvente

said she didn’t know how many of us were going to grad school. We all looked around at each 

other and said to her, ‘Did you mean to say PhD? We are all in a master’s program here?’ Her 

response was, ‘Oh, I don’t consider a master’s program to be graduate school.’ I took serious 

issue with this comment. If Dr. Calvente does not believe that our MA education is at a graduate 

level, then she should not teach here. This is an unacceptable comment to make toward students 

at any level of their education. First impressions matter, as a professor within the department of 

communications[sic], Dr. Calvente should be aware of how she is communicating.” DePaul has a 

diverse student body and we place high values on inclusion. According to several voting 

members, it is both a responsibility and a requirement for faculty members to create a welcoming 

classroom climate based upon acceptance and respect for all kinds of students, particularly those 

who need intellectual and emotional support to grow.

It was noted that Lisa has continued to ignore the agreement among the intercultural 

communication faculty on what topics should be covered in core classes (i.e., CMN 103 and 

CMNS 501). Lisa’s course content tends to have a strong focus on race, gender, and class, 

leaving out several important concepts, theories, and perspectives within the discipline. This 

concern had been raised and conveyed to Lisa in the last review period. When the question of 

consistency was raised during the Personnel Committee meeting, Lisa responded that she met the 

learning objectives for the courses, while electing to cover different topics and use different 

course material. While the need to support academic freedom was mentioned during the tenured 

faculty discussion, several members spoke of the specific requirement to use appropriate course 

materials that aid common learning outcomes and curricular consistency set forth by the 

program. 

In its report, the Personnel Committee documented student feedback describing a lack of 

clarity when it comes to assignments and assessments of learning outcomes. This was 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 136 of 188 PageID #:136
11

corroborated by the absence of teaching materials (specific instructions, grading rubrics/criteria 

for assignments) beyond course syllabi in 4 out of 6 courses Lisa taught in this review period. In 

cross-listed classes, Lisa has not met the requirement to develop separate syllabi to clearly 

communicate different expectations for undergraduate and graduate students. In addition, peer 

observation reports since her first review have reiterated a lack of structure and/or direction

during class sessions, which could be aided by overviews, transitions, summaries, or 

handouts/directions. Members of the tenured faculty noted that developmental recommendations 

regarding this long-standing matter have not been adequately addressed by Lisa.

The tenured faculty also discussed student comments on and peer observations of Lisa’s 

classroom time management, which is a recurring theme from the last review. These concerns 

range from important content not being covered, cutting discussions and class activities, to 

students not having enough time to complete their work. While several textbooks and readings 

were required, students often rushed to complete the books. Overall, Lisa’s inattention to 

classroom time management led some students to feel that their time and investment into 

learning were not respected.

Lisa’s heavy reliance on a seminar style in instruction has been repeatedly emphasized as 

an area that requires changes since her first formal review in 2013. It is noted in the discussion 

that concerns raised by students and the tenured faculty’s suggestions for Lisa to accommodate 

the variety of students’ learning needs through the plurality of teaching methods and strategies 

had not been heeded.

If Lisa is retained, the tenured faculty would need to see significant changes and 

improvements in her teaching practices as has already been outlined in her 2013 and 2015 

reviews. These changes would need to be apparent in teaching materials, student reports, and 

peer observations. Such changes should occur before she applies to the tenured faculty of the 

college for a tenure recommendation at DePaul: 

• Foster a welcoming classroom, based upon Vincentian personalism, respect, and 

acceptance for all types of students.

• Refrain from using unnecessary, strong verbal and non-verbal cues that 

undermine students’ learning, create tension, or marginalize those who need 

support to explore their voice and ideas. 

• Use appropriate strategies to manage class participation and to engage less 

confident students.

• Adopt the handbook enacted by her unit regarding topics that should be covered 

in intercultural communication core courses. 

• Develop separate syllabi for undergraduate and graduate students in cross-listed 

classes

• Develop specific instructions/directions, clear grading rubrics/criteria for all 

assignments and class activities for all courses.

• Tighten in-class instructional delivery by providing overviews, transitions, 

summaries.

• Use signposting and adopt an explicit schedule for discussions and activities in 

order to make the most out of class time.

• Assign an appropriate volume of readings and allow reasonable time for students 

to complete assignments.

• Engage students with more varied teaching methods in class in order to 

accommodate the plurality of students’ learning needs and style, including the use 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 137 of 188 PageID #:137
12

of interactive, small group discussions, peer-focused activities, multiple media, 

lecture slides/outlines and handouts.

Research:

The tenured faculty commended Lisa on a significant body of work produced in this 

review period. A cumulative assessment of Lisa’s progress toward tenure in the area of research 

was discussed. While some voting members believed her trajectory toward tenure in this area 

was very good, some others noted the extended timeline for research-focused productivity 

during her probationary period (e.g., the Woodrow Wilson fellowship provided Lisa additional 

funding away from teaching to focus solely on research) and redundancy between the book 

chapter “Image in Revolution” in her edited book and her prior journal publication (“The City 

Speaks,” Cultural Studies, 2014). Upon further review, it was determined that the book chapter 

was not a reprint of the 2014 journal article. The tenured faculty agreed that the introduction 

chapter was part of Lisa’s edited book and should not be listed as a separate book chapter. In 

addition, members of the tenured faculty emphasized the clear distinction between “under 

contract” and “forthcoming” works with the latter requiring evidence of their final acceptance 

(i.e., final manuscript –with all required revisions completed– has been accepted, returned to the 

press, and finally approved for publication). The tenured faculty further discussed how public 

performances of creative work are evaluated on the basis of their engagement outside of the 

classroom, scholarly reviews, grants, and awards relating to the work.

Service:

The majority of the tenured faculty found Lisa’s progress toward tenure in the area of 

service unsatisfactory. Voting members recounted instances where service contributions listed 

in Lisa’s document do not reflect substantial accomplishments. In addition, Lisa has been 

noticeably absent as a college representative at several required, university-wide events such as 

graduation and convocation. The tenured faculty endorsed the Personnel Committee’s 

assessment that her service record at this advanced stage of her probationary period was 

inadequate as compared with the typical load for her peers. It was emphasized at the discussion 

that, according to the College Tenure and Promotion Criteria, faculty members who apply for 

tenure and promotion to associate professor should have their service focused primarily in their 

track/program and in the college.

If Lisa is retained, the tenured faculty would need to see significant changes in her 

service as evidenced through a track record of substantial contributions to her unit and 

meaningful committee work at the college level. Greater volunteering for university committee 

service is recommended. Such changes should occur before she applies to the tenured faculty of 

the college for a tenure recommendation at DePaul.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 138 of 188 PageID #:138
Exhibit 4

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 139 of 188 PageID #:139
January 9, 2019

Dear Members of the University Board on Promotion and Tenure:

The College of Communication personnel committee and the tenured faculty conducted a formal 

review of Dr. Lisa Calvente’s application for tenure and promotion to associate professor. Dr. 

Calvente was evaluated by the personnel committee and her record was found to be “very good” 

in the areas of teaching, research, and service. The tenured faculty vote was 19 against and 2 in 

favor of tenure and promotion to associate professor.

Based on my own review of the application materials including the candidate narrative and 

supplemental materials and appendices, I agree with the recommendation of the tenured faculty 

against awarding Dr. Calvente tenure and promotion to associate professor. The College of 

Communication standard for tenure and promotion to associate professor is very clear. A 

candidate should achieve at least two ratings of “excellent” and no rating lower than “very good” 

in the areas of teaching, research and service. To overturn this nearly unanimous vote would 

require me to challenge the personnel and tenured faculty evaluation and move at least two of the 

three categories to “excellent” or to disregard the College’s standards for tenure and promotion. 

In this case, neither action is appropriate. I find the College’s evaluation of Dr. Calvente’s 

probationary performance as “very good” in each of the three categories to be fair and consistent 

with the evaluation standards in the college. This is a difficult decision; Dr. Calvente’s record 

has strengths that are detailed in the personnel and tenured faculty review. However, there are 

also significant concerns in each of the categories of evaluation. 

TEACHING

As demonstrated in the review materials, Dr. Calvente has many strengths as an instructor and 

has made some valuable contributions in the classroom and to the curriculum. Dr. Calvente has 

taught 14 different courses (seven new preparations) across undergraduate and graduate levels, 

for the College of Communication, liberal studies, Critical Ethnic Studies, and Women and 

Gender Studies—a number consistent with untenured faculty in the College of Communication. 

Dr. Calvente is seen by students and peers as highly knowledgeable, passionate, and organized. 

Her courses often address some of the most difficult topics for students to discuss—race, social 

inequality, and social justice. As she mentioned in her narrative, her goal is to push her students 

to take a “critical lens” to interrogate the ways that marginalized voices can resist, talk back, and 

shift dominant social discourses. She has done this by combining theory with practice both in the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 140 of 188 PageID #:140
classroom and through service-learning and community engagement. She has taught 

performance studies courses that draw upon an innovative performance-based pedagogy that 

requires students to think critically about the world around them and then to embody and critique 

these interpretations by performing them. One of her courses, Performance for Social Change

demonstrates her commitment to and value of community and student engagement. Students 

work with Chicago nonprofits to explore the intersection of race, racism, and human rights in the 

prison industrial complex. The course culminates with a public performance, created by the 

students, that speaks to the injustices of the prison industrial complex and offers hope for 

solidarity and social change.

While there are many positive aspects to Dr. Calvente’s teaching, there were also areas that were 

identified in past formal reviews that needed to be improved to reach a rating of “excellent.” 

Some of these were refinements in teaching, such as varying her teaching practices to 

accommodate diverse learning styles, including more visual prompts to help students better track 

complex material, and implementing organizational and time management strategies. In her 2018 

appendix, Dr. Calvente lists some of these suggestions with her own comments on how she has 

responded (or not) to each. For some, she accepted the advice of personnel such as providing 

more verbal transitions, summaries and overviews during class lectures and discussions. For 

others, she questioned either the relevance or the fairness of the recommendations. For example, 

she rejected the suggested best practice to add more visuals to class sessions to help students 

with diverse learning styles meet the necessary requirements for the courses. She stated that she 

prefers a more traditional seminar structure to promote active listening as a necessary skill for 

students to develop and because it counters a western style of visual learning. Further, Dr. 

Calvente was asked to adhere to the course guide created by her unit and to include required 

topics in intercultural communication core classes such as CMN 103: Intercultural 

Communication. This is an overview course that is designed to cover a multitude of theories and 

perspectives—an introduction to the field of intercultural communication. Dr. Calvente’s 

approach is to teach it exclusively through a critical theory lens. Prior formal reviews requested 

that she follow the guidelines and incorporate multiple theoretical approaches to intercultural 

communication. In her appendix, Dr. Calvente misrepresented the focus of this critique as 

requiring an approved textbook. She also states that her course was approved by the course 

supervisor, Dr. Lucy Lu. Dr. Lu emphasized in the personnel review meeting that she informed 

Dr. Calvente that there is no textbook requirement, but that the multitude of theories and topics 

must still be covered in the course for approval.

An additional concern raised in prior formal review documents beginning in 2015 and referenced 

in each subsequent review deals with recurring student comments about feeling intimidated 

and/or uncomfortable in the classroom. As noted by both students and peer observers, the topics 

addressed in Dr. Calvente’s courses can lead to challenging class conversations that can be 

emotionally difficult. In her narrative, Dr. Calvente states that her pedagogical approach enables 

students to “articulate their own positions on racism and other forms of marginalization freely 

and early on in the course” so that she can address these issues and student concerns. Looking at 

teaching evaluations, for many of her students, this approach has worked. She has been described 

by students as honest, respectful, and genuine. There have been, however, a number of students 

for whom this is not working and who have voiced strong concerns that Dr. Calvente is 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 141 of 188 PageID #:141
intimidating and dismissive in the classroom setting, particularly if they (or other students) are 

seen as disagreeing with her. 

As recently as Fall 2018, two complaints against Dr. Calvente were brought to the College 

Office that reflect the types of negative comments seen in the evaluations. In separate statements, 

two male students stated that during a critique of their group performance, Dr. Calvente called

them “sexist and misogynist” several times in front of the class and in a follow-up email to the 

entire class. When they disagreed with the critique, they said that Dr. Calvente was very visibly 

angry. One student said she kept “death glaring at us.” One of the students said that as “an Arab, 

brown-skinned man, it was as if my reality does not matter. The professor is a person of power.”

