|
Handbook |
Top | Ch 1 | Ch 2 | Ch 3 | Ch 4 | Ch 5 | Ch 6 | Ch 7 | Ch 8 | Ch 9 | Ch 10
(Approved by the Faculty, May 6, 2021)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, May 14, 2021)
(Amended by the Faculty, May 7, 2024)
The Faculty of Worcester Polytechnic Institute consists of all those individuals who hold tenured, tenure-track, or full time nontenure-track faculty appointments. Tenured and tenure-track faculty members are the President, the Provost, and those individuals holding full-time appointments with the following exact titles and ranks: Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Professor of Teaching, Associate Professor of Teaching, and Assistant Professor of Teaching. Full-time nontenure-track faculty members are those individuals holding full-time appointments with the following exact titles and ranks: Teaching Professor, Associate Teaching Professor, Assistant Teaching Professor, Senior Instructor, Instructor, Professor of Practice, Research Professor, Associate Research Professor, and Assistant Research Professor. Any faculty member who also holds the administrative title of President, Provost, Associate or Vice Provost, Dean, or Associate Dean is also a member of the Administration.
(Approved by the Faculty, May 6, 2021)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, May 14, 2021)
The governance of the Faculty is carried out under the provisions of this Constitution, under the Bylaws adopted pursuant thereto, and consistent with the procedures and policies contained throughout this Faculty Handbook.
Governance of the Faculty, including voting at faculty meetings and membership on committees as described in this Faculty Handbook, is the responsibility given specifically to all full-time faculty members who are tenured, are on the tenure-track, or hold non-temporary secured nontenure-track teaching appointments that are made with provisions for a long-term institutional commitment from WPI.2
Secured nontenure-track teaching appointments are those that establish conditions of employment (including for contract renewals) that guarantee that faculty members can act without reprisals in all that they do for the university and its governance. Such appointments are guaranteed by the provisions and protections described in Chapter Two: Academic Appointments, Section 1.b.i, Section 4.a, and Section 4.b of the Faculty Handbook, and approved by those faculty members responsible for the governance of the Faculty.
The Faculty accepts duties and responsibilities and derives its authority in accordance with the Bylaws of WPI under the direction of the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees, in turn, delegates the areas of responsibility and authority to the Faculty through the President of WPI. In accordance with accepted practices at institutions of higher learning in the United States, areas of duty, responsibility, authority, and academic freedom are understood as follows.
The duties of the Faculty shall include, but not be limited to, the establishment of admission requirements, academic standards, curricula, courses of study, and the regulations pertaining thereto, as well as the certification of candidates for degrees and recommendation to the Board of Trustees for award of degrees.
The Faculty has a responsibility for initiating, considering, and making recommendations on questions of educational policy and problems arising therefrom. A question is one of educational policy to the extent that it bears upon conditions facilitating instruction, study, research, publication, and other scholarly or cultural activities of faculty members and students.
The Faculty, subject to approval of the Board of Trustees, defines the recognized titles of academic rank at WPI, and the criteria of eligibility thereto, and has such authority over the academic policies and programs as may be delegated to it by the President and the Board of Trustees.
(Amended by the Faculty, May 6, 2021)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, May 14, 2021)
Academic freedom is essential to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Freedom in teaching is fundamental to the protection of the rights of the teacher and of the students.
Faculty members are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be in accordance with established WPI policy.
Faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects and evaluating their students, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subjects.
College and university faculty members are citizens, members of learned professions, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As persons of learning and as educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not institutional spokespersons.
All members of the WPI Faculty, whether they are tenured, are on the tenure track during their probationary period, or hold secured or short-term nontenure-track appointments, have academic freedom as defined in this Constitution. As members of the WPI Faculty, they are guaranteed non-retaliation with respect to appointment decisions and other conditions of employment for exercising the full range of academic freedom in all their contributions to the University including participation in its governance. Their right to express their views without reprisal is secured by access to all procedures described in this Faculty Handbook.
(Approved by the WPI Faculty, January 28, 2021)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, May 14, 2021)
WPI's mission requires a Faculty that conducts both research and teaching at the highest levels.
Consistent with this mission, the University is committed to maintaining an appropriate balance of faculty members who combine both research and teaching, and faculty members who primarily serve the educational mission as teachers and experts in pedagogy, course design, and course delivery.
These appropriate balances are and will be based on WPI's teaching and research mission, its priorities and aspirations, and its institutional resources and strategy.
The University is committed to maintaining a Faculty of sufficient size and balance to allow faculty members the time required to develop professionally and to carry out their responsibilities at the highest level. WPI meets this commitment by ensuring that the number of faculty members at WPI increase in their proper balance at a rate that is commensurate with the University's growth and strategic needs.
The University should periodically revisit these commitments and relevant quantitative goals (described in Chapter Two: Academic Appointments, Section 2) through campus-wide discussions that either affirm their soundness or develop an understanding and a consensus concerning changes in mission, priorities, resources, or strategy that would require them to change.
Early each fall, the Provost will provide a report to the Committee on Governance detailing the numbers of faculty in each category (described in Chapter Two: Academic Appointments, Section 1) across the institution and within each department, division, and school. In collaboration with the Provost, the Committee on Governance will disseminate a final report to the Faculty and present the results for open discussion at a faculty meeting during the same year.
The Faculty holds scheduled monthly meetings throughout the academic year. The Faculty also holds special meetings as the occasion may arise. Special meetings of the Faculty are called by the Secretary of the Faculty or upon petition of ten or more members of the Faculty.
The officers of the Faculty are the Secretary of the Faculty and the Chair of the Committee on Governance. The Secretary of the Faculty normally presides at faculty meetings; in the Secretary's absence, the Chair of the Committee on Governance serves in that capacity.
In those areas where the role of the Faculty is dominant, the Faculty by majority vote may recommend action to administrative officials. Such recommendations may include the solicitation of action by the President or the Board of Trustees.
Committees of the Faculty are established by Bylaws of the Faculty and are responsible to the Faculty. Standing Committees are charged with broad issues of continuing faculty concern, and, once created, maintain their existence until expressly abolished by the Faculty.
Ad hoc Committees may be established by the Faculty to serve specific purposes and to exist for a designated period of time. Upon completion of its charge or upon the termination of its specified term of existence, an ad hoc Committee is required to report to the Faculty, whereupon it ceases to exist unless its term of existence is extended for a designated time and purpose by action of the Faculty.
The introduction of new WPI policy or changes in existing policy which are the concern of the Faculty are studied by appropriate Committees for the formulation of recommendations for Faculty consideration and action.
In those areas where the role of the Faculty is advisory, the appropriate Committee may consult with and advise the appropriate members of the WPI community on matters related to the Committee's charge without prior notification to the Faculty. The Committee will, however, keep the Faculty advised of the general nature of such communications.
An amendment to this Constitution may be proposed by any voting member of the Faculty by submitting the proposed amendment in writing to the Secretary of the Faculty fourteen days prior to a regularly scheduled faculty meeting. Following discussion at this meeting, the amendment may be voted on at the next regularly scheduled faculty meeting. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of those voting is required for adoption.
An amendment will become effective upon endorsement by the Board of Trustees by whatever procedure or agency it chooses to employ.
The rules of order for all faculty meetings are Robert's Rules of Order (latest edition), except as amended by the Faculty, as described below. The primary standing rules for faculty meetings are enumerated as follows.
Participation in meetings of the Faculty is limited to members of the Faculty, student members of faculty committees, and members of the Administration. Attendance is open, except when the Faculty votes to go into executive session. Voting privileges are restricted to all full-time faculty members who are tenured, are on the tenure-track, or hold non-temporary secured nontenure-track teaching appointments that are made with provisions for a long-term institutional commitment from WPI3 (as described in Chapter Two: Academic Appointments, Section 1.b.i, Section 4.a, and Section 4.b of the Faculty Handbook) and to such other members of the WPI community as may be designated by a two-thirds majority vote of the entire Faculty. Twenty-five percent of the faculty membership constitutes a quorum.
The agenda for each scheduled monthly faculty meeting will include opportunities for business and reports from standing committees as regular items, as well as special reports when appropriate, and should be distributed to the Faculty at least one week in advance of the meeting.
All motions presented by the standing committees of the Faculty must appear in final form in the notice of the meeting distributed by the Secretary of the Faculty at least one week prior to the meeting. Motions specifically exempted from this requirement are approval of degree candidates and the waiving of degree requirements for individual students. (Adopted March 6, 1984.)
Motions that change either the University-wide undergraduate or graduate degree requirements must be distributed to the Faculty in final form a minimum of 14 days prior to their introduction for discussion at a faculty meeting.
Motions that represent major changes in academic policy or academic operations that are, or are intended to be, published in the current version of the undergraduate catalog, graduate catalog, or Faculty Handbook must be distributed to the Faculty in final form a minimum of 14 days prior to their introduction for discussion at a faculty meeting. In cases of dispute on whether an item represents a major change, the Secretary of the Faculty will decide.
(Approved by the Faculty, October 7, 2010)
At each faculty meeting, a consent agenda will be presented for consideration by voting members in attendance and for their approval by general consent. The consent agenda will consist of the minutes of the previous meeting and any other items that the Secretary of the Faculty, in consultation with the appropriate Committee Chairs, believes will generate no substantive discussion at the faculty meeting. The items identified for inclusion on the consent agenda will be designated in the materials that are distributed one week before each faculty meeting.
At each faculty meeting, the consent agenda will be presented for approval before any other business is transacted. When it is presented, the Presiding Officer will ask if any faculty member wishes to extract any items from the consent agenda. Any faculty member who is present can extract an item by simply requesting to do so. The request will not need a second and no vote will be required to grant it. Any faculty member who intends to ask that an item be extracted from the consent agenda should make every attempt to inform the Secretary of the Faculty as far in advance as possible, although such advance notice is not strictly required. The extracted items will be placed on the regular agenda under the proper categories (normally the appropriate Committee Reports) for bringing such items to the Faculty. The items that remain on the consent agenda will then be put to a vote by general consent.
Items that require two-week's notice will not be included on the consent agenda. These are motions that change University-wide degree requirements or represent major changes in academic policy or academic operations that will be published in the undergraduate catalog, the graduate catalog, or the Faculty Handbook. To preserve the tradition of formally voting to approve the undergraduate and graduate student graduation lists, these lists will also not be placed on the consent agenda.
Any regularly scheduled faculty meeting shall adjourn within 90 minutes of its scheduled starting time.
These rules governing faculty meetings may be set aside for the duration of the meeting in special circumstances by a two-thirds vote of the Faculty present at any legally constituted faculty meeting.
The following rules govern the organization and operation of all standing and ad hoc Committees of the Faculty, with any exceptions noted elsewhere in this Faculty Handbook.
Beyond the establishment and fundamental responsibilities already described in Section Five of the WPI Faculty Constitution, the general duties of faculty committees are as follows.
Committees report regularly to the Faculty, informing, advising, or recommending actions according to their several charges.
The introduction of new WPI policy or changes in existing policy which are the concern of the Faculty are studied by appropriate Committees for the formulation of recommendations for Faculty consideration and action.
Committees are responsible for their own agendas, except that they will be responsive to such duties as may be delegated to them by the Faculty or requested by Members of the Administration. Items deserving of Faculty consideration may be brought to the attention of any Committee by any member of the WPI community.
Committees should review their roles, responsibilities, and membership described in Bylaw Three at least once every three years to either affirm that the charge and membership need no changes or to propose modifications based on evolving needs and circumstances. Committees that identify such modifications work with the Committee on Governance to bring proposed modifications approved by both committees to the Faculty for its consideration.
In addition to the oral and written reports of committees to the Faculty, standing committees submit written annual reports of their academic-year activities to the Secretary of the Faculty by no later than June 30 of the current year.
(Amended by the Faculty, May 7, 2024)
Committees of the Faculty, whether standing or ad hoc, may consist of members of the Faculty, members of the Administration, and WPI students. Faculty members of committees are elected by the Faculty or appointed by the President or Provost or a committee of the Faculty charged with this responsibility. In any case, the majority of faculty members on any committee must be elected by the Faculty. All full-time faculty members (including Department Heads) who are tenured, are on the tenure track, or hold non-temporary secured nontenure-track teaching appointments that are made with provisions for a long-term institutional commitment from WPI who are not members of the Administration are eligible to be elected. Faculty members who are also members of the Administration are ineligible to be elected. If the membership of a committee is to include members of the Administration, such members are either explicitly identified as ex officio or may be appointed when the appointed member is explicitly identified as a representative of the Administration or of an Administrative Division or Office, according to the appropriate procedure described in this Faculty Handbook. Student members of faculty committees are selected annually by the students, with the students determining the procedures.
The terms of Standing Committees begin on July 1.
Each Committee is responsible for its own organization, and annually elects a Chair and a Secretary from among the elected faculty members for the year beginning July 1. This election will normally take place before the end of D-term. Newly elected members participate in electing the new officers. Outgoing members do not participate in electing the new officers. Committee chairs may succeed themselves except where expressly forbidden in the Bylaws.
Ex officio, appointed, and student members have voting privileges on all faculty committees, although they do not serve as committee chairs.
WPI faculty members who accept election or appointment to a committee are expected and obligated to participate in the work of that committee. Committee members are expected to vote on committee business in accordance with their concepts of the best interests of WPI.
It is the responsibility of each committee Chair to give advance notice of committee meetings and to attempt to resolve scheduling conflicts. It is the responsibility of each committee Secretary to note attendance in preparing the minutes of a committee meeting and to forward them to the Faculty and to the office of the Faculty Governance Office on a regular basis. If a problem arises, the Committee on Governance will consult with the committee chair on how the matter will be resolved within the committee.
The Secretary of the Faculty may attend and participate in all meetings of standing and ad hoc Committees, excluding deliberations on specific individuals by the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom, Joint Tenure Committees, the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, and Joint Promotion Committees.
The President and the Provost are invited to attend and participate in all meetings of standing and ad hoc Committees, excluding deliberations of the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom, Joint Tenure Committees, the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, Joint Promotion Committees, and the Faculty Review Committee on specific individuals regarding tenure, promotion, or matters of academic freedom prior to a Committee recommendation. They will receive published minutes of all other committee meetings.
At their discretion, Committees may invite the participation of non-members whose interest and special knowledge may contribute to their activities.
Faculty committees should receive sufficient administrative and clerical support to permit them to carry out their functions in a satisfactory manner.
The rules of order for all committee formation and procedures may be set aside in special circumstances by a two-thirds vote of the Faculty present at any legally constituted faculty meeting.
The roles and responsibilities, membership, and election (and appointment) procedures of the Standing Committees (and Standing sub-Committees) of the Faculty are the following described in this section.
Roles and Responsibilities:
COG is responsible for the formulation of recommendations to the Faculty on changes and additions to the Faculty Rules and Bylaws, and to the faculty committee structure. On behalf of the Faculty, COG coordinates its efforts and those of all other faculty governance committees, as appropriate, in the formulation of recommendations to the Faculty on changes to all parts of the Faculty Handbook. COG is also responsible for the resolution of questions of jurisdiction of the faculty governance committees relative to each other.
COG is responsible for offering nominations and for conducting the election of faculty members to standing and ad hoc Committees (as described in Bylaw Four, Section II), except for the election of its own membership and that of the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom and the Committee on Appointments and Promotions. COG conducts the election by the Faculty for the Secretary of the Faculty (as described in Bylaw Seven, Section II). COG has the jurisdiction to fill vacancies that may occur during the year in committees that come under its electoral jurisdiction according to Bylaw Four, Section VI.
COG conducts critical reviews of all proposals from the Administration to create, merge, realign or eliminate academic programs, academic departments, or major academic or research facilities, which may include referring it to other committees for consideration. Upon receipt of all relevant information, the COG will frame a recommendation to the Administration and present it to the Faculty for its approval. (See Bylaw Ten)
COG, in collaboration with the Provost, each year disseminates a final report (described in Section Three) detailing the numbers of Faculty in each category across the institution and within each department, division, and school to the Faculty and presents the results for open discussion at a faculty meeting each year.
COG also receives from members of the WPI community requests for consideration of matters that do not appear to lie within the jurisdiction of existing Faculty Governance and the responsibilities of the Student Government, the Campus Judicial System, or the Administration. The committee acts by attempting to resolve the issues itself, by referral to an appropriate person or group, or by creation of an ad hoc committee.
The Chair of COG serves as one of the faculty representatives to the Board of Trustees.
Membership:
COG consists of four elected tenured and tenure-track faculty members, two elected secured nontenure-track faculty members, one faculty member appointed annually by the President in collaboration with COG to balance committee representation, and, ex officio, the Provost and the Secretary of the Faculty. Membership on this Committee is limited to no more than two faculty members from any one academic department. The full term for elected members is three years. The committee will select its Chair from its elected tenured members. A member may not serve as Committee Chair in more than two successive years.
