Policy 2118 – Review of Faculty Rank

Effective Date: 5/27/2003

Responsible Office: Provost

Reference: University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors (Rules)


A reputable university depends on faculty excellence in teaching, research and service.
To promote excellence, all members of the faculty should undergo evaluations to ensure
that their academic performance is commensurate with their rank and status, and that
they remain accountable for their academic performance to the university and the larger

Unsatisfactory performance or non-performance by a faculty member occurring and/or
arising, in whole or in part, prior to the effective date of this policy, may be considered
in connection with a decision to seek removal for cause.


Campus policies include the following basic elements:

  1. Statement that all faculty members should be evaluated at least annually by the department
    chair/head, with review by the dean
    . The evaluation should be based on the faculty member’s job responsibility. The evaluation
    process must indicate various levels of performance ranging from “unsatisfactory”
    to higher levels.

  2. Provision for mandatory remediation once there have been multiple unsatisfactory reviews
    by the department head/chair
    . After two (2) consecutive unsatisfactory regular reviews or three (3) unsatisfactory
    reviews in a five (5) year period, tenured faculty shall be subject to mandatory remediation.
    The plan for remediation should be developed by the department head in conjunction
    with the faculty member and dean.

  3. Referral of the matter to a peer committee if the faculty member does not agree with
    the plan of remediation
    . If the faculty member does not agree with the plan of remediation proposed by the
    department head, tenured faculty in the department will develop an alternate plan
    or remediation.

  4. Referral of the matter to the Chief Academic Officer if the faculty member, department
    head, and dean cannot agree on a plan of remediation
    . In those cases where the faculty member, department head, and dean cannot agree
    on the plan of remediation (referred to in number 3 above), the Chief Academic Officer
    shall determine the final provisions of the plan based on the recommendations by the
    department head and tenured faculty in the department.

  5. Provision for review after a reasonable period under the plan for improvement. If the faculty member has not achieved significant improvement in performance after
    a minimum of two (2) years of remediation, a recommendation for dismissal may be made.

  6. Provision for review by faculty peers prior to dismissal. A recommendation for dismissal automatically will trigger a review by tenured faculty
    in the department. Based on all recommendations, including that of the tenured faculty
    in the department, the chief academic officer may recommend that the university president
    or his/her designee institute proceedings for removal for cause including proper due

For any provisions of this policy that require participation by a group or committee
of tenured faculty in the department, and the number of departmental faculty is insufficient,
tenured faculty from outside the department shall be selected to participate in the
process. Appointments of faculty from outside the department require the approval
of the chief academic officer.

In certain cases, the university president must exercise discretion as to whether
to refer the matter to the performance review policy developed under this policy or
to the separate dismissal for cause policy. This may be done without reference to
or at any time during the procedures described in this policy.