The student continued, “I left Saudi Arabia to avoid this kind of thinking and education. I was 

not disrespecting her authority, I was disagreeing with an idea.” To be fair, I want to share that 

Dr. Calvente also filed an incident report through the Dean of Students Office that claimed the 

male students were very disruptive in the class and disrespectful to her and the female student in 

their group. And, both the male students admitted to getting angry during the discussion. From a

follow-up conversation I had about the incident with Dr. Calvente, I believe she may have been 

trying to use the incident as a teachable moment related to the course content, but the male 

students came away feeling alienated and attacked. One dropped the class claiming his mental 

health was worth more than the tuition he would lose. The other stayed in the class, but said he 

was scared to participate again. I typically wouldn’t go into detail on a student complaint for a 

tenure and promotion case. And, there are very clearly two sides to this story. I share this recent 

event because it provides a window into the type of polarizing comments that have shown up in 

Dr. Calvente’s teaching evaluations.

In her narrative, Dr. Calvente states that the negative responses are intensified since she is a U.S. 

born woman of color leading a discussion on race and racism. I agree that her embodied 

experience of difference as an instructor cannot and should not be ignored. It is difficult to know, 

however, if this is the only reason some students respond negatively to her teaching style. The 

question becomes, then, what can be done to reach these students. In this way, the concern 

surrounding Dr. Calvente’s teaching is less about the existence of the negative comments, and 

more about how Dr. Calvente has chosen to respond (or not respond) to them. When the 

comments were brought to her attention in an earlier formal review (2015), the personnel 

committee initiated a conversation about how she could potentially reach these students. Rather 

than reflect on how she might more effectively engage and teach the students who were feeling 

alienated, she offered one solution: students could drop the course if they didn’t like her 

teaching. In a later formal review (2017), when issues of student discomfort were again raised by 

the college personnel committee (comprised of a completely different set of elected tenured 

faculty than the 2015 review), Dr. Calvente dismissed the concerns. She stated that for her to act 

upon the recommendations, she would have to agree with them. In the 2017 formal review, the 

personnel committee claimed that at least one comment that referenced intimidating and 

dismissive behavior was seen in 55% of her course evaluations. In her 2018 appendix, Dr. 

Calvente takes time to do her own calculations by student (not course) to show that by that date 

20 students had expressed concerns about the classroom environment. In the judgment of the 

tenured faculty, this number and the content of the comments is not acceptable, particularly when 

a faculty member is resistant to adapt her teaching in response. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 142 of 188 PageID #:142
Again, I want to emphasize, for the majority of her students, Dr. Calvente provides a positive, 

and for some an extraordinary experience. She has made efforts to improve some aspects of her 

teaching. To be an “excellent” teacher at an institution such as DePaul, however, requires a 

commitment and an effort to try to reach all students—even those who may (possibly unfairly) 

view you or your course content negatively. This is the conundrum of this case. Taken together, 

these concerns justify the evaluation of “very good” as a fair assessment of her teaching and 

consistent with other cases in the college. 

RESEARCH

Dr. Calvente’s research is also evaluated as “very good.” Prior to DePaul, she published one 

book chapter and two encyclopedia entries. Since arriving at DePaul in 2011, she published three 

peer-reviewed articles, one peer-reviewed book chapter, an edited book in which she wrote the 

introduction and co-wrote another chapter, and a book review. Her most productive publication 

period has been the last two years of her probationary period after she received a year-long 

fellowship through the Woodrow Wilson Career Enhancement Fellowship for Junior Faculty. 

There are commendable qualities to Dr. Calvente’s scholarship. It is grounded in her 

commitment to social justice, in particular race and racism as manifested in local and global 

contexts. Her work is interdisciplinary, drawing on areas of cultural studies, critical race theory, 

and performance theory. She has studied a wide range of events and experiences as showcased in 

published pieces on representations of blackness and immigration, visual significance of flags 

during the Haitian Revolution and Pan-African decolonization. Her recent work on the hip hop 

culture in New York City led one external reviewer to say that her ability to track “the 

intersections of neoliberalism, rising racism, increasing structural oppression, with the 

emergence and persistent of hope and love [emphasis theirs]—is rare and important.” Dr. 

Calvente carefully contextualizes these contemporary manifestations of race and culture in 

broader histories of black oppression while also connecting local experiences of racism with the 

larger, more global effects of neoliberalism and structural oppression. 

While her topic areas are significant and timely, both the tenured faculty and two of the external 

reviewers stated a desire to see more work published during the probationary period for a more 

notable impact. In earlier formal reviews, the personnel committee advised Dr. Calvente to 

publish peer-reviewed articles to strengthen her tenure case. The College of Communication 

guidelines clearly state that edited books do not carry the same weight as peer reviewed articles 

published in academic journals. Dr. Calvente also references a book-length manuscript that has 

been in process for a number of years. There is no way to assess the quality or significance of 

this project at this stage. While there are some publisher emails signaling interest after seeing her 

initial query letter, the candidate’s dossier did not include a sample book chapter or a completed 

manuscript. The guidelines also clearly explain that a book manuscript must be accepted by a 

press, in final form, and in the publication pipeline in order for it to count toward tenure. 

Beginning in 2017, Dr. Calvente listed three student performances on her CV as unpublished 

scholarship. According to her narrative, she co-authored these performances with her students 

and also served as director. The College of Communication guidelines for tenure and promotion 

do allow for public performances to count as creative scholarship. Dr. Calvente’s students did 

offer a public performance at the end of each class. However, the performances themselves 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 143 of 188 PageID #:143
served as a final assignment for each course. Based on the information provided by Dr. Calvente, 

a review of the submitted performance video, and the College guidelines, the College of 

Communication personnel committee appropriately categorized these performances as teaching, 

not research. This determination is in alignment with the University Faculty Handbook which 

states that “activities conducted solely within the candidate’s classes...are considered in 

evaluating the candidate’s teaching, not in evaluating his or her contributions in scholarship.” 

Therefore, based on the quality and quantity of Dr. Calvente’s research, she is appropriately 

ranked as “very good” in this area. 

SERVICE

In the area of service, Dr. Calvente is also ranked as “very good” by her peers. Dr. Calvente has 

participated in service obligations at the program, college, and university levels. Most of the 

service that Dr. Calvente has provided at the program and college levels has been in ad hoc, 

short-term capacities. For example, she helped review syllabi for CMN 103, helped solicit 

feedback from college advisors on proposed curricular “pathways” for communication studies, 

and has been a representative at student open houses and presented student awards. Also, of note 

is her participation on a term faculty hiring committee and her work advising students in the 

Latino Media and Communication program. Dr. Calvente also lists other smaller activities such 

as guest speaking in the graduate foundations course and participating in various meetings as 

service. The one substantive committee that Dr. Calvente has served on in the College of 

Communication is the Term Faculty Review Committee. The committee reviews term faculty on 

a two-year rotation including peer observations and writing and editing documents. Dr. Calvente 

has been an active and valuable member of this committee for the past two years. To receive an 

“excellent” rating in service at the time of tenure of promotion, would require that Dr. Calvente 

would have participated on more of these kinds of substantive committees in the College of 

Communication during her probationary period.

Dr. Calvente has provided other college-level service outside of the College of Communication 

where she has served as an affiliate faculty member for several different programs in the College 

of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences including the African and Black Diaspora Studies Program, 

the Latino Studies Program (where she also served on a tenure-track hiring committee), and the 

Critical Ethnic Studies MA program. She is a member of the Women’s Center Advisory Board. 

Her service in these areas is described as conscientious, invaluable, and collaborative. Dr. 

Calvente has started building a record of service at the university level. In the past year, she has 

been a member of the General Education Task Force Report Review, the Council on Community 

Engagement, and participated in the WPI Project-Based Learning workshop. 

The College of Communication is a small college that must spread service obligations across a 

fewer number of tenure-track faculty than many other colleges. Therefore, in the College of 

Communication, candidates ranked as “excellent” in service have provided much more ongoing, 

substantial committee work, particularly within the College of Communication and at the 

university level where we have requirements for representation on a number of committees. The 

need to significantly increase her service to the College in more meaningful ways was 

communicated to Dr. Calvente in each prior formal review. This is not to say that the service 

contributions provided by Dr. Calvente have not been valuable; she is aptly rated as “very good.”

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 144 of 188 PageID #:144
In the end, I believe that Dr. Calvente’s performance in the areas of teaching, research, and 

service has been fairly evaluated as “very good.” She exhibits strengths in all three areas. But, 

there are also significant areas in her performance to date that must be stronger to reach the 

levels required for tenure and promotion. Again, the College of Communication guidelines for 

tenure and promotion to associate professor include an expectation that at least two of the three 

areas of performance are ranked “excellent” with no category below “very good.” Dr. Calvente 

has been given clear feedback through formal reviews over the years with the hope of improving 

these ratings. A vote of 19-2 against tenure and promotion is a significant statement. To overturn 

this, I would need to see flaws in the reasoning of the tenured faculty and/or make an argument 

that at least two of the areas reach the level of excellent. Based on what is presented in the 

dossier at this time, I cannot make that case. 

Sincerely,

Alexandra Murphy

Professor and Acting Dean

College of Communication

Vincent de Paul Professor

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 145 of 188 PageID #:145
Exhibit 5

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 146 of 188 PageID #:146
University Board on Promotion and Tenure 

1 East Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604-2287

TO: Salma Ghanem, Acting Provost 

FROM: University Board on Promotion and Tenure

DATE: May 10, 2019

Re: Lisa Calvente’s Application for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure

______________________________________________________________________________

The 2018-2019 University Board on Promotion and Tenure met on Friday, March 8, 2019, to

consider Lisa Calvente’s application for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure. Dr. 

Calvente joined DePaul as an Assistant Professor in 2011; her tenure application was deferred 

two years due to an approved leave during AY 2012-13 and a URC research leave during AY 

2015-16. Professor Calvente holds a PhD from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Board Members Present: Ruth Gannon Cook (School for New Learning); Nila Hofman 

(College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences); Xiaoping Jia (College of Computing and Digital 

Media); Gregory Mark (College of Law); Thomas Miller (School of Music); Sandra Shelton 

(College of Business); Bruno Teboul (College of Communication) 

Board Members Absent: None

Vote Summary:

College of Communication tenured faculty: 2 – 19 (Support – Oppose)

College of Communication Acting Dean recommendation: Does not support

University Board: 4 – 3 (Support – Oppose) 

A majority of the University Board on Promotion and Tenure disagreed with the majority of the 

tenured faculty of the College of Communication and the Acting Dean of the College of 

Communication, and found that Dr. Calvente has met the criteria for promotion to Associate 

Professor with tenure. 

In terms of teaching, the Board agreed with the unit’s largely positive assessment of Dr. 

Calvente’s overall teaching performance, with a majority of the Board finding that Dr. 

Calvente’s teaching, as evidenced by consistently high student evaluations, a strong student 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 147 of 188 PageID #:147
report, and positive peer evaluations, met the standard of consistent effectiveness established in 

the Faculty Handbook. 

The Board considered each of the principal teaching concerns raised in the unit level review. 

Concerns that Dr. Calvente created a ‘harsh, uncomfortable atmosphere for her students’, and 

that her students felt intimidated in her classroom. A majority of the Board recognized that while 

these are serious concerns, the negative responses to Dr. Calvente’s teaching represented a very 

small minority of her students. The Board was encouraged to notice a significant improvement 

in the recent years, although negative feelings have still been occasionally expressed by a small 

number of students. The Board encourages Dr. Calvente to experiment and innovate with

different and/or mixed pedagogy to accommodate students with different learning styles, to be 

open to different perspectives, and to attempt to reach all of her student audience in the future. 

Concerns that Dr. Calvente’s CMN 103 was not meeting the needs of the College by not 

following curriculum guidelines. The faculty report indicated that Dr. Calvente ignored the 

curriculum guidelines of CMN 103 agreed upon by the faculty. However, the additional 

documents provided by Dr. Calvente in her response to the College’s decision included an email 

from a senior faculty member confirming that the syllabus of CMN 103 designed by Dr. 

Calvente was appropriate. A majority of the Board believed that this evidence suggested that the 

concerns with not following the curriculum guidelines could very well result from a 

misunderstanding between parties regarding the expectations. The Board encourages Dr. 

Calvente to recognize the importance of incorporating the feedback and suggestions from her 

colleagues into her core courses, and to align CMN 103 with applicable guidelines. The Board 

was pleased to learn from Dr. Calvente in the interview with the Board that she would be more 

than happy to meet with area faculty to ensure that the content in CMN 103 conforms to the 

course guidelines and learning goals. 