Election Procedures:
(Amended by the Faculty, February 17, 2022)
The election of COG members is conducted by the Secretary of the Faculty according to Bylaw Four, Section III.
Vacancies that occur during the academic year are filled for the unexpired term by the next highest vote getter in the previous COG election who is willing to serve.
Roles and Responsibilities:
CITP is a permanent subcommittee of COG that shall have purview over all Information Technology policies, procedures, and practices that affect WPI's academic and research missions. The committee works with representatives from the Information Technology Services (ITS) division and other departments, as needed, on all matters related to computing at WPI.
It will be the responsibility of the faculty members of the CITP to update the appropriate faculty committees, including COG, CAP, and CTAF, on any new or modified policies proposed in their work. The Committee may propose new technology-related policies for consideration by COG. With COG's approval, any such proposal will be forwarded to the Faculty for its consideration.
The members selected by COG, CAP, and CTAF serve as the three faculty members appointed to IT's Academic Computing Policy Committee and Working Group. The elected Chair of CITP also serves on the IT Governance Committee.
Membership and Appointment Procedures:
(Approved by the Faculty, December 18, 2015)
The five-person CITP includes three faculty members: one selected by COG; one selected by CAP; and one selected by CTAF. In addition, the sub-committee will include a member appointed by the Provost from the Division of Academic Affairs, and, ex officio, the Chief Information Officer. The members selected by COG, CAP, and CTAF serve staggered three-year terms. The Provost's appointment to CITP is made each year, with consideration given to the advantages of having members serve longer than one year. The sub-committee elects its Chair from among the three faculty members selected by COG, CAP, and CTAF. (Because CITP is not a standing committee of the Faculty, Bylaw Four, Section I prohibiting committee members from succeeding themselves do not apply.)
Although the faculty members appointed to CITP need not be members of the standing committees that select them, each individual should have a sound appreciation for the issues with which those committees and other standing committees deal on a regular basis. In addition, each should have the technical background required to provide constructive input when dealing with the issues that the CITP will likely confront.
Roles and Responsibilities:
(Amended by the Faculty, March 13, 2024)
CTAF is given the authority and responsibility for overseeing tenure recommendations to the Provost. The committee is in charge of the process by which tenure recommendations to the Provost are reached for each tenure-track probationary faculty member. In the case of Assistant Professors, each recommendation is either for tenure with promotion to Associate Professor or against tenure. In the case of Assistant Professors of Teaching, each recommendation is either for tenure with promotion to Associate Professor of Teaching or against tenure. In the cases of Associate Professors, Associate Professors of Teaching, Professors, and Professors of Teaching, each recommendation is for or against tenure with no consideration given to or recommendation made concerning promotion.
CTAF is also concerned with questions relating to academic freedom, and the committee is charged with the responsibility of reviewing problems involving the academic freedom of all faculty members - whether they are tenured, non-tenured, full-time, or part-time. In cases where faculty members allege that their academic freedom has been violated, the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom shall follow the process described in Chapter Five: Faculty Grievance Procedures, Section 1.
Membership:
CTAF consists of nine faculty members having tenure. There will not be more than one committee member from any one academic department. The term of office for this Committee is four years. No member may serve successive terms. Department Heads, Deans, and the Provost are not eligible to serve on CTAF.
The Chair of CTAF shall be the member who has served the longest among the members in their current terms. In the case of ties in length of current service, CTAF will select the Chair from among those tied. The Chair shall rule on all matters of procedure and shall be responsible for interpreting all faculty rules regarding tenure. The Chair's rulings are subject to review by the Faculty only. The Secretary of CTAF shall be the member aside from the Chair who. has served the longest among the members in their current terms. In the case of ties in length of current service, CTAF will select the Secretary from among those tied.
Election Procedures:
Nominations and elections for CTAF are conducted by the Secretary of the Faculty according to Bylaw Four, Section IV. Vacancies to unexpired terms will be filled by the same nominating and election procedure as for full terms.
(Amended by the Faculty, January 19, 2017)
(Amended by the Faculty, April 16, 2020)
Roles and Responsibilities:
COAP is concerned with criteria for academic appointments and promotions. In collaboration with COG, COAP makes recommendations to the Faculty for changes in criteria for promotion from Associate Professor to full Professor, criteria for promotion from Associate Professor of Teaching to full Professor of Teaching, and for changes in criteria for appointment and promotion of secured non-tenure track faculty members.
COAP makes recommendations to the Provost on academic promotions from Associate Professor to full Professor, from Associate Professor of Teaching to full Professor of Teaching, from Assistant Teaching Professor to Associate Teaching Professor, from Associate Teaching Professor to full Teaching Professor, from Assistant Research Professor to Associate Research Professor, and from Associate Research Professor to full Research Professor.
COAP makes recommendations to the Provost on initial appointments of Associate and (full) Professors, Associate and (full) Professors of Teaching, secured Associate and (full) Teaching Professors, and Associate and (full) Research Professors. COAP also makes recommendations to the Provost on initial appointments and reappointments of Professors of Practice.
COAP represents the Faculty to the President and Provost on appointment, reappointment, and performance evaluation of academic Department Heads.
Membership:
COAP consists of seven elected tenured faculty members holding the rank and title of (full) Professor, with no more than one representative from any one academic department. The term of office for this committee is three years, and no member may serve successive terms. Department Heads, Deans, and the Provost are not eligible to serve on COAP.
Election Procedures:
Nominations and elections for COAP are conducted by the Secretary of the Faculty according to Bylaw Four, Section V. Vacancies in unexpired terms will be filled by the same nominating and election procedure as for full terms.
Roles and Responsibilities:
CAP is responsible for making policy recommendations regarding the direction and goals of undergraduate education at WPI. To do this, the Committee reviews the admission and financial aid policies, reviews the degree requirements, and judges the quality of the academic program as related to WPI goals.
Membership and Election Procedures:
CAP consists of six elected faculty members, two undergraduate students, and a representative of the Provost's Office appointed by the Provost. The Provost's appointee serves one-year renewable terms. The election of faculty members to the Committee is conducted by COG following the procedures described in Bylaw Four, Section I and Bylaw Four, Section II for electing faculty members to standing committees.
Roles and Responsibilities:
(Amended by the Faculty, April 13, 2017)
The UOAC shall function as a permanent subcommittee of CAP. It shall report to CAP and forward recommendations for faculty action to CAP for its consideration and possible recommendation to the Faculty.
The UOAC is responsible for:
The Committee is not responsible for the assessment of departmental majors or programs, but for the identification and assessment of learning outcomes that arise from the undergraduate curriculum broadly defined, including assessment of the first year program.
Membership and Election Procedures:
UOAC consists of the following members: four faculty members elected for staggered, three-year terms; a member appointed annually by the Committee on Academic Policy (CAP) from among the Faculty; one undergraduate student appointed by the Student Government Association; a representative of the Provost's Office appointed annually by the Provost; the Director of the Morgan Teaching and Learning Center (ex-officio); and the Director of Institutional Research (ex-officio).
One of the four elected faculty members shall be elected from the Faculty at-large. The other three shall be elected by the entire Faculty but shall be chosen from among the following groupings: one chosen from the School of Engineering; one chosen from the departments in the School of Arts and Sciences excluding the Humanities and Arts Dept. and the Social Science and Policy Studies Dept.; and one chosen from either the Business School, the Global School, the Social Science and Policy Studies department, or the Humanities and Arts department. The election of faculty members to the Committee is conducted by COG following the procedures (described in Bylaw Four, Section I and Bylaw Four, Section II) for electing faculty members to standing committees.
Roles and Responsibilities:
CAO is responsible for monitoring procedures for administering existing undergraduate academic, admission, and financial aid policies. Recommendations in regard to courses, projects, and programs are made to the Faculty by this Committee. Petitions for exceptions to the established academic rules are received and acted upon. The Committee brings to the Faculty for action the names of students approved as eligible for baccalaureate degrees.
Membership and Election Procedures:
CAO consists of six elected faculty members, two undergraduate students, a representative of the Provost's Office appointed by the Provost, and, ex officio, the Registrar. The Provost's appointee serves one-year renewable terms. The election of faculty members to the Committee is conducted by COG following the procedures (described in Bylaw Four, Section I and Bylaw Four, Section II) for electing faculty members to standing committees.
(Amended by the Faculty, May 10, 2016)
Roles and Responsibilities:
CGSR is concerned with all graduate programs and graduate certificate programs of the University, and reviews and recommends changes in WPI policies on goals, student recruitment, admissions, academic standards, teaching and research assistantships, scholarships, and fellowships. It also makes recommendations to the Faculty and Administration on new graduate programs and changes in programs and courses. The Committee acts on admission of graduate students to degree candidacy, dismissal for failure to meet academic standards, and student petitions on academic matters. It brings to the Faculty for action the names of students who it has determined are eligible for post-baccalaureate degrees. The Committee reviews and recommends changes in policy on the funding, promotion, and conduct of research at WPI.
Membership and Election Procedures:
CGSR consists of six elected faculty members, one graduate student, and two ex officio members: Vice Provost for Research; and Dean of Graduate Studies. The election of faculty members to the Committee is conducted by COG following the procedures (described in Bylaw Four, Section I and Bylaw Four, Section II) for electing faculty members to standing committees.
Roles and Responsibilities:
CASL is responsible for the continuing development of the student advisory and counseling programs. It reviews the effectiveness of the programs, evaluates current practices in the areas of student environment, residential advising systems, and extracurricular activities as they affect the academic performance of the student body, and recommends changes as appropriate.
Membership and Election Procedures:
CASL consists of six elected faculty members, two undergraduate students, one graduate student, a representative of the Provost's Office appointed annually by the Provost, and, ex officio, the Assistant Dean of Student Success, and the Dean of Students. The election of faculty members to the Committee is conducted by COG following the procedures (described in Bylaw Four, Section I and Bylaw Four, Section II) for electing faculty members to standing committees.
Roles and Responsibilities:
FAP informs the Faculty on administrative and financial matters that affect the Institute. FAP ascertains the interests and views of the Faculty concerning such matters, deliberates with appropriate access to institutional data, and works with the Administration to make recommendations that serve the best interests of the Institute.
Membership and Election Procedures:
(Amended by the Faculty, April 14, 2016)
(Amended by the Faculty, February 17, 2022)
FAP consists of eight members in total: five elected faculty members (serving staggered three-year terms), the Chief Financial Officer, one additional administrative representative member designated annually by the President, and one additional faculty member appointed by COG (for a one-year term, renewable for up to three consecutive years, in order to diversify the skills or perspectives needed by the committee, given the prospective composition of the committee that year). The Chair of FAP must be a tenured member of the Faculty. The election of faculty members to the Committee is conducted by COG following the procedures (described in Bylaw Four, Section I and Bylaw Four, Section II) for electing faculty members to standing committees.
(Amended by the Faculty, October 14, 2016)
(Amended by the Faculty, May 7, 2024)
Roles and Responsibilities:
The Fringe Benefits Committee (FBC) is a permanent subcommittee of the Committee on Financial and Administrative Policy (FAP) that is responsible for reviewing and proposing changes to the WPI fringe benefits offerings with special attention paid to the evaluation and recommendation of health care plans and health insurance providers, tuition benefits, disability plans, and retirement policies.
Recommendations from the FBC are passed to FAP. In those instances when FAP does not accept FBC's recommendations, the two committees should meet in an attempt to resolve their differences.
Membership and Appointment Procedures:
The FBC consists of a Chair to be selected for one-year renewable terms from FAP from among its faculty members, two faculty members appointed by the Committee on Governance (COG), and two faculty members appointed by FAP. Both COG and FAP will coordinate their appointments to balance representation on FBC. Faculty members of the FBC (other than the Chair) will serve three-year staggered terms. Current COG or FAP members appointed to the FBC who have not completed three years of service on FBC when their COG or FAP terms expire will continue on FBC to complete their FBC terms.
Although formally the FBC is constituted as above, operationally it invites five members of the WPI staff to join its deliberations and to vote on matters related to benefits that are of equal concern to the WPI Faculty and staff. The five members of the WPI staff are chosen by the Staff Council with input from WPI Talent and Inclusion. These staff members are comprised of one Vice-Chair chosen by the Staff Council from among its members to serve a one-year (renewable) term (up to a maximum of two years) and four staff members to serve three-year staggered (renewable) terms. The staff members are chosen to proportionally represent exempt and non-exempt employees and to promote a representative selection of eligible staff members across university divisions.
Either the V.P. of Talent and Inclusion or the Director of Benefits and Wellness serves as the liaison between the FBC and the Division of Talent and Inclusion. The liaison provides information requested by the FBC to conduct its deliberations in an informed manner. Neither the V.P. of Talent and Inclusion nor the Director of Benefits and Wellness should serve as one of the five invited voting WPI staff members.
(Amended by the Faculty, May 9, 2017)
(Amended by the Faculty, March 13, 2024)
Roles and Responsibilities:
The FRC reviews three types of cases: 1) faculty grievances not related to academic freedom violations; 2) allegations of faculty misconduct; and 3) grade appeals.
For faculty grievances not related to academic freedom violations (see Chapter Five: Faculty Grievance Procedures, Section 2 for the details of the faculty grievance process not related to academic freedom violations), subcommittees consisting of three elected and two appointed members of FRC have the power to review and to require reconsideration of:
The Provost's decision not to renew a probationary, tenure-track appointment;
Decisions not to renew or to terminate appointments of secured nontenure-track faculty members on 3-year or 5 (or more)-year contracts;
Negative decisions on tenure; and
Negative decisions on promotions of tenured, tenure-track, and nontenure-track faculty members;
where the action, decision, or recommendation is alleged by an aggrieved faculty member to result from:
For allegations of faculty misconduct, the fact finding committee includes members of the FRC as described in the appropriate conduct policy (Sexual Misconduct Policy; Policy on Research Conduct; or Policy on Faculty Conduct). Selection of the fact finding committee is conducted so as to ensure members are unbiased and have the appropriate expertise and diversity as necessary for a particular case.
For grade appeals, reviews are conducted (according to the procedures described in Chapter Six: Policies Regarding Academics and Academic Programs, Section III.b) by ad hoc committees consisting of three members of the FRC, which are presided over by the Chair of the FRC.
The exercise of the functions of the FRC, as well as its internal organization and procedures (including, if appropriate, the appointment of subcommittees) shall be governed, insofar as the matter is not prescribed by this policy or by the Faculty Constitution and Bylaws, by rules adopted by the Faculty Review Committee itself.
Membership:
The Faculty Review Committee consists of nine tenured faculty members: six elected by the Faculty and three appointed by the President. The Chair of the FRC is chosen by the committee from its elected members.
Diversity on the FRC is highly valued. Toward that end, there shall be no more than one person from any one Department in the group of six elected members, and following each annual faculty election, one member of the FRC shall be appointed by the President to a three-year term. These appointments should be made to ensure proper diversity among the FRC members. No elected or appointed member may serve consecutive terms.
Members of CTAF, members of COAP, and faculty members with administrative appointments of 50 percent time or more are ineligible to serve on the FRC.
When any matters regarding faculty grievances, allegations of faculty misconduct, or grade appeals are pending before the FRC at the time when the term of office of its members would expire, the subcommittee (or investigating committee) shall continue as then constituted for the sole purpose of disposing of such pending matters in its jurisdiction, notwithstanding the creation of a new FRC in the regular manner at the same time.
Election and Appointment Procedures:
Each year, the Faculty elects two members to three-year terms. The election of faculty members to the Committee is conducted by COG following the procedures (described in Bylaw Four, Section I and Bylaw Four, Section II) for electing faculty members to standing committees. A vacancy in the membership of the FRC shall be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term by that person receiving the next highest number of votes in the most recent election, if the person leaving the Committee was an elected member, or by appointment by the President if the person was an appointed member.
The term of office for all standing committee elected positions, except as otherwise indicated, is three years, with individual members' terms staggered to provide for continuity. The terms of standing committee members begin on July 1.
A faculty member may be elected to no more than two standing Committees concurrently. Elected members of standing Committees cannot succeed themselves unless they have served no more than one year on the Committee. (Service on ad hoc or administrative committees is not included in these restrictions.)
Faculty members of committees will be elected as at-large members.
COG is responsible for offering nominations and for conducting the election of faculty members to standing and ad hoc Committees, except for the election of its own membership and that of the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom and the Committee on Appointments and Promotions.
Each spring, after the COG, CTAF, and COAP elections are concluded, COG will provide a ballot to fill the vacancies on each of the other standing Committees, after ascertaining the willingness of each nominee to serve. The ballot will also include names of those nominated by petition signed by five faculty members. Ballots will be distributed to each voting faculty member and returned to the Committee. The election procedure should be completed by the end of D-Term.
The Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV) method, as described in the Appendix to these Bylaws, will be used in the conduct of all final elections to standing committees of the Faculty.