A minority of the Board members shared the degree of concern expressed by the faculty and the 

Dean that some of Dr. Calvente’s students felt intimidated and/or uncomfortable in her 

classroom. These Board members felt that while the number of students with negative feelings

represented a small minority, negative responses are still evident and an important part of the 

record, with the impact on some of the students being severe. To Board members, these negative 

responses cannot be entirely attributed to the subject matter of the courses Dr. Calvente has 

taught, since there are other instructors who have taught similarly challenging subject matter 

without the volume and severity of negative responses we have seen in Dr. Calvente’s case. 

Further, these concerns are indications that there is room for improvement in Dr. Calvente’s 

teaching, and the unit’s assessment of Dr. Calvente’s teaching being short of excellent is justified. 

The Board encourages Dr. Calvente to learn from her peers who successfully teach similarly 

challenging classes and to continue to explore ways to make all students feel welcome and 

respected in her classroom regardless of their individual ideology and viewpoints.

In terms of scholarship, the Board recognized that in the categories valued most by the unit, Dr. 

Calvente’s total body of work consists of, at minimum, 3 peer-reviewed articles and 3 peerreviewed book chapters during the probationary period, in additional to 6 papers in international 

conferences and 10 presentations in national conferences. A majority of Board members 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 148 of 188 PageID #:148
considered these works alone, without counting Dr. Calvente’s editorial role in her co-edited 

book and the public performances by her students, represent a sufficient volume to warrant 

promotion and tenure. The significance and quality of her work were praised by the external 

reviewers and echoed by the faculty in the unit report. Based on this evidence, a majority of the 

Board found Dr. Calvente’s scholarship to have met the minimum standard of notable in the 

Faculty Handbook. The Board encourages Dr. Calvente to continue her research trajectory with 

more quantity and quality in peer-reviewed articles, and to establish a sustained research stream 

with notable contributions to her field.

Some members of the Board shared the concerns by one of the external reviewers that the total

volume of scholarly work completed by Dr. Calvente is “slim” and that Dr. Calvente failed to 

meet the unit’s expectation to complete her book project following 2 pre-tenure research leaves 

(URC and Woodrow Wilson Career Enhancement Fellowship for Junior Faculty). With these 

concerns, a minority of the Board considered that the unit’s assessment of Dr. Calvente’s 

scholarship being short of excellent was justified.

In terms of service, some of the Board members shared the concerns of the faculty that a large 

portion of Dr. Calvente’s service was outside her home unit. However, the Board agreed that Dr. 

Calvente’s overall service contribution was sufficiently strong to meet the criteria for service in 

the Faculty Handbook. The Board encourages Dr. Calvente to continue to build on her service

record, in her home unit, as well as at the college and university levels. 

The Board recognizes that a local unit may define local standards at a greater level of specificity 

and higher expectations in quantity and quality than what is stipulated in the Faculty Handbook. 

The unit’s aspiration to excellence by requiring two of the three areas to be excellent is 

appropriate and indeed commendable. Given the unit’s aspiration to excellence and the concerns 

in teaching and scholarship in Dr. Calvente’s case, the dissenting members of the Board were not 

convinced that Dr. Calvente has met the aspiration for excellence set by the unit in either 

teaching or scholarship, nor do they find sufficient ground to overturn the judgement of an 

overwhelming majority of the faculty and the Dean. 

The Board congratulates Dr. Calvente on her accomplishments during her probationary period 

and looks forward to a record of sustained excellence in teaching, research, and service in the 

years to come.

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 149 of 188 PageID #:149
This recommendation accurately reflects the University Board on Promotion and Tenure’s 

discussion of Lisa Calvente’s application for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure.

_______________________

Gregory Mark

Professor of Law

College of Law

_____________________

Ruth Gannon Cook

Professor 

School for New Learning

___________________

Ginger Hofman

Professor of Anthropology 

College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences

_______________________

Xiaoping Jia

Professor of Computer Science and Software Engineering

College of Computing and Digital Media

_______________________

Thomas Miller

Professor of Sound Recording Technology

School of Music

_______________________

Sandra Shelton

Professor of Accountancy

Driehaus College of Business

_______________________

J. C. Bruno Teboul

Professor of Organizational and Multicultural Communication 

College of Communication

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 150 of 188 PageID #:150
Exhibit 6

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 151 of 188 PageID #:151
June 10, 2019

Lisa Calvente

6748 N. Glenwood Ave. 

Chicago IL 60626

Dear Professor Calvente,

I regret to inform you that I have decided that you will not be granted tenure and promotion to 

Associate Professor. This decision is in agreement with a significant majority of your tenured 

colleagues in Communication, with the Acting Dean of the College of Communication, and with 

three of the seven members of the University Board on Promotion and Tenure (UBPT). My 

decision regarding your application for promotion and tenure is based on my review of your 

dossier (including your response to the college reports) and my attendance at the UBPT hearing 

on your case. 

The College of Communication guidelines indicate that, for tenure and promotion to Associate 

Professor, the College “expects excellence in at least two areas, with the third being rated at 

least very good.” The College recommendation on your application for tenure and promotion 

evaluates your record as “very good” in the three areas of teaching, research, and service, and 

reports a 2-19 vote recommending against your tenure and promotion. The Acting Dean 

agreed with these evaluations and, accordingly, has also recommended against your 

promotion. In its turn, and with your response to the college reports in hand, the UBPT 

evaluated your record, paying particular attention to the issues where there had been 

disagreement. Although the UBPT recommendation report did not dispute the tenured 

faculty’s and acting dean’s evaluation of your record as “very good,” it notes that the Board’s 

dissenting members (3 out of 7) did consider the College of Communication’s above guidelines 

in making their decision on the case. 

There is every evidence of careful review of this case at all levels. Exercising professional 

judgment, experienced faculty colleagues have evaluated your work. Per the handbook, before 

granting tenure, “the university should have no reasonable doubt about the faculty member’s 

demonstrated qualifications and continued capacity to contribute to DePaul’s distinctive goals 

and academic mission” (emphasis mine). The slim majority voting in favor of your application 

at the University level does not, in my view, sufficiently answer the significant concerns raised 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 152 of 188 PageID #:152
by your colleagues in Communication, concerns which led them to vote against promotion and 

tenure by an overwhelming majority. 

As noted in the college and dean’s reports and as acknowledged by you in your response, the 

concerns that have been raised in this tenure review have been raised in earlier probationary 

reviews. Given this, I would like to clarify my own earlier role in the consideration of your case, 

as Dean of the College of Communication during your 2015 and 2017 formal reviews. In the 

conclusion to your response to the college reports, you referred obliquely to my “assessments” 

during those earlier reviews. It is true that I twice overturned recommendations by significant 

tenured faculty majorities for contract nonrenewal. I did not do so because I disagreed with 

the substantive concerns of your colleagues but because I recognized, as do the College of 

Communication guidelines, “that faculty members must have the opportunity to develop 

strengths and skills as they progress toward tenure.” I had noted some improvement between 

formal reviews and wanted to give you the opportunity to address the remaining stated areas 

of concern in all three areas to meet the standards of the college by the time of your tenure 

review. In my letters of renewal in 2015 and again in 2017, I encouraged you to heed the 

developmental recommendations of your colleagues. Unfortunately, you have not done so to a 

sufficient degree to change the evaluation of your colleagues.

This denial of tenure means that the 2019-2020 academic year will constitute your terminal 

year of employment at DePaul University, with an effective termination date of June 30, 2020. I 

am grateful for your years of service to DePaul University and the College of Communication. I 

wish you the best in your future endeavors. 

Sincerely,

Salma Ghanem, Acting Provost

cc: Lexa Murphy, Acting Dean, College of Communication

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 153 of 188 PageID #:153
Exhibit 7

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 154 of 188 PageID #:154
Faculty Appeals Board Report to the President of DePaul University 

Date: 01/15/20 

 

To: A. Gabriel Esteban [President DePaul University] 

 

From: Faculty Appeals Board [Brian Boeck, Jose Liberti and Bridget Tenner] 

 

CC: Lisa B.Y. Calvente [Appellant]. 

Executive Summary 

The Board finds that the Appellant was unfairly evaluated at multiple points during her 

probationary period and that procedural deviations were material to the final decision 

to deny tenure and promotion. 

Regarding ground (2) for appeal “The evaluation of the candidate deviated from procedures in 

the Faculty Handbook or in college or local academic unit guidelines, and the deviation was 

material to the final decision” the board unanimously decided that the documentation meets 

the criteria for a successful appeal. 

Regarding ground (3) for appeal “The decision was the result of discriminatory practices 

prohibited by university policies or applicable federal, state, or local laws” the board 

unanimously decided that the documentation does not meet the criteria for a successful 

appeal. 

Though the majority of allegations advanced in the Appellant's appeal could not be 

substantiated by our investigation, three avenues of investigation were central to our 

determination. The Board considers two serious allegations to be both substantiated and 

material to the decision to deny tenure and promotion: 1. deviations from procedures in 

the evaluation of teaching, 2. deviations from procedures by failing to provide clear and 

consistent guidance regarding service in formal reviews (as mandated in FH 

3.3.1). Regarding a third serious allegation, the Board could not substantiate a conflict of 

interest with respect to the Provost's final decision. Though it believes that the Provost 

acted in good faith, serious concerns remain about how the 2015 and 2017 formal reviews 

were weighted in the Provost's final decision. The Board finds that both reviews contain 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 155 of 188 PageID #:155
misrepresentations related to teaching that were never corrected or addressed in spite of 

multiple attempts by the Appellant to draw attention to them. 

Summary of Board Investigation 

In accordance with Chapter 5 of the Faculty Handbook (FH) The Faculty Committee on 

Appeals (FCA) received the appeal of Lisa Calvente (hereafter the Appellant) who was 

denied tenure and promotion. The FCA selected a three member board (hereafter the 

Board) consisting of the above-named faculty members to hear the appeal and make its 

recommendation to the president. 

Before the Board even received the Appellant’s appeal documentation, it began receiving 

communications from concerned individuals from outside of DePaul University. The 

Board considers the Appellant’s disclosing of the names of the Board members to 

individuals outside the university to be a serious breach of confidentiality under Faculty 

Handbook 6.4.2. 

Section 5.1.2.3 of the Faculty Handbook states “A faculty member may appeal the decision to 

deny an application for tenure and promotion. The appeal must be based on one or more of the 

following grounds: 

1. The decision violated the faculty member’s academic freedom. 

2. The evaluation of the candidate deviated from procedures in the Faculty Handbook or in 

college or local academic unit guidelines, and the deviation was material to the final 

decision. 

3. The decision was the result of discriminatory practices prohibited by university policies or 

applicable federal, state, or local laws.” 

 

The Appellant argued in “Memorandum of Lisa B.Y. Calvente to the Tenure Appeals 

Board” [hereafter the Appeal] that all three grounds for appeal existed and were material 

to the Interim Provost’s decision to deny tenure. The Board met for three hours to discuss 

this documentation on 9/27/19 and engaged in additional consultations in subsequent 

weeks. 

In Memorandum: Preliminary Review of Dr. Lisa B.Y. Calvente Appeal of Tenure and Promotion

dated 9/27/19 the Board outlined to A. Gabriel Esteban [President of DePaul University] 

its determination that the Memorandum of Appeal and Supporting Documentation did 

not satisfy the criteria for ground (1) violation of academic freedom. The vote was 3-0 in 

favor of not proceeding with investigation of this ground for appeal. The memorandum 

also outlined a timeline for investigating ground (2) for appeal “The evaluation of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 156 of 188 PageID #:156
candidate deviated from procedures in the Faculty Handbook or in college or local academic unit 

guidelines, and the deviation was material to the final decision,” and ground (3) for appeal “The 

decision was the result of discriminatory practices prohibited by university policies or applicable 

federal, state, or local laws.” 

The Board conducted a thorough investigation as mandated by Faculty Handbook 5.1.1.4. 

This investigation commenced with a careful and extensive review of the documentation 

submitted by the appellant (“Memorandum of Lisa B.Y. Calvente to the Tenure Appeals 

Board” consisting of 17 pages and attachment “Supplementary Documentation” 

consisting of 133 pages of documentation) as well as documentation from the University 

EEO office. 

The Board consulted with Stephanie Smith, Chief Human Resources Officer regarding 

claims of discrimination/retaliation, solicited information from three faculty members 

with knowledge of the case, questioned the authors of reports that recommended against 

renewal or promotion, and reviewed clarifications and additional documentation from 

both the appellant and the College of Communication [hereafter the College]. The Board 

sent the Appellant, Lisa Calvente, a dozen initial questions and three additional requests 

for documentation or clarification. The Board sent Alexandra (Lexa) Murphy, Acting 

Dean, College of Communication [hereafter Dean], 11 initial questions, 23 follow-up 

questions and two requests for additional documentation. The Board sent Interim 

Provost, Salma Ghanem [hereafter Provost], 3 initial questions and 28 follow up 

questions. It received timely and helpful responses to all of its queries. 