The election of COG members is conducted by the Secretary of the Faculty, and should be concluded by the end of C-term. Membership on this Committee is limited to no more than two faculty members from any one academic department. The election procedure is as follows.
The Secretary of the Faculty prepares separate nominating ballots as needed: one listing eligible tenured and tenure-track faculty members by department; and one listing eligible secured nontenure-track faculty members by department. Faculty members may select up to ten names from each list.
The final election ballot will consist of the names of the faculty members receiving the largest number of nominations, who are also eligible and willing to serve. The number of names on the final election ballot for tenured and tenure-track members will be six or twice the number of vacancies to be filled, whichever is larger, and will contain no more than two names from any one academic department. The number of names on the final election ballot for secured nontenure-track members will be three or twice the number of vacancies to be filled, whichever is larger, and will contain no more than two names from any one academic department. These ballots are distributed with voting instructions to all voting faculty members. (If the highest vote getters from both the tenured and tenure-track faculty election and the nontenure-track faculty election are from the same academic department as a continuing member of COG, then to promote diversity on the committee, the winner is the nontenure-track faculty member when the continuing member is tenured or tenure-track, and the winner is the tenured or tenure-track faculty member when the continuing member is nontenure-track.)
Nominations and elections for CTAF are conducted by the Secretary of the Faculty, and should be concluded by the end of C-term. CTAF consists of nine faculty members having tenure. There will not be more than one committee member from any one academic department. The term of office for this Committee is four years. The election procedure is as follows.
The Secretary prepares a nominating ballot listing eligible faculty members by department and distributes it to all voting members of the Faculty, with instructions to nominate up to one person from each department. The members of each academic department who receive the largest number of nominations in their departments and are willing to serve if elected are then placed on an election ballot to be distributed to all voting members of the Faculty. In the normal pattern, the number to be elected annually will be two, two, two, and three in successive years.
Nominations and elections for COAP are conducted by the Secretary of the Faculty, and should be concluded by the end of C-term. COAP consists of seven elected tenured faculty members holding the rank and title of (full) Professor, with no more than one representative from any one academic department. The election procedure is as follows.
The Secretary prepares a nominating ballot listing eligible faculty members by department and distributes it to all voting members of the Faculty, with instructions to nominate up to one person from each department. The members of each academic department who receive the largest number of nominations and are willing to serve if elected are then placed on an election ballot to be distributed to all voting members of the Faculty. In the normal pattern, the number to be elected annually will rotate from three to two to two in successive years.
If a faculty member on a Standing or ad hoc Committee will be absent from the campus for more than ten weeks (exclusive of the summer period), a replacement will be appointed to serve until succeeded by a member elected to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. Faculty members who anticipate being absent from WPI for more than ten weeks should notify the Committee on Governance at the earliest opportunity.
COG has the jurisdiction to fill vacancies that may occur during the year in committees that come under its electoral jurisdiction. Such appointments normally will be only until the next annual election.
Special Cases:
When the vacancy is an elected position on COG, the vacancy is to be filled for the unexpired term by the next highest vote getter in the previous COG election who is willing to serve.
When the vacancy is in the membership of the FRC, it shall be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term by that person receiving the next highest number of votes in the most recent FRC election, if the person leaving the Committee was an elected member, or by appointment by the President if the person was an appointed member.
On an annual basis, the Provost will appoint, with COG review and concurrence on a case-by-case basis, the following faculty committee and faculty sub-committee members:
Each appointment of a representative of the Academic Administration by the Provost will be consistent with the allocation of responsibilities within the Provost's Office at the time; there is no limit to the number of re-appointments that one representative may receive to a given committee.
The Provost will also appoint an appropriate representative of the Division of Academic Affairs on the Committee on Information Technology Policy (CITP), with consideration given to the advantages of having members serve longer than one year.
The President will appoint, consistent with the stipulations indicated, the following faculty committee members:
an appropriate faculty member on the Committee on Governance (COG), with the appointment made annually in collaboration with COG to balance the committee's membership;
an appropriate administrative representative on the Committee on Financial and Administrative Policy (FAP), with the appointment made annually;
three appropriate tenured faculty members on the Faculty Review Committee (FRC), each for staggered three-year terms, with the appointments made to ensure proper diversity among the FRC members and with no appointed member eligible to serve consecutive terms.
Roles and Responsibilities:
The Educational Development Council (EDC) is an appointed committee whose responsibilities include:
Membership:
Membership of the EDC includes the Director of the Morgan Teaching and Learning Center, a faculty member appointed by the Committee on Academic Policy, a faculty member appointed by the Committee on Governance, a faculty member appointed by the Provost, and an undergraduate student appointed by the Student Government Association.
Faculty members serve for staggered three-year terms.
(Approved by the Faculty, January 18, 2018)
Roles and Responsibilities:
The role of the Research Development Council (RDC) is to serve as an advisory board to the Vice Provost for Research (VPR). RDC provides advice and assistance to the VPR on the development of research, research planning, and research policy. The specific roles and responsibilities of the RDC are:
Strategic planning to maximize research productivity of the Faculty and staff and to support highly innovative, transformative research
To make recommendations regarding internal review of pre-proposals for limited submission opportunities
To make recommendations regarding internal research funding programs
To review and recommend updates to the indirect cost return (ICR) reinvestment model as needed
To develop yearly RDC budget recommendation, including, but not limited to support of:
To coordinate research infrastructure requests in support of new faculty recruitment across all disciplines with Department Heads, Deans and the Provost
To make recommendations regarding research infrastructure
Membership:
The Research Development Council consists of the Vice Provost for Research and the following eight faculty members with a record of significant scholarly research contributions:
Faculty members serve staggered three-year terms. Any member can be reappointed after a minimum of one year between terms.
The Vice Provost for Research staff will provide the RDC with administrative and staff support.
(Amended by the Faculty, March 22, 2012)
The Secretary of the Faculty must have tenure and is the highest elected representative of the Faculty.
The Secretary of the Faculty coordinates faculty committee activities, is an ex officio member of the Committee on Governance, and may attend and participate in all meetings of standing and ad hoc Committees, excluding deliberations on specific individuals by the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom, Joint Tenure Committees, the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, and Joint Promotion Committees.
The Secretary of the Faculty, working with the Faculty Governance Executive Assistant, maintains the office that:
Prepares and distributes the schedule of faculty meetings for the academic year;
Prepares the agenda for each faculty meeting;
Notifies the Faculty of faculty meeting times and locations;
Assembles and distributes supporting documentation for the faculty meeting agenda for the purpose of promoting informed discussion of the issues to be voted upon;
Publishes and distributes minutes of the faculty meetings;
Prepares annual reports showing membership of faculty committees, including terms of office and committee officers;
Conducts the annual election of the Committee on Governance, the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom, and the Committee on Appointments and Promotions;
Ascertains that a permanent record of faculty meeting minutes and pertinent addenda are maintained for the archives of Worcester Polytechnic Institute and performs other such duties as may be directed by the Faculty;
Informs appropriate individuals and groups of faculty decisions;
Monitors progress of the implementation of faculty decisions; and
Solicits periodic reports from administrative officers for faculty committees.
The Secretary of the Faculty is invited to attend meetings of the five "open" Board committees as an observer, but not as a voting member of any committee of the Board unless also appointed as one of the two faculty committee members. In addition, the Secretary of the Faculty will be seated with the members of the Board at meetings of the Corporation and may participate fully in discussions and deliberations, with the exception of not having a formal vote.
The Secretary of the Faculty must be a tenured faculty member. The Secretary of the Faculty is elected for a term of three years, and may not serve successive terms. The election of the Secretary of the Faculty, when held, will precede all other committee elections. The election procedure is as follows.
COG will conduct the election by preparing a nominating ballot listing all eligible faculty members by department and distributing it to all voting faculty members, with instructions to select up to five names from the list. The two faculty members receiving the largest number of nominations who are willing to serve are then placed on a final election ballot distributed to all voting faculty members. The same procedure will be used for an unexpired term vacancy.
The Secretary of the Faculty should receive sufficient administrative and clerical support to permit them to carry out their functions in a satisfactory manner.
(Approved by the Faculty, March 22, 2012)
In order to strengthen shared governance and foster good communication among the WPI Faculty, Administration, and Board of Trustees, the Trustees will appoint two tenured or tenure-track members of the Faculty to each of five Board committees: Academic Planning, Student Affairs, Budget and Finance, Facilities and Campus Infrastructure, and Marketing. The Board of Trustees' Committee on Nominations and Governance will make the appointments from slates of nominees prepared by the faculty Committee on Governance (COG). COG will prepare slates containing at least two names for each open position. In preparing the slates, COG will give preference to members of the Faculty with prior or current experience serving on faculty governance committees.
Terms of service for faculty members of Board committees will be for three years, except that to ensure staggered terms, replacement appointments for unexpired terms, would be for fewer than three years. No member of the Faculty shall serve on more than one Board committee concurrently, but those completing a term on one Board committee can be considered for future service on another. Faculty members of Board committees will have voting privileges, and are considered full, participating members of the committee, not simply observers. It is expected that members of the Faculty serving on Board committees will report regularly to, and seek input from, the corresponding faculty governance committees, including the COG.
Faculty members wishing to be considered for service on a Board committee should submit a brief statement of interest to COG, giving basic information about their appointment at WPI, relevant experience, and reasons for interest in serving on a Board committee.
The Secretary of the Faculty will be seated with the members of the Board at meetings of the Corporation and may participate fully in discussions and deliberations, with the exception of not having a formal vote, as this is a responsibility unique to Trustees and cannot be delegated. In addition, the Secretary of the Faculty is invited to attend meetings of the five "open"-Board committees as an observer, but not as a voting member of any committee unless also appointed as one of the two faculty committee members.
A new Bylaw or an amendment to an existing Bylaw may be proposed by any voting member of the Faculty by submitting the proposed Bylaw or amended Bylaw in writing to the Secretary of the Faculty fourteen days prior to a regularly scheduled faculty meeting. The Secretary will include the proposed Bylaw on the agenda of the meeting. Following discussion at this meeting, the proposed Bylaw may be voted on at the next regularly scheduled faculty meeting. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of those voting is required for adoption. Bylaws may be amended, deleted, or superseded by the adoption of subsequent Bylaws.
Should the Administration propose creating, merging, realigning or eliminating an academic program, academic department, or major academic or research facility, that proposal shall be conveyed to the Committee on Governance when it has been advanced to the stage of serious consideration, but before any commitments to action have been made. The Committee shall conduct a critical review of the proposal, which may include referring it to other committees for consideration. Upon receipt of all relevant information, the Committee on Governance will frame a recommendation to the Administration and present it to the Faculty for its approval.
(Approved by the Faculty, December 16, 1999)
Ballots in the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) method are cast and votes are counted as follows:
In each election, regardless of the number of vacancies to be filled, each voter must rank the candidates consecutively (i.e., 1, 2, 3, etc.) in order of highest to lowest preference, but need not assign rankings to all the candidates.
To fill each vacancy, votes are first assigned to the candidate who on each ballot is the most highly preferred from among those candidates still remaining. If in this manner no candidate receives a majority of votes from the ballots that have not yet been temporarily set aside, then the candidate with the fewest votes is temporarily eliminated, and the votes for that candidate are reassigned to the candidate who on each of those ballots is the most highly preferred from among those candidates still remaining. This process of candidate elimination and ballot reassignment is repeated until one candidate receives a majority of votes from the ballots that have not yet been temporarily set aside.
At any point in the vote counting process for each vacancy, if none of the candidates remaining in the election have been ranked on a given ballot to be assigned or reassigned, then that ballot is temporarily set aside (for that vacancy, only).
If at any stage of candidate elimination and ballot reassignment, two or more candidates are tied with the fewest votes, then the candidate among those tied who received the fewest number of highest preference votes is temporarily eliminated.
If the repeated process of candidate elimination and vote reassignment leads to a tie between the only two remaining candidates, then the winner is the candidate who received the greater number of highest preference votes.
If more than one vacancy is to be filled for the same type of office, then for each vacancy in succession, those candidates already elected will first be eliminated, all other eligible candidates will be included (including those candidates who had been temporarily eliminated in determining the candidate(s) already elected), and all ballots (including those ballots that had been temporarily set aside in determining the candidate(s) already elected) are to be recounted as described in Section 2 above.
If more than one vacancy is to be filled and the eligibility of candidates on the ballot is limited by other governing factors (such as restrictions on the number of committee members permitted from the same department) after the first vacancy is filled, then all remaining candidates no longer eligible due to those limitations shall be eliminated before the votes for any subsequent vacancies are tallied.
Top | Ch 1 | Ch 2 | Ch 3 | Ch 4 | Ch 5 | Ch 6 | Ch 7 | Ch 8 | Ch 9 | Ch 10
Consistent with WPI's purpose to create, discover, and convey knowledge at the frontiers of academic inquiry, the University is committed to maintaining an appropriate balance of faculty members in the following broad categories: those who balance both research and teaching; those who primarily serve the educational mission as teachers; and those devoted entirely to research. WPI meets this commitment by maintaining a Faculty with an appropriate range of roles, responsibilities, tenure status, and titles.
All tenured and tenure-track faculty members at WPI work toward and are awarded tenure consistent with criteria appropriate to either their dual mission or teaching mission. As a body, the tenured and tenure-track dual mission Faculty plays a primary role in fulfilling the University's educational mission, and plays the primary role in fulfilling the University's research and scholarly mission. The tenured and tenure-track teaching mission Faculty plays a primary role in fulfilling the University's educational mission and contributes to the University's scholarly mission. Regardless of their dual or teaching missions, all tenured and tenure-track faculty members contribute in significant ways to shaping and delivering WPI's academic programs.
Ranks and Titles:
Assistant, Associate and (full) Professor: These ranks and titles are for dual-mission tenured and tenure-track faculty members.
Assistant, Associate and (full) Professor of Teaching: These ranks and titles are for teaching-mission tenured and tenure-track faculty members.
Secured nontenure-track teaching faculty members are full-time employees of the University who are hired with the expectation that they will have continuing academic responsibilities at WPI focused on their teaching, and with provisions for a long-term institutional commitment from WPI. They may also make a range of additional contributions through their scholarship and through their service to the University. They are an integral part of the fabric of the campus, and contribute in significant ways to shaping and delivering WPI's academic programs.
Ranks and Titles:
Instructor; Senior Instructor; or Assistant, Associate, and (full) Teaching Professor: The ranks and titles of Assistant, Associate, and (full) Teaching Professor will be awarded only to those individuals with both a Ph.D. degree (or the recognized highest degree for the discipline) and with teaching credentials appropriate to the corresponding tenured or tenure-track rank.
Professor of Practice: These are full-time non-tenure track faculty members who, by virtue of their non-academic industry-related experiences, are hired to bring a unique, current area of expertise to teaching. This experience and expertise must be distinct from that which would be brought by a conventional tenured or tenure-track faculty member and should be aligned with a specific institutional need or required area of expertise.
Short-term nontenure-track teaching faculty members are full-time employees of the University who are hired with the expectation that their employment at WPI will be temporary and with academic responsibilities focused on filling a short-term institutional teaching need (e.g., to cover a sabbatical or leave of absence, to fill a temporary gap created by an unanticipated retirement or by a sudden unexpected increase in enrollment).
Ranks and Titles:
Instructor; Senior Instructor; or Assistant, Associate, and (full) Teaching Professor: The ranks and titles of Assistant, Associate, and (full) Teaching Professor will be awarded only to those individuals with both a Ph.D. degree (or the recognized highest degree for the discipline) and with teaching credentials appropriate to the corresponding tenured or tenure-track rank.
Nontenure-track research faculty members are full-time employees of the University who are hired, usually on research grants, with the expectation that their academic responsibilities at WPI are focused on their research. The length of full-time relationship between WPI and the faculty member will depend on the nature and duration of the research funding arrangement.
Ranks and Titles:
Assistant, Associate, and (full) Research Professor: The ranks and titles Assistant, Associate, and (full) Research Professor will be awarded only to those individuals with both a Ph.D. degree (or the recognized highest degree for the discipline) and with research credentials appropriate to the corresponding tenured or tenure-track rank.
Adjunct nontenure-track faculty members are part-time employees of the University who play specific roles. Some adjunct faculty members develop long-term relationships with WPI and take on significant responsibilities. Other adjunct faculty members may be hired for a specific limited period of time with no expectations that they will take on significant ongoing responsibilities.
Visiting Faculty Members: Visiting faculty members are Assistant, Associate, or (full) Professors who are visiting from some other institution, for periods up to one full year. Appointment as a Visiting faculty member would not be made for other full-time non-tenure track appointments.
Post-Doctoral Scholars: Postdoctoral scholars are individuals who have received a doctoral degree (or equivalent) and are engaged in a temporary and defined period of mentored advanced training to enhance the professional skills and research independence needed to pursue his or her chosen career path.
Consistent with WPI's purpose to create, discover, and convey knowledge at the frontiers of academic inquiry, the University is committed to maintaining an appropriate balance of faculty members who combine both research and teaching, and faculty members who primarily serve the educational mission as teachers and experts in pedagogy, course design, and course delivery.
WPI meets this commitment by aiming to balance its Faculty as follows: 70 percent tenured and tenure-track (TTT) dual mission teaching-research faculty members and 30 percent teaching mission faculty members. The TTT dual-mission teaching-research faculty members consist of Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors. The teaching-mission faculty members consist of the following: tenured and tenure-track (TTT) Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors of Teaching; and non-tenure track (NTT) Assistant Teaching Professors, Associate Teaching Professors, Full Teaching Professors, Professors of Practice, Instructors, and Senior Instructors.
WPI's initial three-year goal is to balance its teaching mission faculty members (by fall 2023) as follows: 40 percent tenured or tenure-track and 60 percent non-tenure-track, with an openness to further increasing the fraction of tenured or tenure-track teaching mission faculty members in the years that immediately follow.
The University should periodically revisit these commitments and goals through campus-wide discussions that either affirm their soundness or develop an understanding and a consensus concerning changes in mission, priorities, resources, or strategy that would require them to change. While the goals are described quantitatively to provide clarity, there is flexibility in the understanding that they are not exact and can be reconsidered when necessary.
Early each fall, the Provost will provide a report to the Committee on Governance detailing the numbers of faculty members in each category (described in Section 1) across the institution and within each department, division, and school. In collaboration with the Provost, the Committee on Governance will disseminate a final report to the Faculty and present the results for open discussion at a faculty meeting during the same year.
WPI employs faculty members of the highest quality in teaching and in either scholarship or continuing professional growth and currency, as appropriate to the expectations associated with their faculty positions. Every effort is made to recruit and attract outstanding candidates and to encourage and enable them, once hired, to demonstrate teaching effectiveness, active scholarship, and/or continuing professional growth and currency in their own fields of interest.
Tenured and tenure-track faculty members are the President, the Provost, and those individuals holding full-time appointments with the following exact ranks and titles: Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Professor of Teaching, Associate Professor of Teaching, and Assistant Professor of Teaching.
All appointments of these faculty members shall be either (a) probationary with respect to tenure, or (b) with tenure.
Probationary appointments may be for one year or for other stated periods, subject to renewal, and may include credit on the tenure clock for previous full-time service at the assistant rank or higher at WPI or at other academic institutions. A tenure-track faculty member's tenure clock begins running on the July 1 closest to the starting date of the initial probationary appointment. (For more detail on the tenure clock, see Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 2.)
The minimum and maximum durations of probationary appointments prior to tenure reviews are set as follows:
The minimum time served on a probationary appointment at the assistant rank in either the dual-mission or teaching-mission tenure track prior to the tenure review is three years because assistant professors receive a combined tenure and promotion review (see Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 1) and must have completed at least three years in the same track prior to review for promotion to the associate rank (see Chapter Four: Promotions, Section 1.a.i).
The minimum time served on a probationary appointment at the associate or full rank in either the dual-mission or teaching-mission tenure track prior to tenure review is two years because no probationary faculty member may serve less than two years on the tenure clock prior to tenure review.
The maximum time served on a probationary appointment for all faculty members is limited by the requirement that the mandatory tenure review must be conducted in the academic year immediately after five years have been accumulated on the tenure clock. The probationary appointment continues for one additional year during the academic year of the mandatory tenure review. (For more detail on the mandatory tenure review, see Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 1.)
The probationary period of a tenure-track faculty member refers to the total time served at WPI as a tenure-track faculty member regardless of whether the tenure clock is running or is stopped, including time served during the academic year of the tenure review. (For more detail on the tenure clock, see Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 2.)
An initial appointment of a probationary faculty member on the tenure track is reviewed by the Department Head, the Dean of the appropriate school, and the Provost. In the case of an appointment above the assistant rank in any tenure-track, the appointment is also reviewed by the Committee on Appointments and Promotion to see that the candidate's qualifications are commensurate with the criterion used for promotion to the stated rank in the appropriate track.
Once the Provost has approved the appointment, they forward an official offer letter of initial tenure-track appointment to the candidate. The precise terms and conditions of every such faculty appointment must be stated in writing in the letter and are in the possession of both WPI and the prospective faculty member before the appointment is consummated. These terms and conditions must include a clear designation that the appointment is probationary with respect to tenure, the rank and title of the appointment, the number of years credited on the tenure clock and the corresponding academic year of the scheduled mandatory tenure review accounting for all time credited on the tenure clock, and - if the appointment is at the associate rank - a clear statement that the faculty member should first achieve tenure before seeking promotion to full rank in their particular track (see Chapter Four: Promotions, Section 1.a.ii).
For consistency with the minimum duration of probationary periods permitted prior to tenure review described above, probationary faculty members at the assistant rank in either tenure track may be given no more than two years of credit on the tenure clock at the time of the initial probationary appointment, and probationary faculty members at the associate or full rank in either tenure track may be given no more than three years of credit on the tenure clock at the time of the initial probationary appointment.
Faculty members switching from the Teaching Professor track to the Professor of Teaching track, take on the same rank in their new track.
Recommendations to the Provost for reappointment of probationary faculty members will originate with the Department Head (or equivalent) after consultation with the other members of the Department Tenure Committee. Subsequently, the Provost consults with the appropriate Dean.
Reappointment letters are for the period commencing July 1. WPI will make every effort to notify faculty members of the terms and conditions of their renewals by March 15. Reappointment letters should explicitly state the academic year of the scheduled mandatory tenure review accounting for all stoppages of the tenure clock granted up to that point in time.
Within the first year of service a reappointment letter with terms and conditions will be forwarded to the probationary faculty member by no later than April 15th. For individuals whose initial appointment year is two terms or less, the next full year (July 1 to June 30) will constitute the first year of service for a) reappointment dates, and b) for time on the tenure clock counted toward the mandatory tenure review. (For more detail on the mandatory tenure review, see Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 1.)
If the probationary appointment is to be renewed beyond the first academic year of service, then a reappointment letter with terms and conditions will be forwarded to the probationary faculty member by no later than April 15th before the new academic year.
To assist probationary faculty members in enhancing their teaching effectiveness, developing their scholarly competence, and maintaining their professional growth and currency, each Department Tenure Committee (DTC) will conduct an annual review of each probationary faculty member consistent with the set of tenure criteria (see Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 3) appropriate to the expectations associated with their faculty position at WPI.
The faculty member being reviewed will provide the DTC with documentation of their efforts in each category up to that date as well as future plans. The DTC may determine the format of this document (e.g., Faculty Annual Report, tenure dossier format or other). Following the DTC's review of the documentation provided, the DTC members will meet and discuss the teaching, scholarship, professional growth and currency, and service aspects of the candidate's efforts up to that date as well as future plans as appropriate to the faculty member's academic track, and together formulate recommendations to the candidate.
The members of the DTC will then meet with the candidate to review these recommendations and address any concerns or questions by either party. A summary of the DTC review and recommendations will be prepared, signed by the members of the DTC and the candidate to acknowledge receipt, and kept on file in the department.
CTAF will be officially notified that the report has been completed and signed no later than May 1st. These documents will remain confidential and will NOT be included in the official tenure dossier unless the candidate so chooses. They must remain on file in the department for a minimum of one year after a tenure decision has been made or the candidate withdraws from the tenure process.
Recommendations to the Provost for non-reappointment of probationary faculty members will originate with the Department Head (or equivalent) after consultation with the other members of the Department Tenure Committee (or equivalent). Subsequently, the Provost consults with the appropriate Dean. The Provost shall meet with the Department Tenure Committee before taking action on the recommendation for non-reappointment.
If a probationary appointment is not to be renewed in the first year of service, then written notice must be given to the faculty member by no later than four months before the expiration of the first year of service (i.e., by March 1st). For individuals whose initial appointment year is two terms or less, the next full year (July 1 to June 30) will constitute the first year of service for non-reappointment dates.
If a probationary appointment is not to be renewed in the second year of service, then written notice must be given to the faculty member by no later than six months before the expiration of the second year of service (i.e., by January 1st).
If the appointment is not to be renewed after two or more years of service (i.e., in the third, fourth, or fifth year of service), then written notice must be given to the faculty member by no later than twelve months prior to the termination date of the final year of service (i.e., by June 30).
Non-renewal of a probationary appointment with less advance notice than specified herein shall be subject to the procedural rights as specified in the appropriate policy in the WPI Faculty Handbook and shall only be for the grounds described therein. Administrative personnel who hold academic rank are subject to the foregoing regulations in their capacity as faculty members.
If, as a result of the mandatory tenure review, tenure is not granted, then a terminal appointment will be offered for only one additional academic year beyond the academic year of the tenure review. The appointment will be at the faculty member's current rank and title and it will be made on the schedule used for the reappointments of tenure-track faculty members beyond their first academic year of service.
If a probationary faculty member desires to terminate an existing appointment at the end of the ac ademic year, or to decline a renewal, that faculty member shall give notice in writing at the earliest opportunity but not later than one month after receiving notice of renewal; but that faculty member may properly request a waiver of this requirement in case of hardship.
An initial appointment of a faculty member with tenure is reviewed by the Department Head, the Dean of the appropriate school, and the Provost. The appointment is also reviewed by the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom to see that the candidate's qualifications are commensurate with the tenure criteria for the appropriate track (see Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 3). If the appointment is at the full rank in either track, then it is also reviewed by Committee on Appointments and Promotion to see that the candidate's qualifications are commensurate with the criteria used for promotion to the stated rank in the appropriate track (see Chapter Four: Promotions, Section 2).
Once the Provost has approved the appointment, they forward an official offer letter to the candidate. The precise terms and conditions of every initial appointment of a faculty member with tenure must be stated in writing and be in the possession of both WPI and the faculty member before the appointment is consummated. These terms and conditions must include the rank and title of the appointment and a clear designation that the appointment is with tenure.
At the discretion of each department, a Departmental Peer Review Committee may be formed to review each tenured faculty member's teaching performance every six years. A faculty member may request a more frequent review. The Peer Review Committee will prepare a written report with copies going to the faculty member being reviewed, the Department Head and the departmental file.
If a faculty member with tenure desires to resign from an existing appointment at the end of the academic year, that faculty member shall give notice in writing at the earliest opportunity but not later than May 15; but that faculty member may properly request a waiver of this requirement in case of hardship.
Until retirement of the faculty member with tenure, such an appointment is terminable by WPI only for an adequate cause or on account of extraordinary financial emergencies after not less than twelve months' notice to the faculty member and subject to the procedures outlined below:
If a tenured appointment is terminated because of financial emergency, then the released faculty member's position will not be filled by a replacement within a period of two years, unless the released faculty member has been offered reappointment with tenure and has declined.
Termination by WPI of an appointment with tenure with less advance notice than specified herein shall be subject to the procedural rights as specified in the appropriate policy in the WPI Faculty Handbook and shall only be for the grounds described therein. Administrative personnel who hold academic rank are subject to the foregoing regulations in their capacity as faculty members.
Secured nontenure-track teaching faculty members are full-time employees of the University who are hired with the expectation that they will have continuing academic responsibilities at WPI focused on their teaching, and with provisions for a long-term institutional commitment from WPI. In all such appointments, the faculty member's general responsibilities and workload will be documented in the appointment letter, with changes during an appointment mutually agreed to in writing by the faculty member and the Department Head and/or Program Director.
Initial probationary appointments of secure nontenure-track faculty members (with the titles indicated above) will be for a one-year probationary term with the expectation on the part of the University that a three-year appointment will follow, unless in the judgment of the Department Head and/or Program Director (and with the approval of the Dean) the qualifications of the candidate and the circumstances warrant skipping the probationary appointment and advancing to an initial three-year appointment. The probationary nature of the appointment including the expectation of a three-year appointment to follow will be explicitly stated in the appointment letter. In cases where a first-year performance review of the faculty member indicates that a subsequent three-year appointment is not warranted without significant improvement, the initial probationary appointment may be followed by a second probationary appointment for only one additional one-year probationary term.
The evaluation for the initial probationary appointment will be made by a committee consisting of a Department Head and/or Program Director and at least two faculty members. This group could be the same as the Department's standing tenure committee. The initial appointment of Assistant Teaching Professors will require approval of the appropriate Dean and the Provost. The initial appointment of Associate or (full) Teaching Professors will require both review by COAP and approval of the appropriate Dean and the Provost. The candidate for an Assistant, Associate, or (full) Teaching Professor position should have both a Ph.D. degree (or the recognized highest degree for the discipline) and teaching credentials and accomplishments appropriate to the corresponding tenured or tenure-track rank.
Following the probationary appointment(s), the lengths of subsequent appointments will be made sequentially as follows: a first three-year term, a second three-year term, and subsequent terms of no fewer than five years each.
If the faculty member is reappointed following the probationary term(s), the reappointment shall be for a three-year term with the expectation on the part of the University that a second three-year appointment will follow. If the faculty member is reappointed following the first three-year appointment, the reappointment shall be for a second three-year term with the expectation on the part of the University that an appointment of no fewer than five years will follow. Performance reviews must be considered in reappointment decisions.
If the faculty member is reappointed following the second three-year term or following any term of five (or more) years, the reappointment shall be for a term of no fewer than five years with the expectation on the part of the University that an appointment of no fewer than five years will follow. Appointments longer than five years may be made in the discretion of the Department Head and/or Program Director and the Dean, with approval of the Provost. Performance reviews must be considered in reappointment decisions.
After the initial appointment, the faculty member will have established a record of teaching at WPI. Each spring, a review of teaching performance, based on course evaluations, project evaluations, and other relevant information, will be made by the Department Head and/or Program Director. Annual performance reviews will also take into consideration any other responsibilities and contributions of the faculty member. These annual reviews will be summarized in writing and will include a rating on a scale of exceeds expectations, meets expectations, or falls below expectations. Copies of the reviews will be shared with the faculty member and kept on file.
All reappointment decisions are made with reasonable discretion by the Department Head and/or Program Director, the Dean, and the Provost based solely on the following considerations: performance reviews; elimination or downsizing of a department, program, or number of courses or sections offered as part of a long-term restructuring measure; significant decrease in the need or demand for program offerings when no reassignment is feasible; and financial emergencies that warrant reduction in teaching staff. Performance reviews must be considered in reappointment decisions. When the Department Head and/or Program Director has concerns about the faculty member's performance that might affect the reappointment decision, they will consult with an appropriately composed ad hoc committee of at least two other faculty members. Faculty members may use the Faculty Review Committee process to grieve a non-reappointment decision on all grounds applicable to the FRC process.
If a faculty member on a probationary appointment is not to be reappointed, notification must be given by no later than the end of C-term before the end of the appointment. If a faculty member on a non-probationary appointment is not to be reappointed, notification will be given by no later than one year before the end of the appointment, unless the faculty member falls below expectations in the next-to-last year of the appointment. In that case, notice of non-reappointment can be delayed to the end of C-term of the final year of the appointment to provide the faculty member with additional time to improve their performance.
No faculty member will be disciplined, suspended, or terminated during the term of an appointment without just cause, where just cause is defined as (i) misconduct as defined in the Policy on Faculty Conduct, the Policy on Research Conduct, the Sexual Misconduct Policy, or the Title IX Policy (whichever is applicable); or (ii) financial emergency. Any discipline, including suspension or termination, during an appointment may only be imposed pursuant to the process set forth in the relevant policy identified in this paragraph.
Professors of Practice are full-time nontenure-track faculty members who, by virtue of their non-academic industry-related experiences, are hired to bring a unique, current area of expertise to teaching. This experience and expertise must be distinct from that which would be brought by a conventional tenured or tenure-track faculty member and should be aligned with a specific institutional need or required area of expertise. In all such appointments, the faculty member's responsibilities and workload will be agreed to, in writing, between the faculty member and department head.
Initial appointments of Professors of Practice will be for five years. All appointments will be reviewed on an annual basis. In all such appointments, the faculty member's general responsibilities and workload will be documented in the appointment letter, with changes during an appointment mutually agreed to in writing by the faculty member and the Department Head and/or Program Director.
After five years at WPI, if the Professor of Practice has maintained significant relevant currency within the field, has demonstrated high quality performance at WPI, and there remains a strong continued institutional need that still cannot be filled by hiring a tenured or tenure-track faculty member, then a Professor of Practice may receive an additional appointment (reviewed annually) of five years. Subsequent five-year appointments can be made under the same circumstances as the first five-year reappointment.
The evaluation for the initial appointment of a Professor of Practice will be made by a search committee consisting of a Department Head and/or Program Director and at least two tenured faculty members. This group could be the same as the Department's standing tenure committee. The initial appointments of Professors of Practice will require both review by COAP and approval of the appropriate Dean and the Provost. The candidate for Professor of Practice should, by virtue of his or her non-academic industry-related experiences, bring a unique current area of expertise to teaching. This experience and expertise must be distinct from that which would be brought by a conventional tenured or tenure-track faculty member and should be aligned with a specific institutional need or required area of expertise. The review by COAP should be based on the extent to which these criteria are met, and on the quality of the candidate's experience to date.