The Board also solicited and carefully scrutinized three groups of additional evidence. It 

reviewed the Appellant’s Student Evaluations of Teaching, both quantitative/statistical 

and open-ended student comments and responses, for all classes offered at DePaul 

through the 2017 formal review. It reviewed all letters from the Appellant’s tenure 

dossier documenting her service. It reviewed anonymized (all faculty names removed) 

copies of the service sections of the CVs of all candidates for tenure from the College of 

Communication who were ranked by the College Personnel Committee as “excellent” in 

service within the previous ten years. 

This evidence and documentation was comprehensively discussed by the Board on 

November 7, 2019 and subsequent occasions. 

NOTE: Italics will be used when quoting directly from the documentation reviewed by 

the Board. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 157 of 188 PageID #:157
Ground for Appeal II. Procedural Violations 

Appellant’s Allegations Regarding the Provost 

In section one of the appeal the Appellant advances three major allegations regarding 

procedural violations by the Provost. (Discrimination/Retaliation allegations 

interspersed on pages 1-15 of the appeal will be addressed below in the section devoted 

to ground for appeal three). 

1 (A, page 2 of appeal) the Appellant alleges that the tenure decision by the Provost failed 

to provide a “compelling reason” for overturning the recommendation of the UBPT. 

2 (B, page 5 of appeal) the Appellant alleges that the tenure decision by the Provost, 

violated the University’s conflict of interest policies. 

3. (a, page 3 of appeal) the Appellant alleges that the tenure decision by the Provost relied 

upon concerns articulated by the College during formal and informal reviews, and 

violates the University’s criteria with regard to tenure and promotion procedures by 

failing to allow for university-wide consideration of her tenure case. 

The Board’s Findings 

Regarding allegation one, the Board finds that the Provost (in the decision letter to the 

Appellant dated June 10, 2019) did provide multiple reasons for overturning the 

recommendation of the UBPT. 

In discussions about whether those reasons were compelling, the Board devoted 

particular attention to Dr. Ghanem’s statement in the letter to the Appellant dated June 

10, 2019: 

“The slim majority voting in favor of your application at the University level does not, in my view, 

sufficiently answer the significant concerns raised by your colleagues in Communication, concerns 

which led them to vote against promotion and tenure by an overwhelming majority.” 

This statement appears to imply that there exists a specific proportion of positive votes 

by the UBPT which would have sufficiently answered the concerns raised by faculty 

members in the College. Dr. Ghanem’s response to the Board, however, reiterated her 

agreement with the evaluation of the UBPT board members who did not assess the 

Appellant’s work as excellent in teaching and research. The UBPT recommendation 

dated May 10, 2019 clearly conveys the reasons advanced by the dissenting minority. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 158 of 188 PageID #:158
The Board discussed whether or not the reasons provided by the Provost for tenure denial 

meet the Faculty Handbook’s [3.5.6.3] threshold for providing compelling reasons in a 

written explanation. The Board also focused its investigation on determining the extent 

to which student comments about ‘intimidating and dismissive’ behaviors (discussed 

below) influenced the Provost’s tenure decision. The results of that investigation inform 

the Board’s findings regarding other allegations discussed below. The Board does not 

find that the Provost violated Section 3.5.6.3 of the Faculty Handbook, though it does find 

that flawed personnel documentation informed the Provost’s reasoning. The Appellant’s 

case was one of only 3 (out of 47) in which earlier formal or probationary reviews 

conducted at the unit or college level were specifically referred to or cited in the Provost’s 

letter of decision regarding tenure/promotion. 

Regarding allegation two, the Board finds that the tenure decision by the Provost did not 

violate the University’s conflict of interest policies. The Board notes that the appeal did 

not provide sufficient, specific evidence to substantiate the claim of a conflict of interest. 

Nor did the Appellant refer to relevant sections of the University Code of Conduct, which 

explain or define ‘conflict of interest.’ 

The Appellant asserts that Dr. Ghanem should have recused herself from consideration 

of her tenure case. On Page 6 of the appeal the appellant states: “Dr. Ghanem’s decision 

not to recuse herself from my case constitutes a clear conflict of interest.” The Board disagrees 

and notes, for reasons further outlined below, that the specific facts of this case would 

not mandate a recusal according to Faculty Handbook [3.5.1.1.h] or university policy. 

Moreover, a recusal would potentially have made an unprecedented case even more 

procedurally complicated, since Faculty Handbook Chapter 5 provides no clear guidance 

for handling an appeal in such circumstances. 

The preponderance of evidence submitted to the Board demonstrates that the Provost 

acted in good faith and objectively evaluated the Appellant’s performance based on the 

evidence provided by the Appellant and the College. 

Regarding allegation three, the Board finds that the Provost did assign undue weight to 

concerns, particularly those about teaching, articulated by the College during earlier, pretenure formal and informal reviews. 

In its deliberations regarding allegation three, the Board was particularly concerned by 

the unique aspects of this particular case. It finds that Provost Ghanem formally occupied 

two distinct roles in the handling of the Appellant’s tenure case within the same academic 

year [as a result of the fact that the Provost started the academic year as Dean of the 

College of Communication]. Dr. Ghanem states that she did not occupy two distinct roles 

because she “did not weigh in at all as dean on Dr. Calvente’s tenure and promotion review or 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 159 of 188 PageID #:159
that of any of her Communication colleagues who went up in AY 2018-2019.” However, in the 

opinion of the Board, the sudden transition of Dr. Ghanem to a new leadership role in the 

university created a situation which was unprecedented in recent university practice. In 

her newly assumed role as Acting Provost, Dr. Ghanem was significantly more familiar 

with Dr. Calvente’s case, as presented through the problematic lens of College personnel 

documentation, than with other tenure cases she considered as Provost in AY 2018-2019. 

The undue weight assigned to concerns articulated in College personnel documentation 

was therefore material to the Provost’s decision. 

In its consideration of evidence regarding allegation three, the Board found that a specific 

aspect of the Appellant’s argumentation satisfies the criteria for a successful appeal. 

Faculty Handbook Section 3.3.1.3 clearly specifies that the tenure review is a universitywide consideration. 

On page 4 of the appeal the Appellant alleges that the College had a disproportionate say 

in her tenure process, in violation of university-wide consideration. She states: “Dr. Salma 

Ghanem, in her role as Interim Provost (then Acting Provost) of the University articulates 

concerns that would have been appropriate to her previous role as Dean of the College of 

Communication. In the position of Interim Provost, and by privileging College concerns, Dr. 

Salma Ghanem violates the requirements of university-wide consideration.” 

The Board finds that the UBPT conducted a substantive review applying current 

university-wide standards and criteria as stipulated by Faculty Handbook Section 

3.5.6.1.c. 

The preponderance of evidence examined by the Board substantiates the Appellant’s 

allegation that the Provost’s reasons for overturning the recommendation of the UBPT 

assigned greater weight to college concerns than university-wide criteria. 

Appellant’s Allegations Regarding Bruno Teboul, faculty of College of Communication 

and member of the UBPT. 

In section one of the appeal the Appellant advances an allegation regarding procedural 

violations by a member of the College who served on the UBPT. 

On page 6, marked as ‘b.’ , the Appellant alleges a violation of conflict of interest policies 

by a member of the College during her formal and informal reviews and during her UBPT 

review. 

The Appellant states: 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 160 of 188 PageID #:160
“The composition of the UBPT also included a faculty member of the College, Dr. Bruno Teboul. 

While the UBPT voted to recommend tenure, the Interim Provost’s letter overturning the UBPT 

recommendation cited the “slim majority” of the vote as a reason for the negative outcome. This 

further suggests a conflict of interest that should have been explicitly acknowledged per the Faculty 

Handbook.” 

The Board’s Findings 

The Board questioned Dr. Teboul. It deems his response, which outlined his adherence 

to the requirements of the Faculty Handbook Section 3.5.1.1.b, to be credible.

Regarding this allegation, the Board finds that the evidence does not substantiate the 

claim of conflict of interest. 

Appellant’s Allegations Regarding Contract Year In College Pre-Tenure Review 

In section one of the appeal the Appellant advances two allegations regarding procedural 

violations with respect to determining contract year in College pre-tenure reviews. 

1 (C, Page 6 of the appeal) The Appellant alleges that the College failed to follow 

University policies and procedures in the evaluation of scholarship, teaching and service 

appropriate to Contract Year. 

2 (a, Page 7 of the appeal) The Appellant alleges a violation of Section 3.2.2 of the Faculty 

Handbook with regards to leaves of absence. 

The Board’s Findings 

Regarding allegation one, the Board finds it probable that minor procedural errors 

occurred, but also finds that these were not material to the outcome of the tenure case. 

Regarding allegation two, the Board finds it probable that minor procedural errors 

occurred, but also finds that these were not material to the outcome of the tenure case. 

Based on a careful evaluation of the evidence, the Board determined that any minor, 

unintentional errors or procedural uncertainties about contract year resulting from 

leave(s) of absence would not have required a reassessment of the entire file during preCase: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 161 of 188 PageID #:161
tenure reviews. 

Appellant’s Allegations that the College Violated Policies in the Evaluation of 

Scholarship. 

In section one of the appeal the Appellant advances two major allegations that the College 

violated policies for the evaluation of scholarship. 

1 (on page 9, 11) the Appellant alleges that the College violated Faculty Handbook Section 

3.5.2.c, which reads: “All documents considered at each level must be passed on to subsequent 

levels,” by failing to send out all of her public performances to external reviewers for 

evaluation. 

2 (on page 9, 11) the Appellant alleges that the College violated its own criteria for 

evaluating scholarship and university policies by not counting her public performances 

as scholarship. 

The Board focused its investigation on two particular statements in the appeal. 

On page 9 of the appeal, the Appellant states: “It came to my attention after my external 

letters had been submitted to the College, that in fact the College had violated University 

procedure and failed to transmit my dossier to external reviewers. [emphasis in bold 

Appellant’s] The College did not notify me of this occurrence; rather, one of my external letter 

writers noted the omissions of the materials in their letter, and this came to my attention after 

Acting Dean of the College Alexandra Murphy sent me copies of the letters.” 

The Board notes that there is a major difference between failing to transmit an entire 

dossier and failing to transmit or reclassifying individual items. 

On page 11 of the appeal, the Appellant states: “The College’s failure to acknowledge my 

public performances, which involved community partners and students, and were not restricted 

to the classroom, violates both University policy and College criteria where the evaluation of 

scholarship is concerned. Moreover, I was hired in the College as a race and performance scholar. 

The College’s failure to send out my performances for evaluation and its discounting constitutes 

a violation of College and University Guidelines. Furthermore, Section 3.5.2 of the Faculty 

Handbook provides that “At all levels of evaluation the following processes must be followed...c) 

All documents considered at each level must be passed on to subsequent levels” 

[emphasis in bold Appellant’s]. The College’s failure to send out my performances to the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 162 of 188 PageID #:162
external reviewers for evaluation is also in direct violation of this aspect of the University’s 

policies. It’s impact, given that the Interim Provost used the College’s ranking of “very good” for 

my scholarship in order to substantiate her decision to overturn the UBPT recommendation, had 

a direct and negative effect in the outcome of my tenure application.” 

To investigate the Appellant’s claims, the Board requested additional clarification from 

the Appellant about how the performances were documented. 

Faculty Handbook Section 3.6.1.1. includes among ‘Items Supplied by the Candidate’ the 

following statement: “A single copy of articles, papers, published manuscripts, video and audio 

recordings, and other examples of scholarship and creative activities.” Faculty Handbook 

Section 3.5.1.3 provides guidelines for evaluating collaborative work. Therefore the 

Board determined that it was the candidate’s responsibility to record and properly 

document her contributions to any performances that would be included in the tenure 

dossier. It also determined that the format in which the performances were documented 

would be crucial to its investigation. 

Additional Information Uncovered During Investigation 

Extract from the Appellant’s response to the Board dated September 22, 2019. 

Board question: Pages 10-11 discusses how public performances were evaluated. Please 

provide a specific description of how each performance was documented at the time of 

the performance and the specific formats in which a record of each performance was 

preserved.