After the first year at WPI, the Professor of Practice will have established a record of teaching at WPI. Annual evaluations will include assessment of high quality teaching (based on course evaluations, project evaluations, and other relevant information) and documented evidence that the Professor of Practice has maintained significant relevant currency in the field. These reviews will be made by the Department Head and/or Program Director, the appropriate Dean, and the Provost, and will also take into consideration any other responsibilities and contributions of the faculty member. These annual reviews will include written summaries with copies shared with the faculty member and kept on file.
The candidate for re-appointment as Professor of Practice must, by virtue of their non-academic industry-related experiences, demonstrate that they remain current in their field and continue to bring a unique current area of expertise to teaching, and that their teaching performance is of high quality. This experience, expertise, and continued currency must be distinct from that which would be brought by a conventional tenured or tenure-track faculty member and should be aligned with a specific institutional need or required area of expertise. The professional expertise and continued currency in the field must be supported by documented evidence, such as by reviews from knowledgeable persons external to WPI. Appropriate activities could include such industry-related experiences as summer or part-time positions, production of commercial designs or other artifacts, consulting activities that are material in terms of time and substance, leadership positions in recognized professional societies, relevant, active service on boards of directors, documented continuing professional education experiences, scholarly or professional publications or presentations, and significant participation in professional conferences.
After five years, the Department Head and/or Program Director (with input from members of the department and/or program and the appropriate Dean) may recommend that a Professor of Practice receive subsequent five-year appointments, to be reviewed annually subjected to the annual evaluations described above. These five-year appointments are to be reviewed by COAP and passed on to the Provost for action. These reappointments are contingent on a continued institutional need for the Professor's of Practice specific area of expertise.
The review by COAP should be based on the extent to which the reappointment criteria (above) are met, including on the quality of teaching performance (and of any other activities described in previous appointment letters) at WPI, and on documented evidence that the Professor of Practice has maintained significant relevant currency in the field.
No faculty member will be disciplined, suspended, or terminated during the term of an appointment without just cause, where just cause is defined as (i) misconduct as defined in the Policy on Faculty Conduct, the Policy on Research Conduct, the Sexual Misconduct Policy, or the Title IX Policy (whichever is applicable); or (ii) financial emergency. Any discipline, including suspension or termination, during an appointment may only be imposed pursuant to the process set forth in the relevant policy identified in this paragraph.
Short-term nontenure-track teaching appointments are made to fill temporary institutional teaching needs. Although the titles for these positions are the same as for secure nontenure-track faculty members, the status of their appointments is different, as described below.
Appointments of short-term nontenure-track faculty members will be for one-year terms. The short-term nature of the appointment will be explicitly stated in the contract. If the institutional need persists and the faculty member's performance is satisfactory, a subsequent one-year appointment can be made. However, no more than two consecutive short-term one-year contracts may be offered before the faculty member is offered a three-year contract (described in Section 4.a.ii and Section 4.a.iii, above) for secured nontenure-track teaching faculty members.
The evaluation for the initial one-year appointment of a short-term nontenure-track faculty member will be made by the Department Head and/or Program Director, Dean, and Provost. The candidates for these positions must have an advanced degree or its equivalent appropriate for the course(s) to be taught. In addition, the candidate must have some level of documented teaching experience appropriate for the expected teaching responsibilities.
After the initial appointment, the faculty member will have established a record of teaching at WPI. Performance evaluations, based on available course evaluations, project evaluations, and other relevant information, will be made by the Department Head and/or Program Director (with input from departmental and/or program faculty members), the appropriate Dean, and the Provost.
Terms of appointments of Assistant, Associate, or (full) Research Professors are negotiated on a case-by-case basis with one- or two-year appointments the most common. The titles of Assistant, Associate, and (full) Research Professor will be awarded only to those individuals with both a Ph.D. degree (and the recognized highest degree for the discipline) and with research credentials appropriate to the corresponding tenured or tenure-track rank.
The evaluation for the initial appointment of an Assistant, Associate, or (Full) Research Professor will be made by the Department Head and/or Program Director, and members of the WPI Faculty whose research is most relevant to the work to be done by the candidate. The initial appointment of an Assistant Research Professor will require approval of the appropriate Dean and the Provost. The initial appointment of Associate or (full) Research Professors will require both review by COAP and approval of the appropriate Dean and the Provost. The candidate for an Assistant, Associate, or (full) Research Professor position should have both a Ph.D. degree (or the recognized highest degree for the discipline) and research credentials and accomplishments appropriate to the corresponding tenured or tenure-track rank.
After the initial appointment, the Assistant, Associate, or (full) Research Professors will have established a record of research at WPI. Continuing performance evaluations, based primarily on research accomplishments at WPI, will be made by the Department Head and/or Program Director, members of the WPI Faculty whose research is most relevant to the work done by the candidate, the appropriate Dean, and the Provost on a year-by-year basis. Annual performance evaluations will also take into consideration any other activities described in the official letter of appointment from the Provost. These annual evaluations will include a written evaluation to be kept on file.
The position of Department Head is an administrative position. Department Heads report to the Dean of their Department's School (who is referred to in this section as Dean) and are responsible for the operation of their respective academic departments, for the development of the department faculty members, and for the quality of the programs and facilities within those departments.
(Amended by the Faculty, May 7, 2024)
The initial appointment for any Department Head is for a five-year period.
When a new Department Head is to be selected from either inside or outside of WPI, the Dean will first consult with the faculty members in the department concerned to determine the best course of action in the interests of the department. A department and/or those faculty members within the department wishing to provide its/their input in a confidential and/or anonymous manner should be provided the opportunity to do so. Accounting for this input, and in consultation with the Provost, the Dean will then initiate the search and form a search committee according to the following procedures.
If it is known a year in advance that the current Department Head will not continue in their current role, then the search for the next Department Head will begin early in the next academic year following the year in which the Department Head vacancy first became known. If the search is unsuccessful, then an interim Department Head will be appointed according to Section 5.e below.
A search committee consists of two faculty members elected by the department, one member of the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (COAP) selected by COAP, a faculty member appointed by the Provost, and the Dean or their representative who serves as Chair of the search committee. The search committee will establish its procedures for operation consistent with the following requirements:
The search committee will solicit nominations and applications for the position, evaluate the applicants, and select at least two candidates to interview for the position (unless there is only one applicant in an internal search). As part of the interview process, the search committee will make arrangements for each of the candidates to meet with the departmental faculty members. The search committee will determine the preferences of the members of the department, and weigh those heavily in arriving at its own preferences.
The Dean submits to the Provost the names of the acceptable candidates as determined by the search committee, the Dean's recommendation, the preferences and comments of the search committee, and the preferences and comments of the departmental faculty members. Whereas collaboration is essential to WPI, Deans are expected to collaborate with other Deans when evaluating Department Heads for appointment in departments where collaboration across schools is significant (as defined by the Provost). The Committee on Appointments and Promotions is given copies of all documents submitted to the Provost concerning the selection.
The Provost, after consultation with the President, generally will appoint one of the acceptable candidates forwarded by the Dean as Department Head. However, if none of the candidates is acceptable to the Provost, the reasons will be discussed with the search committee and the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, and the search committee will continue the selection process.
In this manner, Department Heads are appointed by the Provost upon the recommendation of the Dean and the Committee on Appointments and Promotions and subject to approval by the President.
(Amended by the Faculty, March 13, 2024)
(Amended by the Faculty, May 7, 2024)
Performance evaluations are made of each Department Head in order to determine if the department is accomplishing its goals in an effective, efficient and harmonious way. The Dean has the responsibility for conducting these evaluations and for reporting back to the Department Head being evaluated.
Performance evaluations for each Department Head are conducted during the spring of both the second and fourth year of the first five-year appointment, during the spring of only the second year of the second five-year appointment, and during the spring of the second year of any interim appointment. In addition, the Dean, the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, or the Department Head may request an evaluation at any time. A list of the regular schedule for Department Head evaluations is maintained by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions.
The Committee on Appointments and Promotions will work with the Faculty Governance Office to distribute a confidential and anonymous questionnaire to all faculty members in the department. The Committee on Appointments and Promotions has the responsibility for preparing and updating the questionnaire, as appropriate. Only the Dean, the Provost, and the Committee on Appointments and Promotions will review the responses.
If either the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, the Dean, or the Provost decides that additional information is needed, then the COAP will make arrangements for its members to meet with each faculty member in the department concerned. The purpose of these individual meetings is to gain a better understanding of any problem that may have been brought out in the questionnaire. Complete confidentiality will be maintained by the Committee concerning the views of individuals.
The Committee on Appointments and Promotions will discuss all of the information obtained and will prepare a summary describing the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the Department Head being evaluated. The COAP will send the summary letter to the Dean who, after reviewing the contents, will meet with the COAP to discuss the case. Only the Dean, Provost and the President may read the COAP letter.
Whereas collaboration is essential to WPI, Deans are expected to collaborate with other Deans when evaluating Department Heads in departments where collaboration across schools is significant (as defined by the Provost).
The Dean will then meet with the Department Head to discuss the evaluation and also send a letter to the Department Head that summarizes the performance evaluation. A copy of that letter will be sent to the Chair of the Committee on Appointments and Promotions.
Only one reappointment may be made, for a second term of five years and for a maximum total of ten years of service as Department Head, unless special circumstances exist.
The reappointment of a Department Head for a second term will involve the following procedure.
Review of all written materials obtained in the second and fourth year reviews (as described above in Section 5c).
Confidential interviews with all faculty members in the department;
An interview with the Department Head involved.
Collection and review of any other information that COAP believes will influence the evaluation.
The Committee on Appointments and Promotions will report its recommendation in writing concerning reappointment to the Dean before the end of D-term of the fourth year of the Department Head's first term.
The Dean will provide the Provost both their recommendations and a copy of the Committee on Appointments and Promotions report concerning evaluation and reappointment. Whereas collaboration is essential to WPI, Deans are expected to collaborate with other Deans when evaluating Department Heads for reappointment in departments where collaboration across schools is significant (as defined by the Provost).
The Provost, after consultation with the President, will decide on the reappointment. The Provost will discuss their decision with the Committee on Appointments and Promotions.
(Adopted by the Faculty, May 7, 2024)
Interim Department Heads should only be appointed due to unanticipated circumstances. If, in a given academic year, due to unanticipated circumstances, it is necessary to appoint an interim Department Head, then the Dean will consult with the faculty members in the department concerned to determine the choice that is in the best interests of the department. A department and/or those faculty members within the department wishing to provide its/their input in a confidential and/or anonymous manner will be provided the opportunity to do so. The Dean will share the input from the department with the Provost and will make a recommendation concerning the interim appointment. The interim appointment will be made by the Provost in timely fashion and in the same academic year in which the vacancy occurs.
A Department should not be led by Interim Department Head(s) for more than two consecutive years. For this reason, the search for a new Department Head will begin by no later than early in the next academic year following the year in which the Department Head vacancy first became known. If the search is not successful, then an interim appointment will be made by the Provost (with input from the department and with a recommendation from the Dean) for an additional year (even if it is beyond the second) while the search for a new Department Head is continued.
(Approved by the Faculty, May 2007)
(Amended by the Faculty, December 11, 2024)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, February 28, 2025)
An academic administrative position is defined as a faculty appointment in which the primary responsibilities of the position are to lead faculty and to work with and on behalf of them to oversee substantial elements of WPI's degree-granting undergraduate or graduate programs, and/or to provide leadership, vision, and guidance in working with and on behalf of faculty to enhance their scholarship. Academic administrative positions are held by faculty who work with other faculty across several departments, programs, or other similar academic units. Examples of academic administrative positions include the Provost, Associate or Vice Provosts, and the Deans and Associate Deans of Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Business, Global School, Undergraduate Studies and Graduate Studies. Positions in non-academic administrative units are not subject to these guidelines.
Vacancies will be declared by the Provost (or the President, when the search is for Provost) when academic administrators are not re-appointed or will not continue. A declaration of an anticipated vacancy may also occur with the creation of a new academic administrative position. A job description for the position to be filled shall serve as the basis for announcing the position. Any proposal for creating a new or sunsetting an existing academic administrative position shall include rationale to be shared with the Committee on Governance in time for its considered input prior to formally announcing or sunsetting the position. The proposal for creating a new position should include a draft of the job description.
When the academic administrative position is to be filled from either inside or outside of WPI, a search committee of nine members is formed. Five members of the search committee shall be faculty who are not members of the Administration, and will include three elected faculty members, one faculty member appointed by the Committee on Governance, and one faculty member appointed by the Provost. The remaining four members shall be two members appointed by the President, and two students appointed jointly by the President and by COG. The President, the Provost, and COG will collaborate on all appointments to ensure balance of the committee's membership and to select the Chair of the search committee. If the search is for the Provost, the Provost will not make an appointment and the President will make three appointments that include the appointment normally made by the Provost.
If the responsibilities of the position cross all departments, then all faculty participate in the process to choose the three elected faculty members of the search committee. In this case, there is no restriction on the departmental affiliations of the faculty members who may be elected or appointed. If, on the other hand, the responsibilities of the position do not cross all departments and programs, then the elected faculty members of the committee will be chosen by those faculty and from among those departments and programs that fall under the responsibilities of the position. In this case, at least one of the appointed faculty members must be from outside the academic departments and programs that fall under the responsibilities of the position.
It is expected that Associate Academic Dean positions will be filled from inside of WPI as leadership opportunities for faculty members. A search committee is formed consisting of five faculty members. This includes three elected faculty members who are not members of the Administration, one faculty member appointed by the relevant Academic Dean, and one faculty member appointed by the Provost. The faculty member appointed by the Academic Dean shall not be a member of the Administration. The Academic Dean and Provost will collaborate with COG on these appointments to ensure balance of the committee's membership and to select the Chair of the search committee.
If the responsibilities of the position cross all departments, then all faculty participate in the process to choose the three elected members of the search committee. In this case, there is no restriction on the departmental affiliations of the faculty members who may be appointed. If, on the other hand, the responsibilities of the position do not cross all departments and programs, then the elected members of the committee will be chosen by those faculty and from among those departments and programs that fall under the responsibilities of the position. In this case, at least one of the appointed faculty members must be from outside the academic departments and programs that fall under the responsibilities of the position. The job description of the Associate Dean position shall be made available before the nomination and election ballots are distributed.
The work of the search committee begins when the Provost (or the President, when the search is for the Provost; or Dean, when the search is for an Associate Dean) provides it with a complete description of the responsibilities of the position. There is an understanding between the Administration, the search committee, the candidates, and the WPI community that the job description will not change substantially throughout the search and for a reasonable period of time after an appointment is made to fill the position. At the outset of the search, the committee will meet with representatives from the Division of Talent and Inclusion for advice on relevant legal matters, and, throughout the search, will consult with those representatives whenever the committee determines that is necessary to do so.
The job description will be used in soliciting nominations and applications for the position. The search committee will evaluate the applicants and select appropriate candidates to be interviewed for the position. It is the responsibility of the search committee to determine the final candidates and to conduct the search in such a manner that all members of the faculty, administration, and staff who would interact in a substantive way with the appointee be given the opportunity to review the final candidates' resumes, meet with the candidates, ask questions of the candidates, and provide both written and oral feedback to the committee. The search committee may invite members of the staff to meet with the committee and/or serve as resources for the search.
Because input from students is so highly valued, it is also the responsibility of the search committee to solicit input from appropriate representatives of the student body, arrange meetings between students and each final candidate, and obtain written and oral input feedback from the students about the candidates with whom they have met.
The search committee will determine the final candidates (normally two or more) and provide a detailed evaluation of each to the Provost with its preferences made clear. The evaluation should contain a digest of the feedback from the community and a summary of strengths and weaknesses (without explicit rank-ordering). The Provost will then share the information with the President, and jointly the President and Provost will select one of the candidates to fill the open position. If the search is for a Dean, then the Provost may consult with the President to appoint a candidate. If the search is for the Provost, then the committee's evaluations will be given directly to the President, who will nominate a candidate for appointment by the Board of Trustees. If none of the candidates is acceptable to them, the President and/or the Provost will discuss their reasons with the search committee and will either request that the search committee continue the search process, or that the search begin anew with the formation of a new search committee and a new solicitation for the position.
The search committee will determine the final candidates (normally two or more) and provide a detailed evaluation of each to the Provost and relevant Dean with its preferences made clear. The evaluation should contain a digest of the feedback from the community and a summary of strengths and weaknesses (without explicit rank-ordering). The Dean will make a recommendation to the Provost and the Provost will appoint one of the candidates to fill the open position. If none of the candidates is acceptable to them, the Provost and the Dean will discuss their reasons with the search committee and will either request that the search committee continue the search process, or that the search begin anew with the formation of a new search committee and a new solicitation for the position.
When an academic administrative position becomes vacant, the Provost (or the President, when the vacancy is for the Provost) may make an interim appointment through an open and transparent process: the availability of the interim position is announced, and individuals can nominate themselves or others. The appointment of the interim academic administrator shall be made after consultation with the appropriate constituencies, such as faculty in the academic unit, faculty governance and individuals who will work closely with the appointed administrator.
The search for the permanent appointment should start no later than the next academic year, and the term for an interim appointment shall not exceed two years.
(Endorsed by COG, February 10, 2005)
Faculty member carries current rank and title in both the designated home and in the second departments (e.g., Professor of Computer Science and Professor of Robotics Engineering).
Salary is split between the two departments with set percentages of salary allocated to the home and second departments.
Faculty member participates in all activities of both departments with full rights and privileges.
Home department is listed first.
Faculty member carries current rank and title in both the designated home department and in the second department (e.g., Professor of Computer Science and Professor of Robotics Engineering).
Salary is fully budgeted in home department.
Appointment is made to foster interdepartmental collaboration and to facilitate student advising, teaching and research. Course teaching would not be expected in the second department. However, advising, project advising, graduate advising (including thesis and dissertation advising) and research would be expected.
Faculty member can be advisor of record for all project, thesis, and dissertation work in both departments.
Home department is listed first.
Appointment in the second department will be for a maximum of five years and renewable on request.
To request either type of joint appointment, a memo bearing the signature of both department heads should be forwarded to the Provost, specifying which type of appointment and outlining the reason(s) for the request. If the Provost approves the request, an appointment letter will be sent to the faculty member formalizing the appointment and specifying both the type (dual or collaborative) and the duration of the appointment (if it is collaborative).
Leaves of absence, and particularly sabbatical leaves, are among the most important means by which a teacher's effectiveness may be enhanced, a scholar's usefulness enlarged, and an institution's academic program strengthened and developed. A sound program of leaves is therefore of vital importance to WPI, and faculty members are strongly encouraged to take advantage of this mechanism to help promote their professional competence. The major purpose of leaves is to provide opportunity for continued professional growth and new, or renewed, intellectual achievement through study, research, and writing.
The term "sabbatical" normally applies to a leave of absence in which a faculty member receives partial or full salary from WPI. Faculty member exchanges between two institutions, leaves without salary, and the performance of full-time duties assigned by WPI at off-campus locations are not part of the sabbatical program.
Because both the institute and the individual benefit as a result of a sabbatical leave, both share in the cost of such a leave. At WPI such sharing is both through financial support by the institute and through the assumption by colleagues of the academic responsibilities of absent faculty members. A faculty member should apply for a leave far enough in advance that temporary replacements of high quality can be obtained. Each application for sabbatical leave should include a well-designed and serious program with clearly stated objectives that will maximize the professional development of the faculty member involved.
Sabbatical leaves may be taken for a full academic year or a half academic year. All full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members are eligible to apply for a full-year or half-year sabbatical leave after six years of full-time service since their most recent hiring at WPI or since their previous sabbatical. Time spent on unpaid leave or less than half-time activity, although considered continuous service, does not count as full-time service toward sabbatical leave.
A full year sabbatical leave is taken at one-half of the faculty member's academic year salary. Half-year leaves are taken at full salary. If the faculty member obtains salary support from outside sources, WPI's contribution will not exceed that required to maintain the faculty member's normal salary. Exceptions to this policy must be negotiated before the leave starts.
Faculty members on sabbatical leave will receive WPI benefits based only on actual WPI compensation.
WPI, on occasion, may provide some displacement expense to faculty members who leave the campus on sabbatical leave for an entire academic year, depending on the particular circumstances.
Funds will be provided to departments with faculty members on sabbatical leaves to cover necessary teaching obligations.
Faculty members should submit requests for sabbatical leaves to the their Dean on or before December 15 for proposed leaves in the following academic year. An application for a sabbatical leave must contain all the supporting information including the objectives of the sabbatical leave and the benefits to the faculty member, the department, and to WPI. The application should also include information on previous leave(s) of absence taken by the faculty member, past contributions to WPI, a letter of invitation from any institution at which the faculty member plans to work, and the sources and amounts of external funding.
The application should be accompanied by supporting documentation from the faculty member's department head. This documentation should include a review of the faculty member's proposed sabbatical program with regard to its appropriateness; the impact of the sabbatical on department operations; and the department recommendation on the proposed sabbatical. In the case of an application for a sabbatical leave by a department head, this additional documentation will be supplied by the appropriate Dean.
The appropriate Dean reviews all application materials and supporting documentation, and forwards their recommendation to the Provost with copies of the sabbatical checklist and the recommendation to the Committee on Appointments and Promotion. The Committee on Appointments and Promotion will maintain a record-keeping and monitoring role.
The Provost reviews all leave applications, together with recommendations from the Deans, makes final determination of the requests, and sends copies of the decision letters to the Committee on Appointments and Promotions. The Committee on Appointment and Promotions will a maintain record-keeping and monitoring role.
Notification of the award will be made no later than April 15.
On occasion, faculty members may wish to pursue a professional opportunity off-campus and request a leave of absence without salary and fringe benefits. WPI expects the host institution to assume the institutional costs of benefits. These leaves can be for periods of time that fit in with the academic program, up to a maximum of 2 years, and should involve experience in government, industry, or academia that contributes to the professional development of the faculty member. This type of leave requires the approval of the appropriate department head, Dean, and the Provost.
When a faculty member takes an unpaid leave the department may employ replacements at salaries up to the normal budgeted salary of the faculty member on leave. Any surplus in the budgeted salary accrues to the WPI general account.
Unpaid leave requests should take the form of sabbatical leave requests, which are accompanied by documentation from the department head.
Sample Appointment Letter for all Teaching Professors and Instructors Holding Secured Nontenure-Track Teaching Appointments 4
(Approved by the Faculty, May 6, 2021)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, May 14, 2021)
[Date]
[Insert Name]
[Address]
[Address]
[City, State ZIP]
RE: Offer of Appointment for [INSERT TITLE]
Dear [Name]:
On behalf of Worcester Polytechnic Institute ("WPI"), and upon the recommendation of [Dean] and [Department Head and/or Program Director], I am pleased to offer you a non-tenure appointment with the following details:
Term of Appointment: [1 / 3 / 3 / 5 / 5+] years (Secured Contract)
Title: [insert]
Department: [insert]
Salary: [insert]
Official Hire Date: [insert]
Appointment (on campus) Official Hire Date: [insert first day of academic year]
Our [Year/Year] academic year begins on [Date] and ends with Commencement on [Date]. Faculty salaries are paid in twelve (12) equal monthly installments on the last business day of each month.
If, as I hope, you find this offer to be satisfactory, please indicate your acceptance by signing, dating, and returning the original letter no later than [Date]. If you require any additional time to consider this offer, please contact [Name].
Please note that item 1 only applies to new appointees and only needs to be completed once.
By accepting this offer, you agree to the following terms, as applicable, to your specific appointment:
Eligibility for Employment. Your offer of employment is contingent upon: (i) complying with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as amended by providing proof of eligibility to work in the United States through completion of the I-9 form in the online onboarding within (3) three business days of your Official Hire Date; (ii) obtaining and maintaining the necessary visa paperwork for travel to, and work in, the United States, as appropriate; and (iii) a successful background check as detailed in WPI's Background Check Policy. If the result of the background check is not satisfactory, this appointment is voidable by WPI, consistent with the Background Check Policy. You will receive a separate email from WPI's external vendor, HireRight on how to authorize this process.
Benefits. In addition to your compensation, WPI offers a comprehensive benefits package which includes medical, dental, life and disability insurance, holidays, and additional benefits that will be discussed during orientation. Summary plans and additional information are available here. Faculty are required, as a condition of employment, to begin participation in the WPI Retirement Plan upon the attainment of one (1) year of service at WPI. Please note that you must make your elections for benefits online within thirty (30) days from your Official Hire Date in order to receive benefits for the remainder of the calendar year. WPI reserves the right to change its benefits package at its sole discretion.
Please contact the Benefits Partner in Human Resources, Division for Talent and Inclusion office at benefits@wpi.edu or 508-831-5470 if you have any questions.
WPI is committed to maintaining a positive work environment and promoting a workplace free from discrimination and harassment to support the academic and research mission of the University and ensuring all members of our community can contribute to their fullest potential. For WPI's Notice of Non-Discrimination, click here. All new hires will be required to complete training on the topic of Anti-Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual Harassment.
Initial Appointment for New Hires. New hires shall be appointed by the Department Head and/or Program Director, with approval of the Dean, for an initial probationary one (1) year appointment, with an expectation of a three (3) year appointment to follow. If the appointment begins in January, the initial probationary appointment shall be for one and one-half (1.5) years, to allow the new hire to compile an adequate teaching record for purposes of a performance review. The Department Head and/or Program Director, with approval of the Dean, may offer an initial three (3) year appointment to a new hire based on their qualifications.
Reappointment Terms. In cases where the Department Head and/or Program Director decides that the faculty member's performance does not yet warrant a 3-year appointment, the initial probationary appointment may be followed by only one additional probationary 1-year appointment. If the Department Head and/or Program Director, with approval of the Dean, decides to reappoint you following the initial 1-year appointment (or second one 1-year probationary appointment, as applicable), the reappointment shall be for a term of 3 years with an expectation of a 3-year appointment to follow. Following the faculty member's first 3-year appointment, if the Department Head and/or Program Director, with approval of the Dean, reappoints the faculty member, it will be to a second 3-year appointment with an expectation of an appointment of no fewer than 5 years to follow. Following the faculty member's second 3-year year appointment, if the Department Head and/or Program Director, with approval of the Dean, reappoints the faculty member, it will be to an appointment of no fewer than 5 years with an expectation of an appointment of no fewer than 5 years to follow. Only the Provost (following consultations with the Dean and Department Head and/or Program Director) may make appointments longer than 5 years.
Responsibilities and Workload. Following discussions between you and the Department Head and/or Program Director, your responsibilities and workload are to be determined by the Department Head and/or Program Director and reflected in writing and attached hereto as Exhibit A. No changes in responsibilities and workload may be made during an appointment unless mutually agreed upon between you and the Department Head and/or Program Director in writing.
Performance Reviews. Each year, during "C" or "D" term, you will be reviewed by the Department Head and/or Program Director based on your overall performance, with primary focus on the quality of your teaching and your responsibilities as reflected in Exhibit A consistent with any changes made as described in item 6 above. Reviews shall be summarized in writing and shall include a rating on a scale of: Falls Below Expectations; Meets Expectations; or Exceeds Expectations. Student evaluations shall not be the only source of information for evaluations. Performance reviews will be considered in reappointment decisions.
Grounds for Reappointment / Non-Reappointment. Decisions whether to reappoint you are made in the reasonable discretion of the Department Head and/or Program Director and Dean based on: performance; or elimination or downsizing of a department, program, or number of courses or sections offered as part of a long-term restructuring measure; or significant decrease in the need/demand for program offerings when no reassignment is feasible; or financial emergencies that warrant reduction in teaching staff. You may grieve non-reappointment through the Faculty Review Committee grievance process.
Notice of Non-Reappointment. WPI will notify you of its decision not to reappointment you based on the following schedule:
| Appointment Term | Notice of Non-Reappointment |
|---|---|
| 1-year appointees |
|
| 3-year appointees |
|
| 5-year appointees |
|
^ The intention is to provide faculty members with a rating of "falls below expectations" additional time to improve their performance.
Your signature constitutes your formal acceptance of this appointment and confirms that no promises, representations, or agreements that are inconsistent with any of the terms of this offer have been made to you, or with you, by anyone at WPI. You also hereby represent and warrant that you are not now subject to any agreement which is or would be inconsistent or in conflict with the obligations you will have as an employee of WPI.
If you have any questions concerning this offer, please feel free to contact [Name and Contact Info].
With best regards,
[Name of Provost]
Senior Vice President and Provost
I hereby accept the position as described in the above letter.
Name: ___________________________
Date: ______________________
Sample Appointment Letter for all Professors of Practice 5
(Approved by the Faculty, May 27, 2021)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, May 27, 2021)
[Date]
[Insert Name]
[Address]
[Address]
[City, State ZIP]
RE: Offer of Appointment for Professor of Practice
Dear [Name]:
On behalf of Worcester Polytechnic Institute ("WPI"), and upon the recommendation of [Dean] and [Department Head and/or Program Director], I am pleased to offer you a non-tenure appointment with the following details:
Term of Appointment: 5 years
Title: [Professor of Practice]
Department: [insert]
Salary: [$ insert]
Official Hire Date: [insert]
Employment (on campus) Start Date: [insert]
Our [Year/Year] academic year begins on [Date] and ends with Commencement on [Date]. Faculty salaries are paid in 12 equal monthly installments on the last business day of each month.
If, as I hope, you find this offer to be satisfactory, please indicate your acceptance by signing, dating, and returning the original letter no later than [Date]. If you require any additional time to consider this offer, please contact [Department Head/Program Director].
Please note that the first item below only applies to new appointees and only needs to be completed once.
By accepting this offer, you agree to the following terms, as applicable, to your specific appointment:
Eligibility for Employment. Your offer of employment is contingent upon: (i) complying with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as amended by providing proof of eligibility to work in the United States through completion of the I-9 form in the online onboarding within 3 business days of your Official Hire Date; (ii) obtaining and maintaining the necessary visa paperwork for travel to, and work in, the United States, as appropriate; and (iii) a successful background check as detailed in WPI's Background Check Policy. If the result of the background check is not satisfactory, this appointment is voidable by WPI, consistent with the Background Check Policy. You will receive a separate email from WPI's external vendor, HireRight on how to authorize this process.
Benefits. In addition to your compensation, WPI offers a comprehensive benefits package which includes medical, dental, life and disability insurance, holidays, and additional benefits that will be discussed during orientation. Summary plans and additional information are available here. Faculty are required, as a condition of employment, to begin participation in the WPI Retirement Plan upon the attainment of 1 year of service at WPI. Please note that you must make your elections for benefits online within 30 days from your start date in order to receive benefits for the remainder of the calendar year. WPI reserves the right to change its benefits package at its sole discretion.
Please contact the Benefits Partner in Human Resources, Division for Talent and Inclusion office at benefits@wpi.edu or 508-831-5470 if you have any questions.
WPI is committed to maintaining a positive work environment and promoting a workplace free from discrimination and harassment to support the academic and research mission of the University and ensuring all members of our community can contribute to their fullest potential. For WPI's Notice of Non-Discrimination, click here. All new hires will be required to complete training on the topic of Anti-Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual Harassment.
Initial Appointment for New Hires. Initial appointments of Professors of Practice will be for 5 years. The initial appointments are made on the recommendation of the Department Head and/or Program Director and require both review by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (COAP) and approval of the appropriate Dean and the Provost.
Reappointment Terms. The Department Head and/or Program Director (with input from members of the department and/or program and the appropriate Dean) may recommend to COAP that a Professor of Practice receive a subsequent 5-year appointment. These 5 year reappointments are to be reviewed by COAP and passed on to the Provost for action. If a Professor of Practice is reappointed, the reappointment shall be for a term of 5 years.
Responsibilities and Workload. Following discussions between you and the Department Head and/or Program Director, your responsibilities and workload are to be determined by the Department Head and/or Program Director and reflected in writing and attached hereto as Exhibit A. No changes in responsibilities and workload may be made during an appointment unless mutually agreed upon between you and the Department Head and/or Program Director in writing.
Performance Reviews. Each year, during "C" or "D" term, your performance will be reviewed. Annual reviews will include assessment of high quality teaching (based on course evaluations, project evaluations, and other relevant information) and documented evidence that the Professor of Practice has maintained significant relevant currency in the field. These evaluations will be made by the Department Head and/or Program Director, the appropriate Dean, and the Provost, and will also take into consideration any other activities described in Exhibit A of the official letter of appointment from the Provost consistent with any changes made as described in item 6 above. These annual reviews will include written summaries with copies shared with the faculty member and kept on file.
Grounds for Reappointment / Non-Reappointment. Professors of Practice to be reappointed should, by virtue of their non-academic industry-related experiences, continue to bring a unique current area of expertise to teaching. This experience and expertise must be distinct from that which would be brought by a conventional tenured or tenure-track faculty member and should be aligned with a specific institutional need or required area of expertise. The reappointment should be based on the extent to which these reappointment criteria are met, on the quality of teaching performance (and of any other activities described in previous appointment letters consistent with any changes made as described in item 6 above) at WPI, and on documented evidence that the Professor of Practice has maintained significant relevant currency in the field. These reappointments are contingent on a continued institutional need for your specific area of expertise. You may grieve non-reappointment through the Faculty Review Committee grievance process.