Appellant’s response: As part of my pedagogical approach that comes from participatory 

performance/theater, I require all aspects of the documenting and advertising the public 

performance to come from the students. Each time one of these performances are held the students 

are responsible for recording it because part of the agenda is for the students to find agency and 

accountability in these performances. As such each performance was recorded differently. In 2013, 

the performance was recorded by the now defunct technology services team in the college. In 2015, 

a friend of a student in the performance recorded it, and provided a Youtube link to the 

performance. In 2016, the performance was not digitally recorded so in lieu of the actual 

performance, I provided a letter from Rubén Álvarez Silva, who attended the event and was my 

advisory contact from the Steans Center for that particular course. I also provided the 

advertisement from the students for the performance. In 2019, a student asked her co-worker from 

the College of Computing and Digital Media to film the performance. Helen Damon Moore, who 

attended the event, from the Steans Center also had a photographer archive the performance. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 163 of 188 PageID #:163
Board question: How was each performance documented in the dossier? 

Appellant’s response: During each review period that followed a performance, I provided the 

College with documentation of the performance based on the method of documentation specific to 

that particular piece. In my tenure dossier, this took the form of 1) web links to the performances 

2) letters from those who attended and screened the performances 3) any relevant 

advertisements. Because each performance has both a scholarly as well as pedagogical component, 

the method of documentation and advertising changes according to the will of the student 

participants and community partners with whom I collaborate to stage these performances. Some 

performances were filmed, while others were not. All, however, were documented in my dossier 

according to College and University guidelines.

End of Extract. 

The Board also questioned Dean Murphy about the submission of the Dossier. 

Extract from Dean’s response dated September 23, 2019. 

Board question: Who sent out Lisa Calvente’s dossier? On what date was the dossier 

transmitted to external reviewers? Were any items in the dossier not transmitted to 

external reviewers?

Dean’s response: I sent out the dossier to the selected external reviewers. Two dossiers were sent 

on 6/25/18 and a third was sent on 7/10/18. A YouTube link to a class-based performance was 

not included.

Board question: If any dossier items were not transmitted to external reviews, what were 

those items, who made the decision not to transmit items, and what was the rationale for 

this decision? 

Dean’s response: As noted above, a link to a class-based performance was not included in the 

dossier sent to the external reviewers. The link was embedded in the list of the citations of the 

articles being sent out and was missed in the compilation of the items. 

Board question: Regarding the transmission of Lisa Calvente’s dossier to external 

reviewers, on what date did you become aware of allegations that the complete dossier 

was not sent out to external reviewers? Is it correct that according to College guidelines 

the complete dossier should be transmitted to external reviewers? Please provide all 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 164 of 188 PageID #:164
documentation and correspondence relating to this issue. [Board note: such 

documentation was provided and reviewed]. 

Dean’s response: On October 18th, Lisa Calvente let us (me and Hai Tran, the chair of the 

personnel committee) know of her concern that the performance link was not sent out. There is 

nothing in the college guidelines that designates that the entire dossier must be sent to the external 

reviewers. I have included the email correspondence related to this conversation. You will see in 

these exchanges, that since there was still time in the review process, I offered to rectify the 

situation by sending out the performance link to the reviewers. However, in looking at the link, I 

realized that it was a YouTube video with no context or explanation for the performance. Therefore, 

I asked Lisa to provide information about the performance that could be sent to the reviewers. My 

rationale was that there would be no way for the reviewers to make any assessment of her work on 

this without knowing how much she contributed to the scripting and staging of the performance 

(versus her students), when and where it was performed, and how many times. These are part of 

the norms established by the National Communication Association Performance Studies Division 

(NCAPSD) to help with the evaluation of creative performances as scholarship. None of this was 

provided by Lisa Calvente for this (or any of the) performances. 

End of Extract. 

Dean Murphy also provided to the Board copies of email correspondence with the 

appellant regarding the performances and dossier dated October 18, 23, and 24, 2018. 

The Board’s Findings 

Regarding allegation one, the Board finds that a minor procedural error occurred, but 

also finds that this error was not material to the outcome of the tenure case. Dean Murphy 

acknowledged that one YouTube video was not provided to external reviewers and 

sought to rectify the situation by proposing to transmit it to reviewers in late October 

2018. The College’s email correspondence with the Appellant demonstrates that the 

Appellant elected not to send the YouTube video or additional contextual explanation to 

external reviewers in late October 2018. 

Regarding allegation one, the Board finds that if the Appellant intended to rely on the 

public performances as key examples of scholarship/creative activities in her tenure 

dossier, the Appellant should have taken more proactive steps to document those 

activities and solicit timely evaluations of them from other scholars and DePaul faculty 

members as suggested by Faculty Handbook Section 3.4.2.2, which states: “An academic 

unit may evaluate oral presentations or creative activities by various means including (but not 

limited to) listening to recordings, examining drafts, or soliciting the views of other scholars 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 165 of 188 PageID #:165
(including other members of the DePaul faculty) who were in attendance.” 

Regarding allegation two, the Board finds that the College did not violate its own criteria 

for scholarship by not counting public performances, which involved students and were 

documented by students, primarily as scholarship. 

Regarding allegation two, the claim that the Appellant was “hired in the College as a race 

and performance scholar” could not be substantiated by the Board. The original job 

advertisement for the College position in ‘Intercultural Communication and Performance 

Studies’ did not specify any explicit expectations for giving public performances. 

Regarding allegation two, the Board finds that since the UBPT recommendation dated 

May 10, 2019 did not dispute the College’s evaluation of the public performances, any 

claim regarding violation of policies or Faculty Handbook Section 3.4.2.2 cannot be 

substantiated. 

Allegations Relating to the 2015 Formal Review 

In section one (page 12, 13) and section three (page 17) of the appeal, the Appellant 

advances an allegation that starting in 2015 the College violated the Faculty Handbook 

Section 3.4.2.1 by engaging in unfair and unsystematic evaluation of her teaching. 

The Appellant alleges on pages 2, 6, 8, 15, and 17 that the 2015 formal review initiated a 

pattern of misrepresentation of student comments in assessment of her teaching. 

Faculty Handbook Section 3.4.2.1 states: “Effective teaching is the first requirement in 

decisions at all levels on appointment, retention, promotion and tenure. Teaching evaluation 

must be done in a systematic, documented manner, including contributions from the candidate’s 

students and peers.” 

Faculty Handbook Section 4.1 states: “Every faculty member is entitled to fair and consistent 

decision-making procedures as a protection against violations of academic freedom or arbitrary 

adverse decisions.” 

In support of her argument that a pattern of misrepresentation began in 2015 and was 

material to the outcome of the tenure case, the Appellant demonstrates through citation 

that the Provost (page 3) referenced the 2015 formal review in her tenure decision. The 

Appellant also demonstrates through citation (page 12) that a prominent reference to 

“intimidating or dismissive” classroom behaviors also appears in the Dean’s 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 166 of 188 PageID #:166
recommendation. 

Additional Information Uncovered During Investigation 

The Board investigated whether or not a pattern of misrepresentation could be traced 

backed to the 2015 formal review. It notes that the 2015 formal review introduced 

phrasing about ‘intimidating’ classroom behaviors that recurs in subsequent personnel 

documentation (including College tenure deliberations). 

The Board compared the College 2015 formal review’s claims about patterns in student 

comments to the underlying evidence. The Board was disturbed to discover that the 

2015 formal review provided a highly selective, negative presentation of patterns in 

student comments, the review downplayed (almost to the point of willful distortion) 

positive aspects of the candidate’s teaching, and several statements in the review did 

not provide a fully accurate representation of actual proportions and patterns in the 

evidence. In fact a major summary claim of the review – “While the majority of Lisa’s 

course evaluations repeat both themes of adamant support/appreciation with feelings of 

intimidation and dismissal, this tension is elevated in her lower level core classes (CMN 103, 

INTC 230, LSP 200).”– could not be substantiated by examining the underlying 

evidence. The personnel committee seems to have cherry-picked negative comments 

(often unrepresentative ones) and made no serious effort to correlate the negative 

comments with negative comments qualified in a positive way in question 22 (how the 

class could be improved) and positive comments in question 21 (how the class was 

helpful). Many more students had an overall positive experience of intellectual growth 

than are reflected in this selective representation. Frequent student comments about the 

Appellant’s courses promoting critical thinking and/or being challenging in a good way 

were either downplayed or ignored. Upon reviewing all of the student evaluations 

considered in the 2015 formal review, the Board discovered that although there are 

small numbers of explicit student comments in teaching evaluations conducted over 

several quarters mentioning an intimidating or uncomfortable classroom environment, 

the College did to some extent misrepresent the patterns and proportions of such 

comments. 

The Board also notes that a long discussion of “Concerns of students feeling intimidated 

and/or uncomfortable” preceded the College’s negative tenure vote. The earlier formal 

reviews were considered a main reason for discounting the positive improvements 

noted in the 2018 Personnel Committee report because it “did not adequately address a 

pattern of student concerns about feeling intimidated and/or uncomfortable in Lisa’s classroom.” 

The College recommendation regarding tenure states: “Nevertheless, the tenured faculty 

expressed an overarching concern that the narrative [Board Note: in the Personnel 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 167 of 188 PageID #:167
committee report] underplayed the shortcomings in Lisa’s teaching record that warranted the 

Very Good rating, and by focusing mainly on recent evaluations, it did not fully reflect the 

history of the case.” 

The Board’s Findings 

The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the 2015 formal review initiated a 

pattern of College misrepresentation of student comments in teaching evaluations. 

The preponderance of evidence makes it probable that the College violated the Faculty 

Handbook’s provisions on fair and systematic evaluation. 

The Board finds that misrepresentations in the flawed 2015 formal review were material 

to the outcome of the tenure case, because the College elected to emphasize the history 

of the case as a major rationale for its vote to deny tenure in fall 2018. 

Allegations Relating to the Evaluation of Teaching in the 2017 Formal Review 

In Section I.D of the appeal, the Appellant advances the allegation that “the Provost and 

College failed to follow University and College Policies and Procedures with respect to the 

evaluation of Scholarship, Teaching and Service.” 

2 (b, page 11 of the appeal) the Appellant charges that the evaluation of her teaching 

violated University and College policies and procedures. 

Additional Information Uncovered During Investigation 

Regarding the teaching allegation related to the 2017 formal review, the Board finds that 

a specific aspect of the Appellant’s argumentation satisfies the criteria for a successful 

appeal. 

The Appellant attributes College concerns about her teaching to her chosen methods of 

“challenging” the students in her courses. The College, on the other hand, characterizes 

particular, alleged incidents as “intimidating” to students, which would likely fall 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 168 of 188 PageID #:168
outside of the University’s policy describing “challenging [students] to grow intellectually 

and morally” as part of effective teaching [Faculty Handbook Section 3.4.2.1]. 

The Appellant also references a 2016 Faculty Council proposal to phase out the use of 

Student Evaluations in faculty personnel decisions. A detailed review of Faculty 

Council Minutes did not indicate that this resolution was ever passed or implemented. 

The Appellant argues that the Dean’s statement that “at least one comment that referenced 

intimidating or dismissive behavior was seen in 55% of her course evaluations,” citing a statistic 

that appeared in the Appellant’s 2017 Formal Review, is incorrect and was used 

inappropriately. 

In email correspondence between the Appellant and Hai Long Tran, Dr. Tran explained 

the 55% calculation in her 2017 Formal Review: 

Here is the full sentence: “In the current review period, such sentiments were visible every quarter 

and mentioned explicitly and implicitly in more than 55 percent (5 out of 9) of Lisa’s course 

evaluations.” In the “Appendixes to Tenure and Promotion Review Statement,” you used a 

different method of quantification with a different time frame. Therefore, if your findings were not 

consistent with the percentage in the personnel document, it doesn’t mean that the number in the 

review report was incorrect. Anyway, this is not part of your T&P review and we just wanted to 

mention it here to clarify.) 

Email from Hai Long Tran to Lisa Calvente 

Friday, November 02, 2018 12:22 PM 

“In the current review period, such sentiments were visible every quarter and mentioned explicitly 

and implicitly in more than 55 percent (5 out of 9) of Lisa’s course evaluations.” The sentence is 

self-explanatory. We followed the college T&P guideline and identified pertinent mentions in each 

course evaluation to see if they were recurring across course evaluations. 

Email from Hai Long Tran to Lisa Calvente 

Monday, November 05, 2018 1:59 PM 

In contrast, the College’s promotion and tenure recommendation submitted to the Dean 

characterized a notably different atmosphere. 

References to an intimidating, harsh, uncomfortable atmosphere for students’ ability to speak their 

mind was reduced to one isolated class among five sets of OTEs in the past year available for 

review. Both peer observers assessed Lisa’s classroom environment to be open and safe. “It was 

instructive to witness how Dr. Calvente corrects students’ misperceptions unambiguously while 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 169 of 188 PageID #:169
maintaining an atmosphere of safety,” Dr. Foster noted after her visit to Lisa’s Spring 2018 

Intercultural Communication class. 