Notice of Non-Reappointment. WPI will notify you 1 year before the end of your 5-year appointment of a decision by the Department Head and/or Program Director not to recommend you to COAP for reappointment. Alternatively, if you are recommended by the Department Head and/or Program Director to COAP for reappointment, then WPI will notify you by no later than the beginning of "D" term of the final year of your 5-year appointment of the Provost's decision not to reappoint you.
Discipline and Termination During Appointment. You will not be disciplined, suspended, or discharged without "just cause," which is defined as: (i) misconduct as defined in the Policy on Faculty Conduct, the Policy on Research Conduct, or the Title IX & Sexual Misconduct Policy (whichever is applicable); or (ii) financial emergency. Any discipline, including suspension or termination, during an appointment may only be imposed pursuant to the process set forth in the relevant policy identified in this paragraph.
Your signature constitutes your formal acceptance of this appointment and confirms that no promises, representations, or agreements that are inconsistent with any of the terms of this offer have been made to you, or with you, by anyone at WPI. You also hereby represent and warrant that you are not now subject to any agreement which is or would be inconsistent or in conflict with the obligations you will have as an employee of WPI.
If you have any questions concerning this offer, please feel free to contact [Department Head/Program Director].
With best regards,
[Name of Provost]
Senior Vice President and Provost
I hereby accept the position as described in the above letter.
Name: ___________________________
Date: ______________________
Top | Ch 1 | Ch 2 | Ch 3 | Ch 4 | Ch 5 | Ch 6 | Ch 7 | Ch 8 | Ch 9 | Ch 10
As a consequence of the primary obligation of members of the academic community to pursue truth, the tenure concept has evolved for the protection of individuals from internal and external community pressures.
Tenure will be granted only in one of the following manners:
With respect to probationary tenure-track faculty members, and with respect to candidates for initial appointment with tenure who undergo a formal review conducted by the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom (CTAF), with the results communicated to the Provost, and after a positive vote by the Board of Trustees.
With respect to candidates for initial appointment-with-tenure who do not undergo review by the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom (CTAF), after a positive vote by the Board of Trustees.
Only full time tenure-track faculty members are eligible for tenure.
The probationary period of a tenure-track faculty member refers to the total time served at WPI as a tenure-track faculty member regardless of whether the tenure clock is running or is stopped, including time served during the academic year of the tenure review. (For more detail on the tenure clock, see Section 2.)
Each Assistant Professor and Assistant Professor of Teaching receives a combined review for tenure and promotion to the associate rank in their respective tracks. This is because the tenure criteria in each track are the same as the criteria for promotion to the associate rank in the corresponding track (see Chapter Four: Promotions, Section 1.a.i).
A mandatory tenure review is conducted for all tenure-track probationary faculty members in the academic year immediately after they have accumulated five years on the tenure clock (unless early tenure was previously granted following the early tenure process described in Section 2.c). As a result of the mandatory tenure review, either tenure (and, in the cases of assistant professors and assistant professors of teaching, promotion to the corresponding associate rank) will be granted or a terminal appointment will be offered for only one additional academic year beyond the academic year of the tenure review.
Normally the mandatory tenure review will occur during the sixth year of the probationary period, but it may be scheduled sooner in the probationary period because of credit granted on the tenure clock for previous full time service at the assistant rank or higher at WPI or at other academic institutions at the time of the initial probationary appointment, or it may be scheduled later in the probationary period if the tenure clock is stopped during the probationary period.
The minimum and maximum durations of probationary appointments prior to tenure reviews are set as follows:
The minimum time served on a probationary appointment at the assistant rank in either the dual-mission or teaching-mission tenure track prior to the tenure review is three years because Assistant Professors and Assistant Professors of Teaching each receive a combined tenure and promotion review and must have completed at least three years in the same track prior to review for promotion to the associate rank (see Chapter Four: Promotions, Section 1.a.i).
The minimum time served on a probationary appointment at the associate or full rank in either the dual-mission or teaching-mission tenure track prior to tenure review is two years because no probationary faculty member may serve less than two years on the tenure clock prior to tenure review.
The maximum time served on a probationary appointment for all faculty members is limited by the requirement that the mandatory tenure review must be conducted in the academic year immediately after five years have been accumulated on the tenure clock. The probationary appointment continues for one additional year during the academic year of the mandatory tenure review.
The number of years credited on the tenure clock and the academic year of the scheduled mandatory tenure review accounting for all time credited on the tenure clock must be specified in the letter of the initial tenure-track appointment, and it must be in the possession of both WPI and the faculty member before the appointment is consummated (see Chapter Two: Academic Appointments, Section 3.a.i).
The tenure clock measures the five years that must be accumulated prior to the academic year of the mandatory tenure review. Time is accumulated on the tenure clock in only two ways: through actual time served as a tenure-track faculty member at WPI while the tenure clock is running; and through time credited on the tenure clock at the time of the initial tenure-track probationary appointment.
A tenure-track faculty member's tenure clock begins running on the July 1 closest to the starting date of the initial probationary appointment, and normally runs continuously from its starting moment, except as noted in the following section under conditions for stopping the tenure clock.
At the time of the initial probationary appointment, credit may be given on the tenure clock for previous full-time service at the assistant rank or higher at WPI or at other academic institutions.
For consistency with the minimum duration of probationary periods permitted prior to tenure review (as described in Chapter Two: Academic Appointments, Section 3.a.i), probationary faculty members at the assistant rank in either tenure track may be given no more than two years of credit on the tenure clock at the time of the initial probationary appointment, and probationary faculty members at the associate or full rank in either tenure track may be given no more than three years of credit on the tenure clock at the time of the initial probationary appointment.
The tenure clock may be stopped during the probationary period prior to the academic year of the mandatory tenure review. The number of years served in the probationary period will exceed the number of years accumulated on the tenure clock while at WPI if the tenure clock is stopped during the probationary period.
Anytime the tenure clock is stopped, the Provost must send a letter to the faculty member indicating the academic year of the latest clock-stoppage and the new date of the mandatory tenure review. This information should also be included in the next reappointment letter (see Chapter Two: Academic Appointments, Section 3.a.i).
Specifically, the tenure clock may be stopped according to either the New Child Provision or for Unpaid Leaves and Part-Time Employment, as described below:
Tenure-track faculty members who undertake significant childcare responsibilities due to the arrival of a biological or adopted child during their probationary appointment are entitled to stop the tenure clock for one year, thus postponing the mandatory tenure review and the academic year in which the tenure decision will be made. The stopping of the tenure clock will be automatically granted by the Provost upon written notification by the faculty member. Procedure Notification to stop the tenure clock must be submitted to the Provost in writing. A copy of the notification must also be sent to the appropriate Dean and Department Head. For a biological child, the notification may be made as early as the second trimester of pregnancy but no later than six months after the birth of the child. For an adopted child, the notification may be made as early as the date that the child is legally placed in the home and no later than six months after the child's arrival at the adoptive home. If the birth or adoption of a child occurs during the academic year prior to the faculty member's scheduled tenure review, then the notification must be submitted by January 15 of the academic year prior to the scheduled tenure review. The Provost will acknowledge the notification within two weeks, and will state the academic year in which the tenure review will occur. The Provost's communication will be copied to the faculty member's Dean and Department Head and to CTAF.
Tenure-track faculty members are entitled to stop the tenure clock for unpaid full-time leaves or for intervals of part-time employment during which the faculty member's activity is at or below the half-time level. The need for such unpaid leaves or part-time intervals may arise from a variety of situations, including but not limited to parenting, extenuating circumstances related to a personal or family members' health, personal relations within a family which impose special or arduous burdens, or for other reasons as may be provided for in the "Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993." The terms and conditions of the leave are arranged by negotiation between the faculty member and the Provost. It is also understood that the leave or part-time interval is not to be imposed by the Administration, but that it is available at the election of the faculty member. (Exceptions to this policy must be approved by the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom.) The following table gives the time intervals for which the tenure clock is stopped for these two types of leave.
| Type of Leave | Duration | Period for which Tenure Clock is Stopped |
|---|---|---|
| Unpaid Full-time Leave |
|
|
| Half-time Activity Interval |
|
|
The tenure review of a faculty member who has exercised their entitlement to stop the tenure clock will be conducted under the same criteria for tenure as a candidate who has not stopped the tenure clock.
The policy of the Faculty toward early tenure review is that it should be conducted only if there has been some special or significant contribution by the nominee to WPI or to the nominee's Department, or if the academic freedom of the nominee is in serious jeopardy.
In this case, CTAF shall oversee the tenure review of those faculty members who are on the tenure track at WPI and have been nominated for tenure by any voting faculty member consistent with the minimum time that must be served on a probationary appointment prior to the tenure review described in Chapter Two: Academic Appointments, Section 3.a.i and in Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 1). Notification of these early tenure nominations are due in the Faculty Governance Office by April 15 for review during the following academic year, with a copy submitted to the Secretary of the Faculty.
The special or significant contributions by the nominee must be explicitly documented in a separate detailed letter written by the nominator and included in the materials to be reviewed by the Joint Tenure Committee in the case.
In these cases, the normal tenure review procedures will be followed and the recommendation shall be that tenure (and, in the cases of assistant professors and assistant professors of teaching, promotion to the corresponding associate rank) be granted or that the nomination be tabled. If tenure is recommended, the Provost is notified by the method used in regular tenure reviews. If the nomination is tabled, the Provost is not notified and the nominee is notified in writing by the CTAF member who served as the Chair of the Joint Tenure Committee for the case.
(Amended by the Faculty, March 13, 2024)
CTAF has the responsibility of reviewing problems involving the academic freedom of all faculty members - whether they are tenured, non-tenured, full-time, or part-time. In cases where faculty members allege that their academic freedom has been violated, the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom shall follow the process described in Chapter Five: Faculty Grievance Procedures, Section 1.
In the event that CTAF determines that the academic freedom of a tenure-track faculty member is in serious jeopardy and is unsuccessful in the resolution of such problems, the committee shall invite the faculty member to apply for tenure and shall in any case recommend tenure (and, in the cases of assistant professors and assistant professors of teaching, promotion to the corresponding associate rank) only when there is good evidence that the nominee would eventually be tenured by the normal procedure. Otherwise, the case is tabled and the faculty member is notified personally by the Chair of CTAF.
At the start of any such tenure case, CTAF shall consider whether any of its members or any members of the Department Tenure Committee should be recused due to direct conflict of interest. If a CTAF or DTC member is recused, that member either will be replaced in a manner determined by CTAF or the review will proceed with the remaining members. The procedures otherwise to be followed in the tenure review and the granting of tenure (and, in the cases of assistant professors and assistant professors of teaching, promotion to the corresponding associate rank) will be, to the extent possible without exposing the faculty member to further jeopardy, those followed in a normal tenure case, including promotion to the associate rank when the faculty member is at the assistant rank.
(Approved by the Faculty, October 13, 1988)
(Amended by the Faculty, March 24, 2011)
High quality teaching (undergraduate and/or graduate) is an essential (but not sufficient) requirement for obtaining tenure at WPI. The candidate's activities should demonstrate the capacity for continued high quality performance. High quality teaching can be evidenced in many ways, including (but not limited to): course evaluations; faculty peer evaluations; evaluations by alumni; the quality of the Major Qualifying Projects, Interactive Qualifying Projects, and the Humanities Inquiry Seminar or Practicum; freshman advising, academic advising and graduate theses advised by the candidate; teaching innovations; new course introductions; and redesign of existing courses.
High quality scholarship is an essential (but not sufficient) requirement for obtaining tenure at WPI. The candidate's activities should demonstrate the capacity for continued high quality performance. High quality scholarship can be evidenced in many ways, including (but not limited to): peer-reviewed publications such as journal articles, conference papers, and/or book chapters; books; exhibitions, and performances; professional awards; citations in the professional literature; presentations at professional meetings; grant proposals and grants awarded; offices held in professional societies; journal editorships; reviews of papers and proposals; and patents.
Service is valued and considered in the tenure deliberations at WPI. Service can be evidenced in many ways, including (but not limited to): service to WPI (faculty governance and ad-hoc committees, assistance to administrative offices); service to the candidate's department (curriculum committees, MQP area coordinators, faculty recruitment, seminar series participation and coordination), service to the local community (board and committee membership in social service and cultural institutions, local government participation); and service to the profession (participation in national and international committees and panels, in local chapters of professional societies, in conference organization).
(Approved by the Faculty, January 28, 2021)
Preamble:
The mission and distinctiveness of WPI depends on the essential contributions of teaching-intensive faculty members who continuously innovate and improve upon our student-centered educational programs and practices. In part, WPI recognizes the long-term value of these faculty members through a category of tenured and tenure-track teaching-intensive Professors of Teaching, thus providing these faculty members with the highest level of academic freedom and institutional commitment. These positions are part of WPI's broader commitment to inclusive excellence and development and retention of faculty talent aligned with WPI's institutional mission.
Criteria:
Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors of Teaching are expected primarily to contribute to the teaching mission6 of WPI. Therefore the tenure criteria for these faculty members are focused on the quality of their teaching, their broader contributions to WPI's overall teaching mission, and their demonstrated and potential contributions to a broader community of educators, practitioners, and/or scholars within or beyond WPI, especially when it clearly enhances the effectiveness of the candidate's teaching and/or furthers a general understanding of effective teaching practices. Consideration is also given to each candidate's level of active engagement with and service to WPI and/or the broader professional communities. The candidate's activities should demonstrate the capacity for continued excellent performance.
Professors of Teaching are expected to contribute in three categories: teaching practice; continuing professional growth and currency; and service. These categories are defined below.
Teaching Practice: Excellent undergraduate and/or graduate teaching - whether it is delivered in the classroom, through project advising, or via online or blended courses - is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for obtaining tenure as a Professor of Teaching at WPI. Teaching practice is excellent when it is of high quality and has significant impact on WPI students and curriculum.
In any teaching setting, faculty members must communicate in compelling ways that demonstrably enhance the educational growth of their students. Effective teachers develop students as creative thinkers, life-long learners, and effective communicators able to use evidence with logic, clarity, and persuasion. Effective teachers draw on many skills to support student learning that may include but are not limited to the following (as needed):
Continuing Professional Growth and Currency: Continuing professional growth and currency is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for obtaining tenure as a Teaching Professor at WPI. Professional growth refers to developing knowledge, acquiring skills, and/or accumulating experiences that enhance WPI's educational mission and visibility. Currency refers to making intellectual contributions to and remaining active in professional communities both within and beyond WPI.7
Professors of Teaching are committed to meaningful professional growth and currency that has significant impact on teaching and learning networks and support systems, on approaches to and understanding of teaching and learning, and/or on one's own scholarly discipline and/or scholarly communities.
Professors of Teaching seek opportunities for ongoing professional growth and currency, especially in ways that inform their own teaching experiments and innovations and disseminate this knowledge to others within and outside of WPI. Professional growth and currency for these purposes takes on many forms that may include but are not limited to the following (as appropriate):
Service: Service is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for obtaining tenure as a Professor of Teaching at WPI. The institution flourishes when faculty members are fully engaged not only in their classrooms and project advising but also in the lives of the institution, the local community, and professional organizations. Effective faculty members exploit opportunities to contribute to these various communities.
(Approved by the Faculty, January 28, 2021)
For Documentation and Assessment of Teaching Practice: When reviewed for tenure, each candidate is expected to submit a teaching portfolio that best demonstrates excellent teaching as measured by the quality and impact of their teaching skills and activities. The teaching portfolio typically includes a thoughtful statement about the candidate's teaching practices, accomplishments, and approach, as well as sample materials that demonstrates teaching quality and impact.
Teaching activities may include but are not limited to the following:
The quality of each candidate's teaching activities will be assessed for supporting evidence such as - but not limited to - the following:
The impact of each candidate's teaching activities on students, on curriculum, and on teaching practice (through one's own teaching practices and/or those of their WPI colleagues or their department) will be assessed for supporting evidence such as - but not limited to - the following:
For Documentation and Assessment of Continuing Professional Growth and Currency: When reviewed for tenure, each candidate is expected to submit materials that best demonstrate their commitment to and the impact of their continuing professional growth and currency, including how it enhances the effectiveness of the candidate's teaching and/or furthers a general understanding of effective teaching practices.
Commitment to continuing professional growth and currency can be documented in a combination of many ways that may include but are not limited to engaging in the following activities:
The impact of professional growth and currency may be on approaches to and understanding of teaching and learning, on teaching and learning networks and support systems (through delivery of workshops, seminars, mentorship, training; involvement in communities of practice, etc.); or on one's own scholarly discipline and/or scholarly communities. Such impact can be documented in a combination of many ways that may include but are not limited to the following:
For Documentation and Assessment of Service: Commitment to service can be documented in many ways, including but not limited to engagement in some of the following activities:
Each Department Tenure Committee (DTC) shall be composed of the Department Head and two tenured faculty members of the department. The elected DTC members will be nominated and elected by secret ballot by the voting faculty members in the department for terms of two years each with one DTC member being elected each year, after the first year. The Chair of each Department Tenure Committee shall be the elected member whose term of office expires in June of the current academic year. No DTC member may serve two consecutive terms, unless the limited number of department faculty members with tenure makes this restriction impossible. No member of CTAF may serve on a Department Tenure Committee.