College of Communication Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion to Associate 

Professor 

November 16, 2018 

Despite this 2018 observation, and despite Dr. Tran’s claim that the 2017 Formal Review 

“is not part of your T&P review,” the 55% statistic was cited in the Appellant’s promotion 

and tenure recommendation letter written by the Dean to the University Board on 

Promotion and Tenure. 

In the 2017 formal review, the personnel committee claimed that at least one comment that 

referenced intimidating and dismissive behavior was seen in 55% of her course evaluations. 

Letter from Alexandra Murphy to the University Board on Promotion and Tenure 

January 9, 2019 

The Board questioned the Dean for specific information about this citation and statistic, 

and received the following response. 

I relied on the [2017 Formal Review] personnel committee’s assessment of these comments. I asked 

the author of that report to provide the original analysis (attached to this response). 

Email from Alexandra Murphy to the Board 

Tuesday, November 5, 2019 7:10 PM 

The Board reviewed the relevant course evaluations, together with the analysis used in 

the 2017 Formal Review calculation, as provided by the College. Of 218 total comments 

in the evaluations of these nine courses, seven comments had been flagged in the 2017 

Formal Review. These seven were spread across five of the Appellant’s nine courses, and 

it was from this five and nine that the statistic “more than 55 percent (5 out of 9)” was 

obtained. Moreover, two of the seven comments did not express negativity on behalf of 

the respondent, but were instead written in a sort of hearsay or observational perspective 

about the experiences of others. The inclusion of these two comments in the analysis is 

open to question, since anyone directly impacted would have had their own opportunity 

to provide feedback about the course. Those two comments are included below, with 

emphasis added by the Board in bold. 

I personally do not feel this way, but other students conveyed to me that they were often 

uncomfortable with Calvente’s teaching style. One student remarked that the “looks” she would 

give in class were “revealing,” and made some students uncomfortable to share. In addition, 

similar to a lot of students in this class, I do believe Dr. Calvente has a very firm set of ideals. I do 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 170 of 188 PageID #:170
not think introduction of new material or theory would necessarily change them. Therefore, there 

was often a lot of heated tension that went unnoticed between some students and the professor. 

Perhaps a less “expressive” way of articulating what Dr. Calvente thought may have eased some 

of the tension. I however am only conveying opinions from other students.

Fall 2016 CMNS 509/CMNS 308/HTHC 523: Topic in Intercultural Communication 

The course is great but you certainly come on a little strong. I didn’t mind it but it’s possible 

some people didn’t feel comfortable opening up because of it. 

Spring 2017 CMN 103: Intercultural Communication 

While reading through the 218 comments, the Board was struck by the preponderance of 

praise and appreciation for the Appellant and for the courses that she taught. These 

appeared in evaluations of all nine courses under consideration. 

The 2017 Formal Review’s selective reading of these course evaluations gives a 

misrepresentative characterization of the Appellant’s teaching effectiveness, and does not 

account for the full range of qualitative comments that she received. Moreover, this is a 

crucial issue in the Appellant’s tenure case because the statistic from that Review was 

cited in her promotion and tenure documentation. 

The Board notes that the 2017 College Tenured Faculty Recommendation, resulting from 

a meeting held on November 17, 2017, called qualitative comments pertaining to students 

feeling ‘intimidated’ or ‘uncomfortable’ a ‘major theme in her teaching’ and cited the 55 

percent statistic in support of this conclusion. This clearly indicates that undue weight 

was assigned to the flawed statistical conclusion. In addition, the report includes the 

following statement: “For the faculty members who find such comments to be a major reason for 

non-renewal, there is a point at which the student responses reflect a problematic pattern that 

should have been addressed through forms of pedagogy that can invite students to critically 

examine a range of social injustices.” Crucially, this is the only specific reference to nonrenewal in the 2017 College discussion.

The Board’s Findings 

The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the College placed undue weight 

upon the flawed 2017 formal review in its tenure evaluation. 

The board finds that misrepresentations in the flawed 2017 formal review were material 

to the outcome of the tenure case, because the College and Dean elected to emphasize 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 171 of 188 PageID #:171
the history of the case as a major rationale for the College vote to deny tenure in fall 

2018. 

Appellant’s Allegations Regarding Evaluation of Service 

1 (c, page 14 appeal) alleges that the College violated university policy in the evaluation 

of her service. 

Section 3.5.1.1 of the Faculty Handbook states: “There are normally three levels of evaluation 

prior to the final decisions of the provost: the local academic unit, the college, and the university. 

In the absence of departmental or school structures, the local academic unit is the college and thus 

there are only two levels: the local academic unit and the university.” 

The Appellant states: “The College, in its argument that my service was deficient in providing 

service to my unit in the College, violates University policy that states that in the absence of 

departmental or school structures the local academic unit is the College. Therefore, the assessment 

of my service as not meeting the requirements for “excellence” is not in accordance with University 

policy. 

Furthermore, because it is always difficult to ascertain, assign, and weigh the value of Service, I 

have compared my record of service to the dossiers of colleagues in the College who have shared 

their information with me. Dr. Maria DeMoya, Dr. Sydney Dillard, and before his departure from 

the College, Dr. Lou Rutigliano, have consistently fared better in their rankings. During my 

reviews, I have been told to exercise more in-unit service; the University, however, makes no 

distinction between service in the College of Communication and Service in the College’s specific 

units.”

The Board’s Investigation 

The Board’s conducted its own investigation and requested additional materials for 

review in addition to the items in the Appellant’s original dossier and supporting 

documentation. To analyze the service expectations and contributions to the home unit 

and university, the Board questioned the Appellant, Dean Murphy and Provost Ghanem. 

The University Board Promotion and Tenure report dated May 10, 2019 provides only 

limited insights about its discussions of service. 

“In terms of service, some of the Board members shared the concerns of the faculty that a large 

portion of Dr. Calvente’s service was outside her home unit. However, the Board agreed that Dr. 

Calvente’s overall service contribution was sufficiently strong to meet the criteria for service in 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 172 of 188 PageID #:172
the Faculty Handbook. The Board encourages Dr. Calvente to continue to build on her service 

record, in her home unit, as well as at the college and university levels.” [UBPT Report p. 3] 

The Board found the statement of the UBPT not quite precise as to the service contribution 

of the Appellant, so the Board decided to provide more extensive documentation and 

juxtaposed it with the Board’s discussions of that evidence. 

The material in both formal reviews that took place in 2015 and 2017 and an informal 

review from a letter of recommendation of Dr. Alexandra Murphy in 2016 provides 

support to the Board’s finding that the Appellant received unclear guidelines about 

making progress towards tenure and promotion. 

2015 Formal Review and Board Discussion 

The following is a complete excerpt of the Service section of the College formal review 

dated March 7, 2015, with incorrect contract year noted [page 6] in the dossier of the 

Appellant: 

“During her second year review in 2013, the faculty evaluated Lisa’s service contributions to be 

very good, marking her work on a one-year search committee, a college task force, and a university 

task force. Since her previous review, Lisa continues as an affiliate to the African Black Diaspora 

Studies Program and the Latino Studies Program. Lisa serves on the College Non-Tenure Track 

Review Board and the Local Review Board of the College of Communication. As part of the College 

wide symposium on violence in 2014, DePaul Talks, Lisa was one of the eight event leaders, and 

she organized one of the spotlight panel discussions, bringing together a panel of scholars and 

activists for one of the two evening programs. She works with the Office of Multicultural Student 

Success in the Men of Color Initiative for student retention and success, as well as the Liberal 

Studies Council’s Task Force on Personal Transformation and Responsibility/ Global and 

Transnational Programs. 

She has successfully chaired a college thesis committee, and is currently working as chair of a 

second thesis. She has written three comprehensive exam questions (2 more currently), and has 

served as undergraduate senior thesis advisor on two student projects. She has served on the 

editorial board of Cultural Studies since 2012 and Text and Performance Quarterly since 2013. 

Lisa reviews for these journals and also reviews papers for her division in her national 

organization. In the personnel meeting, it was reiterated that she will need to obtain letters from 

committee chairs to describe and detail specific committee work for review processes, as per college 

policy. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 173 of 188 PageID #:173
The Personnel Committee agrees that her service is fair to good and that she is making fair to good 

progress toward tenure in this area, although two personnel committee members indicated she was 

not making satisfactory progress toward tenure in service. 

Conclusion 

Based on the Personnel Committee’s unanimous evaluation that Lisa is not making progress 

toward tenure in teaching or research, we do not recommend retention and contract renewal.” 

The Board discussed that in this document the Appellant’s service is considered fair to 

good and that she is making fair to good progress towards tenure in the area of service. 

The service contribution appears to have been in good standing, since the 

recommendation of termination of the contract is based in teaching and research, and not 

on service. 

The Board notes that there is no mention in this report that the Appellant should increase 

visibility in serving in the home unit. The report mentions that two personnel committee 

members indicated that the Appellant was not making satisfactory progress toward 

tenure in service, but there is no guidance about specific roles or committees which would

provide constructive feedback to provide the Appellant a service path moving forward, 

to achieve tenure. 

2017 Formal Review and Board Discussion 

The following is a complete excerpt from the Service section of College’s Recommendation 

of Continuation or Termination of Untenured Faculty Contract, dated November 2017, 

page 7 and 8: 

“In the previous review period, Lisa’s contributions within the College of Communication were 

linked to her work as a member of the Contingent Faculty Review Board and the Local Review 

Board, an event leader of the symposium on violence, a thesis committee chair/undergraduate 

senior thesis advisor, and a comprehensive exam writer. At the university level, she served as an 

affiliate to the African Black Diaspora Studies Program and the Latino Studies Program and 

contributed to the Office of Multicultural Student Success in the Men of Color Initiative, as well 

as the Liberal Studies Council’s Task Force on Personal Transformation and Responsibility/Global 

and Transnational Programs. In her service to the academy, Lisa reviewed manuscripts for 2 

journals as part of their editorial board (Cultural Studies, Text and Performance Quarterly) and 

papers for her national organization’s conferences. In the current review, Lisa continued several 

of her existing services and took on some others. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 174 of 188 PageID #:174
At the college level, Lisa has joined the Term Faculty Review Committee since Spring 2015 (and 

has begun her actual service since the 2016-2017 academic year due to her research leave). 

Associate Dean Alexandra Murphy appreciated her valuable, hard work as well as her insights 

into the candidate’s strengths and areas for improvement. She continued her role as part of the 

Local Review Board until Fall 2016, when this service was terminated due to new IRB procedures. 

Under this service, Lisa reviewed 2 IRB applications. Since 2015, she has chaired 2 graduate thesis 

and project committees, advised a master’s project, and administered comprehensive exam 

questions. In Fall 2016, Lisa volunteered to help Dr. Lucy Lu in reviewing the syllabi for CMN 

103 that non-tenure/tenure track faculty used for Intercultural Communication to ensure quality 

control. She also participated in some faculty searches and attended the graduation foundation 

course, college meetings and other events, such as award ceremonies and alumni receptions. 

At the university level, Lisa has collaborated actively across programs at DePaul. She has both 

expertise and passion for interdisciplinary work across colleges. Lisa has been an affiliated faculty 

of the African and Black Diaspora Studies Program (ABD) since 2012 and a member of the ADB 

Advisory Committee since 2015. According to ADB Program Director, Amor Kohli, she has 

served actively and thoughtfully and been invested in the broader culture and activity of ABD. 

Since 2016, Lisa has become an affiliate to the Critical Ethnic Studies MA program (CES) in the 

College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. CES Director Laura Kina expressed her appreciation 

for Lisa’s commitment as an invaluable member, who has impacted CES students in a number of 

ways. Lisa has continued her existing role as an affiliate to the Latino Studies Program (LALS) 

and has been part of Liberal Studies Council Survey Review Subcommittee, which (according to 

Director of Liberal Studies John Shanahan) drafted recommendations based on the General 

Education Task Force report and feedback from colleges in spring 2017. LALS Chair, Lourdes 

Torres, acknowledged Lisa’s contributions over the past 5 years, including her participation in a 

tenure-track hire in the past year. In addition, Lisa has reached out to the Women and Gender 

Studies Graduate Program to offer her service in mentoring their students. 

Lisa’s service record extends to the academy and the community. As part of the editorial board of 

2 journals (Text & Performance Quarterly and Cultural Studies), she has reviewed approximately 

one manuscript per year for each journal. In 2016, Lisa reviewed the 7th edition of James Neuliep’s 

Intercultural communication: A contextual approach (Sage). She has also been active at 

conferences as a paper reviewer, panelist, respondent/discussant, and a member of the Welcome 

Team. Lisa’s community service includes her commitment to the Chicago Alliance against Racist 

and Political Repression (CAARPR), where she has also created community-based service learning 

for her students. In addition, Lisa has volunteered at the Juvenile Justice Program to help troubled 

youths at the Organization for the North East (ONE) community center. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 175 of 188 PageID #:175
At the interview, Lisa spoke of her willingness to take on committee work and her decision to 

engage in cross-college outreach efforts as part of the Vincentian mission. While we commend 

Lisa’s dedicated service, there is room for improvement. The Personnel Committee emphasized to 

Lisa the need to take a more visible and significant role within her unit and at the college. Her 

service record at this advanced stage of her probationary period remains quite modest, 

considering the typical load for her peers. [bold emphasis is this Board’s]

At the university level, there are several opportunities where Lisa could make even greater impacts 

by serving on university teams, committees, or task forces. The documentation of her service, as 

well as the construction of her vita and personal statement, would benefit from a clearer 

organization. According to the college’s tenure and promotion guidelines, candidates use the 

AAUP’s format for the c.v. to maintain college uniformity. The committee suggests Lisa attend 

tenure review workshops, which will continue to reinforce expectations and best practices in 

drafting personal statements, and preparing and organizing review and promotion materials. 

In sum, the Personnel Committee finds that Lisa’s service record to be very good over 

this review period, and she is making fair progress toward tenure in the area of service.“ 

[bold emphasis is the Board’s]

In this same report, the tenured faculty recommendation regarding the Appellant’s 

service is the following: [p.12] 

“The majority of the tenured faculty found Lisa’s progress toward tenure in the area of service 

unsatisfactory. [Emphasis in the document] Voting members recounted instances where service 

contributions listed in Lisa’s document do not reflect substantial accomplishments. In addition, 

Lisa has been noticeably absent as a college representative at several required, university-wide 

events such as graduation and convocation. The tenured faculty endorsed the Personnel 

Committee’s assessment that her service record at this advanced stage of her probationary period 

was inadequate as compared with the typical load for her peers. It was emphasized at the discussion 

that, according to the College Tenure and Promotion Criteria, faculty members who apply for 

tenure and promotion to associate professor should have their service focused primarily in their 

track/program and in the college. If Lisa is retained, the tenured faculty would need to see 

significant changes in her service as evidenced through a track record of substantial contributions 

to her unit and meaningful committee work at the college level. Greater volunteering for university 

committee service is recommended. Such changes should occur before she applies to the tenured 

faculty of the college for a tenure recommendation at DePaul.” 

The Board discussed the fact that there is inconsistency and a lack of guidelines provided 

to the Appellant in this report. For example, the Personal Committee mentions that the 

Appellant’s service record was very good over this review period and adds that the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 176 of 188 PageID #:176
Appellant is making fair progress towards tenure in the areas of service. Additionally, 

the College Recommendation and Rationale section in page 1 of the same report states: 

“Lisa’s service record to be very good over this review period and she is making fair progress 

toward tenure in the area of service.” Nevertheless, the tenured faculty assessment is 

unsatisfactory regarding progress towards service. The Board finds that there is not a 

clear elucidation of how in page 1, 7 and 8 the Appellant’s review is very good but in 

page 12 becomes unsatisfactory. One member of the Board noted that this often occurs 

in local unit personnel deliberations, but noted a problem of incongruity between 

inconsistencies in this document and then-Dean Ghanem’s recommendation to the 

appellant. In a letter dated December 13, 2017 regarding 2017 formal review, then-Dean 

Ghanem wrote: “In order to be considered for promotion and tenure in the College of 

Communication, I stress that you follow all the recommendations of both the Personnel Committee 

and the tenured faculty outlined in the formal review document dated November 17, 2017 

regarding teaching, research and service.” 

The Board discussed guidance by senior colleagues, as demonstrated in documentation 

provided by the Appellant, with members unable to clearly determine what is weighted 

more or less or what is considered as ‘meaningful’ for local unit level service. The 

insertion of attending graduation and convocation into the document was also discussed 

with some members finding it strange that the tenured faculty mention those alongside 

time-intensive Personnel Committee work. To some members of the Board this insertion 

seemed to be a pretextual, insertion into the record of a minor example of the Appellant’s 

alleged non-compliance with the Faculty Handbook. 

The Board noted that in this second formal review, the Appellant is recommended to 

concentrate her efforts in service at the local-home unit level according to the College 

Tenure and Promotion Criteria. Surprisingly to some on the Board, the Appellant is 

simultaneously recommended to expand her service record at the university level where 

the Appellant could have greater impacts by serving on university teams. On this point 

the senior colleagues also recommended greater volunteering for university committees. 

The report mentions in two places in the excerpts quoted “the typical load of her peers.” 

This provides expectations that the Appellant is compared to an optimal or typical level 

of service rather than College Criteria. The Board does not find this argument 

compelling for a Personnel Committee assessment. The formal review should have 

noted exactly what is missing in the Appellant’s service dossier, rather than vaguely 

refer to a typical load. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 177 of 188 PageID #:177
Documents Created by the Dean and Board Discussion 

The Board engaged in discussion of what some members considered the contradictory 

and inconsistent documentation presented to the Board: a letter the Dean documenting 

service, dated August 14, 2016 which starkly differs from the recommendation she wrote 

as Dean, as discussed below. 

This is an extract from the 2016 letter: 

“I want to thank you for the service that you have provided over the past several year within the 

College of Communication and for DePaul University. Since your hire in Fall of 2011, you have 

contributed to the service life of the college in a number of ways. During your first year, you 

participated in the Graduate Program Task Force to brainstorm ideas for the first-year seminar. 

This initial work evolved into the creation of the Foundations in Graduate Studies course, a new 

required course for all Communication and Media Studies students. You spoke with the students 

as a guest speaker within this course in Fall of 2014. You were an event leader for our College’s 

Symposium entitled, “Making Meaning of Violence.” For this event, you created a panel on race, 

violence, and activism and facilitated a fascinating roundtable session with senior scholars and 

activists who specialize on issues of social justice, youth activism and violence. 

 

The following year, when I was serving as your program chair, I needed to find someone to serve 

on the Liberal Studies Council task force on Personal Transformation and Responsibility and 

Global and Transnational Programs. I thought you were a perfect fit and was very happy you took 

on this role. You also served on the College level Local Review Board for two year where you 

reviewed applications for Institutional Review Board approval for research from College of 

Communication faculty. 

You have stepped up to aid the college in a number of ways involving personnel including serving 

on a faculty search committee for a term faculty member in intercultural communication in Spring 

2012 and a junior faculty representative on the personnel committee for two formal reviews in 

January 2014. The personnel committee is a time-intensive committee that requires a detailed read 

of candidate materials, participating in meetings, and crafting and reviewing recommendation 

letters. Most recently, in terms of personnel, you have been a member of the Term Faculty Review 

Committee from (appointed in Spring 2015, but due to research leave, active member from Fall 

2016 to present). Again, this is a very time-intensive committee that involves peer reviews of all 

term faculty. 

Again, thank you for the valuable contributions you have provided in terms of service for the past 

several years as an assistant professor.” 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 178 of 188 PageID #:178
The Board discussed the tenor of this letter, which is thankful for the Appellant’s 

involvement at both the Department and College, home academic unit level, and praises 

the Appellant’s work on a time-intensive committee like a Personnel Committee. The 

Board questioned the Dean about this and compared the responses provided by the Dean 

to the two earlier documents. 

In her letter to the UBPT, dated January 9, 2019, the Dean seems in certain places to be 

contradicting the 2016 informal assessment and rationalizing after the fact the decision of 

colleagues. This is an excerpt of that recommendation: 

“In the area of service, Dr. Calvente is also ranked as “very good” by her peers. Dr. Calvente has 

participated in service obligations at the program, college, and university levels. Most of the service 

that Dr. Calvente has provided at the program and college levels has been in ad hoc, short-term 

capacities. For example, she helped review syllabi for CMN 103, helped solicit feedback from college 

advisors on proposed curricular “pathways” for communication studies, and has been a 

representative at student open houses and presented student awards. Also, of note is her 

participation on a term faculty hiring committee and her work advising students in the Latino 

Media and Communication program. Dr. Calvente also lists other smaller activities such as guest 

speaking in the graduate foundations course and participating in various meetings as service. The 

one substantive committee that Dr. Calvente has served on in the College of Communication is the 

Term Faculty Review Committee. The committee reviews term faculty on a two-year rotation 

including peer observations and writing and editing documents. Dr. Calvente has been an active 

and valuable member of this committee for the past two years. To receive an “excellent” rating in 

service at the time of tenure of promotion, would require that Dr. Calvente would have participated 

on more of these kinds of substantive committees in the College of Communication during her 

probationary period. 

Dr. Calvente has provided other college-level service outside of the College of Communication 

where she has served as an affiliate faculty member for several different programs in the College of 

Liberal Arts and Social Sciences including the African and Black Diaspora Studies Program, the 

Latino Studies Program (where she also served on a tenure-track hiring committee), and the 

Critical Ethnic Studies MA program. She is a member of the Women’s Center Advisory Board. 

Her service in these areas is described as conscientious, invaluable, and collaborative. Dr. Calvente 

has started building a record of service at the university level. In the past year, she has been a 

member of the General Education Task Force Report Review, the Council on Community 

Engagement, and participated in the WPI Project-Based Learning workshop. 

The College of Communication is a small college that must spread service obligations across a 

fewer number of tenure-track faculty than many other colleges. Therefore, in the College of 

Communication, candidates ranked as “excellent” in service have provided much more ongoing, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 179 of 188 PageID #:179
substantial committee work, particularly within the College of Communication and at the 

university level where we have requirements for representation on a number of committees. The 

need to significantly increase her service to the College in more meaningful ways was 

communicated to Dr. Calvente in each prior formal review. This is not to say that the service 

contributions provided by Dr. Calvente have not been valuable; she is aptly rated as “very good.”” 

The Board discussed contradictory and imprecise statements in this part of the letter. 

Dean Murphy mentions that the Appellant was advised to significantly increase her 

service to the College in more ‘meaningful’ ways in each prior formal review. A careful 

review of the 2015 formal review shows that there is no recommendation about 

‘meaningful’ service. In fact, the report mentions that the Appellant is making a good 

contribution towards tenure in the area of services. The Board concurs that such 

statements occur in the 2017 review. 

The Board discussed whether the Appellant was informed in any of the 2015 and 2017 

formal reviews what is ‘relevant’ or ‘substantial’ or ‘meaningful’ committee work. The 

Board could not determine from any of the documentation provided in the original 

dossier, investigation and supporting documentation regarding what is defined to be 

meaningful or less meaningful committee work. The Appellant was never guided as to 

which were the committees she should be participating in order to achieve tenure. 

More concerning is the informal review assessment from Murphy in March 2016 praising 

the Appellant’s substantive and time-intensive Personnel Committee work, which sent 

the signal that expectations were being met. 

In its investigation, the Board questioned the Appellant, Dr. Lisa Calvente, Dean Murphy 

and Provost Ghanem regarding the service contributions. The Board requested that the 

Appellant provide additional documentation referred to in a letter to Isabel Diaz dated 

November 29, 2018. 

In that letter the Appellant stated on page 8: 

“Personnel has specifically pointed out that my in-unit service is lacking; however, I often 

volunteer for in-unit service obligations where I am either not chosen to serve by my senior 

colleagues, or else the project for which I volunteered has not come into fruition. I can provide 

email documentation to that effect." 

The appellant provided that documentation. The Board also requested any additional 

evidence that could substantiate the following statement that appeared in the November 

29, 2018 letter: 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 180 of 188 PageID #:180
"I often volunteer for in-unit service obligations where I am either not chosen to serve by my senior 

colleagues, or else the project for which I volunteered has not come into fruition." 

The Board received the following additional documentation from the Appellant: 

 Email between Dr. Willard, Dr. Baglia, and the Appellant for the cancelled search 

 Email between Dr. Willard and the appellant to volunteer for search committee 

 Email between Dr. Lu, Dr. Willard and the appellant 

 Standard for Chair election process sent by Acting Dean Murphy, Monday, 

October 21, 2019 

 Email from Acting Dean Murphy 

From the analysis of this additional documentation the Board concludes that: 

1. The Appellant has volunteered for in-unit service that has been available to her. 

An example of this statement is that the Appellant volunteered to help Dr. Lucy 

Lu, in being the course-keeper for the core course of their unit. 

2. The Appellant served on committees that were suggested by the Dean Murphy 

when she was the Chair of the Department. These committees are highlighted in 

the the 2016 general service letter. 

3. The Appellant volunteered to participate as member of a faculty search committee 

in the Fall of 2014, which was cancelled due to the lack of a line for the appellant’s 

unit. 

4. In academic year 2016-2017, the Appellant volunteered to participate in a Faculty 

Search Committee in the Fall of 2016, but the Chair at time, Dr. Willard did not 

choose the appellant. 

The Board also discussed whether the Appellant received enough opportunities during 

her probationary period to increase her in-unit service exposure. The discussion 

emphasized that the Board’s investigation uncovered additional evidence which suggests 

that the Appellant volunteered for additional in-unit services but was not selected. 

The Board also questioned the Dean about the Appellant’s service activities. The Dean 

explained this particular case to the Board. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 181 of 188 PageID #:181
Board question: Would it be correct to state that on more than one occasion Dr. Calvente 

volunteered for in-unit service obligations but was not chosen to serve by senior 

colleagues?

Dean’s response: “I am only aware of one occasion when Dr. Calvente reached out to her 

program chair, Daniel Makagon to volunteer for college and university committee assignments in 

the 2017. She sent her request after the call for committees had been out for a while [Board’s 

emphasis in bold] and the college level committees had already been filled. Dr. Makagon suggested 

she contact the faculty council representative on the committee on committees to see if there were 

any remaining openings.“ 

The Dean did not provide any College documentation to show that the Appellant refused 

to participate in any service assignment recommended or requested of her by the unit. 

After comparing the service records of faculty from the past 10 years in the College who 

were rated as “excellent,” the Board cannot find any clear and compelling substantive 

delineation of “meaningful” and “relevant” service. If a faculty member is expected to 

participate in a specific standing College committee (e.g. curriculum, assessment, 

program review, summer research committee.) during the probationary period, it should 

clearly be communicated in the formal reviews. 

The Board also questioned the Dean about guidance to the Appellant in terms of her 

progress towards promotion and tenure under service: 

Board question: Your recommendation to the UBPT dated January 9, 2019 states: “The 

need to significantly increase her service to the College in more meaningful ways was 

communicated to Dr. Calvente in each prior formal review.” What did you mean 

precisely by “more meaningful ways”? Were specific assignments ever proposed? 

Dean’s response: “The personnel committee and the tenured faculty consistently recommended 

in prior formal reviews that Dr. Calvente increase her service contributions. While there may be 

many lines under service on the vita, the personnel committee and the tenured faculty recognized 

that much of what is listed are smaller, ad hoc presentations in classes or attending the annual 

award brunch and presenting a student with an award (expectations for all our faculty). In another 

example, the Security Concerns Group listed on Dr. Calvente’s CV consisted of one meeting when 

interested faculty were invited to come discuss security concerns in the building. Looking at her 

CV at the time of her 2018 tenure and promotion review, under the heading of College of 

Communication, the only substantive committee on which she served is the Non-Tenure Track 

Review Committee (now called the Term Faculty Review Committee).” 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 182 of 188 PageID #:182
The Dean uses the word “consistently,” but the 2015 formal review does not consistently 

recommend that the Appellant increase her service contributions. The Board also finds 

contradicting evidence by unequally weighting services in an ad-hoc or unsystematic 

way. 

The Board sought to understand why the Dean commended the Appellant’s services to 

the unit and College in August 2016, not expressing concerns she may have had and 

would express in early 2019. 

Board question: Why did not you express those same concerns in the letter you wrote in 

August 2016 commending Dr. Calvente’s services to the unit and college? 

Dean’s response: “Dr. Calvente asked me to write a letter of support that detailed the service 

that she had done up to that point. I did not see my role at that time to position this service against 

that of her peers. As I note in my tenure recommendation, I appreciate the work that she has done. 

But, in context and in comparison, with what is typical across the college, and given the consistent 

feedback she was given in formal reviews, I agreed it was not enough to be rated as “excellent” in 

service.”

The Board discussed this response. Some members found this response insufficient for 

understanding the reasons why Dr. Alexandra Murphy provided two diverging 

assessments in different documents. One Board member found that the statement “I did 

not see my role at that time to position this service against that of her peers.” creates false 

expectations. Another Board member emphasized the different purposes of the two 

documents and differing guidelines about expectations for them in the Faculty 

Handbook. The Board discussed the possible reasons for not positioning the appellant’s 

service against that of her peers at that time when Dr. Murphy was commending the 

appellant. 

One Board member concluded that Dr. Murphy did not give precise signals in her 2016 

letter and should have raised the issues she raised in the 2019 letter. Another Board 

member found that the 2016 letter conformed to what that member would expect from a 

letter documenting service rather than a recommendation evaluating service. 

Overall, the Board is uncertain as to whether the home academic unit provided enough 

support for the Appellant to excel in the area of service at the home level. Given the other 

problems with the local unit formal reviews discussed in other sections, the Appellant’s 

pursuit of opportunities outside the College which would result in letters from 

individuals who had not voted against her case seems justified. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 183 of 188 PageID #:183
The Board determined that the Appellant received inconsistent guidance in informal 

reviews 

The Board’s Findings 

The Board finds that the Appellant’s service was unfairly evaluated at multiple points 

during her probationary period and that procedural deviations were material to the final 

decision to deny tenure and promotion to the Associate Professor rank on the grounds of 

‘unsatisfactory’ service to both the home academic unit and university. 

The Board finds that there were considerable and material deviations from procedures 

by the home unit (i.e., the College of Communication) in failing to provide the Appellant 

with clear and consistent guidance regarding service in formal reviews as mandated in 

the Faculty Handbook Section 3.3.1. 

The preponderance of evidence supports the claim that the Appellant did volunteer for 

additional service assignments in the College, but that these substantive service 

assignments did not materialize due to factors beyond her control, as outlined in points 

1-4 above. 

Ground for Appeal III. Discriminatory Practice/Retaliation

Discrimination/Retaliation 

Because the appeal links reporting and contacts with Isabel Diaz of the EEO office to 

claims of retaliation, the Board requested that a different member of HR staff be assigned 

to review claims of discrimination and retaliation. Starting on September 16, 2019, the 

board engaged in ongoing consultations with Dr. Stephanie Smith, Vice President for HR, 

about the appeal as required by Faculty Handbook Section 5.1.1.1. The results of Dr. 

Smith’s investigation – it discovered nothing material that supports claims of 

discrimination or retaliation – were communicated to the Board on December 19, 2019. 

Appellant’s Allegations Regarding Discrimination 

In section three of the appeal the Appellant advances two major allegations regarding 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 184 of 188 PageID #:184
discrimination.

1 (A, Page 12, 17 in the appeal) the Appellant alleges that College personnel 

documentation contains ‘racially insensitive caricatures and stereotypes.’ 

2 (page 17) the Appellant alleges a pattern of discriminatory practices in the evaluation 

of her teaching that violates federal policies regarding non-discrimination against 

members of protected classes. 

The Board’s Findings 

Regarding allegation one, the Board finds that the College did not include racially 

insensitive caricatures and stereotypes in personnel documentation. The Board notes that 

the appeal did not provide any specific references to racially insensitive terms, 

caricatures, or stereotypes. The Board’s careful review of College personnel 

documentation and student evaluations did not uncover any statements that would 

substantiate a claim of racial discrimination.

Regarding allegation two, the Board finds that allegations that the College violated 

federal policies regarding non-discrimination could not be substantiated. The appeal did 

not provide specific information, evidence or statements to substantiate the claim of 

discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender 

identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic 

information. 

Appellant’s Allegations Regarding Retaliation by Provost. 

In section three of the appeal, the Appellant alleges (page 17 with reference to matters 

introduced and discussed on pages 5-6) that the Provost engaged in retaliation against 

her for filing EEO claims against the College. 

The Appellant states on page 17 “In Section I.B.a., I enumerate the University violations that 

also constitute retaliatory acts, including by Interest [sic] Provost Dr. Salam Ghanem. These acts 

should be investigated as retaliatory and therefore discriminatory practices.” 

The Appellant makes her own contacts with DePaul EEO officials key to the claim of 

retaliation, writing on pages 5-6: 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 185 of 188 PageID #:185
“By the time I submitted my tenure application to the College, however, then-Dean Ghanem had 

become aware that I had asked that the Office of Institutional Diversity and Equity (OIED) 

investigate my claims against the College, and specifically members of the Personnel Committee, 

of violating DePaul University’s Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy and 

Procedures. In November of 2018, I wrote a letter detailing the retaliatory actions against me by 

the College and members of the senior faculty (attached). I also reported these retaliatory practices 

to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and I have since met with the 

EEOC. 

I submitted my application for tenure and promotion after Dr. Ghanem had overturned the 

previous contract nonrenewal recommendations of the College. By the time I submitted my tenure 

and promotion application, I had also reached out to various non-tenured members of the faculty 

in the College, as well as reached out and met with several members of the tenured University 

faculty, in order to discuss my path towards tenure and to compare our respective dossiers. Dr. 

Ghanem was aware that these meetings were taking place. Not only did I never lie about these 

occurrences, I openly discussed my experiences in the College and looked to Dr. Ghanem as the 

Dean of the College to help address these growing concerns. These discussions also included other, 

tenure-track, junior women of color faculty from the College, who shared similar experiences as 

my own and similar concerns around the manner in which the College evaluated faculty of color 

in formal and informal reviews. These included Dr. Maria DeMoya and Dr. Sydney Dillard. I 

should also note the Diversity Advocate of the College’s, Dr. Maria DeMoya, has substantiated 

my concerns formally. 

During one particular meeting with Dr. Ghanem to discuss my tenure dossier and the conflict 

that surrounded my case in the College (which took place after then-Dean Ghanem had overturned 

the recommendation for contract nonrenewal from the College but before I filed my application for 

tenure), Dr. Ghanmen commented on Dr. Vincent Cicchirillo’s contract nonrenewal decision by 

the College. Dr. Ghanem implied that I was responsible for rumors circulating in the University 

that suggested that Dr. Cicchirillo had been terminated in order that Dean Ghanem would have 

just cause for later terminating women faculty of color. I admitted to Dr. Ghanem that I had 

written in support of Vincent Cicchirillo’s appeals case, and I verbally disclosed the content of my 

letter.” 

In view of the serious nature of this allegation, the Board in coordination with Dr. Smith 

investigated these claims by questioning the Provost and other witnesses. It also closely 

examined extensive documentation related to EEO claims, including the Appellant’s 

email communications with the Employee Engagement and EEO Unit, with Dr. Ghanem, 

and the Appellant’s letter to the Board regarding Dr. Cichirrillo’s appeal. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 186 of 188 PageID #:186
The Board’s Findings. 

The Board’s investigation did not substantiate the claim that the Provost engaged in 

retaliation against the appellant for filing EEO claims against the College. 

The Board’s investigation also uncovered several imprecise or misleading statements on 

pages 5-6 of the appeal cited above. 

The Board finds that the Appellant’s allegations were never “substantiated formally” by 

Dr. Maria DeMoya, Diversity Advocate for the College of Communication. 

The Board finds that the Appellant never followed up with a request for additional 

information from Isabel Diaz and that the case was closed in early 2019 due to the 

Appellant’s failure to respond to EEO requests. 

The Board finds that the Appellant’s characterizations of her meetings with Dr. Ghanem 

in the appeal document cannot be substantiated by the recollections of Dr. Ghanem or 

the Appellant’s EEO correspondence in the days/weeks after the meeting which took 

place on October 10, 2018. 

The Board finds that phrases such as “Dean Ghanem had become aware” and “Dr. 

Ghanem was aware” are not fully consistent with the facts contained in the email 

correspondence between the Appellant and Dr. Ghanem, and the Appellant and Barbara 

Schaffer. The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that then-Dean Ghanem acted 

appropriately in referring the Appellant’s concerns to appropriate university officials. 

Allegations of Retaliation by the College of Communication 

In sections three of the appeal, the Appellant alleges (page 17 with reference to matters 

introduced and discussed on pages 5-6) that the College took no action to address 

retaliatory actions reported to Isabel Diaz.

On page 6, the Appellant states: “These reviews by the College, since 2015, have included 

members of the Personnel Committee that OIDE investigated for violating University policies 

with respect to discriminatory practices. I later reported retaliatory actions by my senior colleagues 

in the College to Isabel Diaz, currently the Director of Employment Engagement and Equal 

Opportunity at DePaul. In the College, no actions were taken to address this situation.” 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 187 of 188 PageID #:187
The Board’s Finding 

The Board finds that the preponderance of evidence does not substantiate the Appellant’s 

claim. 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/08/20 Page 188 of 188 PageID #:188