For the purpose of considering each tenure case, a Joint Tenure Committee (JTC) is formed, consisting of five members from CTAF and the three-member Department Tenure Committee. The Joint Tenure Committee is chaired by the senior elected member of the five CTAF participants.
If the tenure candidate and one of the CTAF members are from the same department, then that CTAF member is recused from the Joint Tenure Committee automatically. The Joint Tenure Committee shall also consider whether any of its members should be recused due to direct conflict of interest. In the event that recusal of one of the Department Tenure Committee members is necessary due to conflict of interest, the most recent qualified past Department Tenure Committee member will serve on the Joint Tenure Committee for that particular case.
In the event of no departmental overlap or conflict of interest, the selection of the five CTAF members to sit on Joint Tenure Committees will be governed by CTAF procedures developed to lead to an overall pattern of recusals distributed over the CTAF membership so as to ensure appropriate participation for each CTAF member.
If a member of the Joint Tenure Committee must resign, a replacement shall be selected to fill the unexpired term in the manner prescribed above as though the member were recused.
In the cases of tenure candidates who have, or have had, interdepartmental affiliations to such an extent that CTAF determines it appropriate to have special composition of the Joint Tenure Committee, CTAF will name, after investigation of the circumstances, an Interdepartmental Tenure Committee in place of the Department Tenure Committee, and will specify the voting rules of this body (see Section 6).
In the event that a Department has only one tenured faculty member and a Department Head, to staff the Joint Tenure Committee, then CTAF will appoint another WPI tenured faculty member to serve on the Joint Tenure Committee, thereby bringing the membership of that Committee to eight. In the event that a Department has no tenured faculty members, in addition to the Department Head, to staff the Joint Tenure Committee, then the Joint Tenure Committee shall have only six members, the five members of CTAF and the Department Head. If tenure for a Department Head is under consideration, the appropriate Dean will sit in place of that Department Head.
Normally, each Department Tenure Committee consists of two elected department members with tenure plus the Department Head; in the cases of interdepartmental or interdisciplinary candidates the structure of the Department Tenure Committee for the purpose of participating as members of the Joint Tenure Committee shall be modified to an Interdepartmental Tenure Committee as follows:
In the cases of tenure candidates who have, or have had, interdepartmental affiliations to such an extent that CTAF determines it appropriate to have special composition of the Joint Tenure Committee, CTAF will name, after investigation of the circumstances, an Interdepartmental Tenure Committee in place of the Department Tenure Committee on the Joint Tenure Committee. In the selection of the Interdepartmental Tenure Committee membership, the candidate's own preference will be solicited and considered, but determination of the membership will be the responsibility of CTAF. Both the membership of the Interdepartmental Tenure Committee and the voting rules for the Interdepartmental Tenure Committee on the Joint Tenure Committee will be determined by CTAF consistent with the guidelines provided below. These decisions will be made by CTAF as early as practicable in the academic year prior to the academic year of the Joint Tenure Committee's tenure review of the case. The composition and roles in each such case will be reported to the candidate and to the Faculties of the candidate's departments.
Guidelines for the membership and voting rules of the Interdepartmental Tenure Committee on the Joint Tenure Committee are as follows: Except in those circumstances that preclude it, the total number of votes on the Joint Tenure Committee by the Interdepartmental Tenure Committee will be three. Two of these will be cast by two tenured faculty members who would normally be selected from each of the two Department Tenure Committees. The Heads of both departments will participate in the deliberations of the Joint Tenure Committee, and will provide the third vote (such as by one or the other being designated the voting member, or by the two department heads sharing the vote.)
The WPI Faculty, through its Bylaws, has given to the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom the authority and responsibility to oversee tenure recommendations to the Provost. Joint Tenure Committees, comprised of CTAF members and Department Tenure Committees as specified above (see Section 5), shall recommend to the Provost which members of the Faculty should be granted tenure or denied tenure, according to the policy and procedures on conducting tenure reviews and the granting of tenure and promotion.
The recommendation for or against tenure is a major decision point in an individual's life. Recognizing this, the Joint Tenure Committee utilizes operating procedures that protect the welfare of the individual under consideration. To that end the operating procedures are based on these criteria:
A Complete Background Study: The Joint Tenure Committee collects as much information as possible relative to the candidate's nomination from colleagues, students, alumni, and professional peers.
Confidentiality: The welfare of the candidate must be protected by all parties by observing strict rules of confidentiality concerning all phases of the tenure deliberation process.
Unitary Recommendation: The Joint Tenure Committee forwards to the Provost a unitary recommendation for or against tenure (and, in the cases of Assistant Professors and Assistant Professors of Teaching, for and against promotion to the corresponding associate rank); the recommendation contains no minority opinion, and does not attempt to weigh all the factors that were considered during the deliberations. The purpose of this policy is to prevent the development of a class system of tenure.
Shared Authority: The WPI Faculty Constitution is based on a condition of shared authority among the Faculty, Administrative Officers, and the Board of Trustees.
For candidates who are Assistant Professors, each recommendation is either for tenure with promotion to Associate Professor or against tenure and against promotion. For candidates who are Assistant Professors of Teaching, each recommendation is either for tenure with promotion to Associate Professor of Teaching or against tenure and against promotion. For candidates who are either Associate Professors, Associate Professors of Teaching, Professors, or Professors of Teaching, each recommendation is for or against tenure with no consideration given to promotion.
If tenure is denied, then a terminal appointment will be offered for only one additional academic year beyond the academic year of the tenure review (see Chapter Three: Academic Appointments, Section 3.a.iii). In rare instances, Joint Tenure Committees may also review tenure-track faculty members for early tenure for reasons described in Section 2.c.
By April 15th each year, the Provost shall provide to the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom a list of tenure-track faculty members with their exact titles, department and/or program affiliations, and the academic year of their mandatory tenure reviews. This list shall be updated annually to reflect all changes due to tenure clock stoppages within the previous year and circulated to the Faculty.
The Committee shall then write to those candidates scheduled for mandatory tenure review or nominated for early tenure review in the ensuing year asking for information on which to base its review of the candidate's credentials. Among the items asked for are 1) a list of professional references, 2) a current curriculum vitae, and 3) copies of professional work. This information is due in June at a date set by CTAF, prior to the academic year of the tenure review.
The Joint Tenure Committee develops a list of external references to evaluate the candidate, solicits alumni and student evaluations, and other such evaluations as it deems appropriate to arrive at a fair and equitable evaluation of the candidate.
In A-term and B-term of the tenure review year, the Joint Tenure Committee meets to consider the candidate. All eight members of the Joint Tenure Committee must be present to conduct tenure deliberations.
When all the members of the Joint Tenure Committee agree that there has been sufficient discussion, a vote is taken by the committee to recommend for or against tenure by means of a secret ballot (with no abstentions). A majority in favor of tenure is required for the Joint Tenure Committee to recommend the candidate for tenure.
For candidates who are Assistant Professors, each recommendation is either for tenure with promotion to Associate Professor or against tenure and against promotion. For candidates who are Assistant Professors of Teaching, each recommendation is either for tenure with promotion to Associate Professor of Teaching or against tenure and against promotion. For candidates who are either Associate Professors, Associate Professors of Teaching, Professors, or Professors of Teaching, each recommendation is for or against tenure with no consideration given to promotion.
If the vote is favorable, a unitary statement about some of the salient reasons for recommending tenure (and, in the cases of Assistant Professors and Assistant Professors of Teaching, recommending promotion to the corresponding associate rank) is prepared by the Department Head, signed by all members of the Joint Tenure Committee, and sent to the Provost. If it is voted to recommend against tenure for the candidate, then a unitary statement of the reasons for the denial is prepared by the Department Head, signed by all members of the Joint Tenure Committee, and sent to the Provost. The Joint Tenure Committee forwards its written recommendations to the Provost by the end of B-term.
The Provost reviews each case and consults with the appropriate Dean and the President. Department Heads and any Deans who might act as a Department Head in a particular case are restricted to their participation on the Joint Tenure Committee only.
Subsequently, the Provost may ask to meet with the Joint Tenure Committee to discuss its recommendation, and the Provost must meet with the Joint Tenure Committee in the case of a disagreement between the Joint Tenure Committee and the Provost. While it is the responsibility of the Provost to make recommendations for tenure to the Board of Trustees, as a consequence of the criterion of Shared Authority (described in Section 7.a above), final disagreements between the Joint Tenure Committees and the Provost are expected to be rare.
Lastly, the Provost sends to the Board of Trustees only the names of those candidates for whom the Provost recommends that tenure (and corresponding promotion to associate rank for candidates at the assistant rank) be granted. The Board votes on the Provost's positive tenure recommendations.
Regardless of the outcome of this process, the candidate is notified by the Provost of the final tenure decision at a time deemed suitable by the Provost.
If a candidate for tenure wishes to appeal a negative decision, faculty grievance procedures are available to the extent provided by the Procedure for Complaints of Academic Freedom Violations (see Chapter Five: Faculty Grievance Procedures, Section 1; and Chapter One: Governance, Bylaw Three, Section II) and by the Faculty Grievance Procedure (see Chapter Five: Faculty Grievance Procedures, Section 2; and Chapter One: Governance, Bylaw Three, Section IX).
Top | Ch 1 | Ch 2 | Ch 3 | Ch 4 | Ch 5 | Ch 6 | Ch 7 | Ch 8 | Ch 9 | Ch 10
(Amended by the Faculty, May 10, 2022)
A candidate for promotion to the associate rank in any tenure track must have completed at least three years and normally will have completed five years at the assistant rank in the same track before a promotion review.
Probationary faculty members with initial tenure-track appointments at the assistant rank in any particular tenure track receive a combined review for tenure and promotion to the associate rank in the same track from a Joint Tenure Committee (as described in Chapter Three: Tenure; Section 5 and Section 7). In these cases, the promotion criteria used will be the same as the tenure criteria for that particular track. Only in cases of early tenure (see Chapter Three: Tenure; Section 2.c) for exceptional professional achievement should a faculty member at the assistant rank be nominated for promotion to the associate rank earlier than the scheduled tenure review.
All Associate Professors and Associate Professors of Teaching should first achieve tenure before seeking promotion to full rank in their particular track.
To be considered for promotion to full professor in any tenured track, an associate ranked faculty member must have demonstrated considerable professional growth while at the associate rank. For this reason, a candidate for promotion to the full rank in a particular track normally will have completed at least five years at the associate rank in the same track and at least three years at the associate rank in that track at WPI before the year of the promotion review.
Only in cases of exceptional professional achievement should a candidate at the associate rank be nominated for promotion to full rank at a date earlier. These exceptional professional achievements must be explicitly documented in the nominator's letter.
The candidate for promotion to associate teaching professor must have completed at least three years as an assistant teaching professor, and will normally have completed at least five years before a promotion review.
To be considered for promotion to teaching professor, an associate teaching professor must have demonstrated considerable professional growth and development of qualities of leadership. This usually requires at least five years as an associate teaching professor.
The candidate for promotion to associate research professor must have completed at least three years as an assistant research professor, and will normally have completed at least five years.
To be considered for promotion to research professor, an associate research professor must have demonstrated considerable professional growth and development of qualities of leadership. This usually requires at least five years as an associate research professor.
(Approved by the Faculty, October 9, 2024)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, November 1, 2024)
The candidate for promotion to senior instructor will normally have completed at least 5 years as an instructor at WPI before a promotion review, and must have completed at least 3 years as an instructor at WPI.
The principal reason for establishing academic ranks is to recognize and to encourage the continued professional growth of individual faculty members. The Faculty makes a variety of contributions as educators, scholars, innovators and leaders that advance WPI's mission.
The candidate for promotion to associate professor should have demonstrated high quality teaching and high quality scholarship/creativity as well as the promise for continued high quality performance in these areas. Evidence of service at an appropriate level is expected.
The criteria for promotion to Associate Professor are the same as the tenure criteria for Associate Professors (see Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 3.a for the tenure criteria). For this reason, Assistant Professors receive a combined review for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor from a Joint Tenure Committee, as described in Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 5 and Section 7.)
The candidate for promotion to full professor should demonstrate continuing high quality teaching and high quality scholarship/creativity as well as a record of scholarly contributions that demonstrates a positive external impact beyond WPI as appropriate to the candidate's area of expertise. Service is a critical responsibility of all tenured faculty members, and thus evidence of service at a level appropriate to the rank is expected.
The specific standards of performance in teaching, scholarship, and service for promotion to full professor are similar to those for promotion to associate professor, with the added expectation of scholarly contributions that demonstrate a positive external impact beyond WPI. Contributions to WPI may demonstrate an external impact if they are disseminated and recognized externally. In every case, the high quality and positive external impact of scholarly contributions must be recognized by peers within WPI and by knowledgeable people external to WPI. While it is expected that these criteria describe the great majority of cases, there may be exceptional candidates whose unique contributions, while not conforming to these guidelines, are deserving of promotion.
Definition of Scholarship Used for Promotion to (full) Professor
To recognize the full range of scholarly contributions by faculty members, for the purpose of applying the criteria for promotion to (full) Professor, WPI endorses an inclusive definition of scholarship. Scholarship exists in a continuum of diverse forms of knowledge and knowledge-making practices. Scholarship may be pursued through original research, making connections between disciplines, building bridges between theory and practice, communicating knowledge effectively to students and peers, or in reciprocal partnerships with broader communities. The common characteristics for any scholarly form to be considered scholarship are: it must be public, amenable to critical appraisal, and in a form that permits exchange and use by other members of the scholarly community.
Candidates for promotion may make contributions to the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application and practice, the scholarship of teaching and learning, or the scholarship of engagement. Contributions may be in one area or across multiple areas of the continuum of scholarship. Scholarly contributions to any area or areas are valued equally by WPI.
The following descriptions of the continuum of scholarship indicate the scope of each domain, but they are not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive. The forms that scholarship take along this continuum will vary by discipline, department or academic division.
Scholarship of Discovery
The creation or discovery of new knowledge involves creative and critical thought, research skills, the rigorous testing of researchable questions suggested by theory and practice, or active experimentation and exploration with the goal of adding to knowledge in a substantive way. The scholarship of discovery is usually demonstrated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and books, presentations at scholarly conferences, inventions and patents, or original creation in writing or multimedia, artistic works, or new technologies.
Scholarship of Integration
The scholarship of integration includes the critical evaluation, synthesis, analysis, integration, or interpretation of research or creative work produced by others. It may be disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or multidisciplinary in nature. When disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge is synthesized, interpreted, or connected, this integrative scholarly contribution brings new insight. Integrative or interdisciplinary work might include articles, policy papers, reflective essays and reviews, translations, popular publications, synthesis of the literature on a topic, or textbooks. The scholarship of integration may be shared through any form such as those typical of discovery, application, teaching, or engagement.
Scholarship of Application and Practice
Scholarship of application involves the use of a scholar's disciplinary knowledge to address important individual, institutional, and societal problems. The scholarship of application and practice might apply the knowledge, techniques, or technologies of the arts and sciences, business or engineering to the benefit of individuals and groups. This may include translational research, commercialization, start-ups, technology transfer, assistive technologies, learning technologies, or applied research supported by industrial or corporate partners or by government agencies. Contributions to the scholarship of application and practice are shared with stakeholders and open to review and critique by stakeholders and by peers.
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
The scholarship of teaching and learning is the development and improvement of pedagogical practices that are shared with others. Effective teachers engage in scholarly teaching activity when they undertake assessment and evaluation to promote improvement in their own teaching and in student learning. Scholarly teaching activity becomes the scholarship of teaching and learning when faculty members make their teaching public, so that it can be reviewed, critiqued and built on by others, through publications, presentations or other forms of dissemination.
Scholarship of Engagement
The scholarship of engagement involves collaborative partnerships with communities (local, regional, state, national, or global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources. Examples of the scholarship of engagement might include, but are not limited to: community-based programs that enhance WPI's curriculum, teaching and learning; educational or public outreach programs; other partnerships with communities beyond the campus to address critical societal issues, prepare educated citizens, or contribute to the public good. Contributions in the scholarship of engagement are of benefit to the external community, visible and shared with stakeholders, and open to review and critique by community stakeholders and by peers.
(Approved by the Faculty, May 10, 2022)
Associate Professors of Teaching make a variety of contributions as educators, innovators, and leaders that advance WPI's educational mission and visibility.
The criteria for promotion to Associate Professor of Teaching are the same as the tenure criteria for the Professor of Teaching track (see Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 3.b for the tenure criteria). For this reason, Assistant Professors of Teaching receive a combined review for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor of Teaching from a Joint Tenure Committee, as described in Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 5 and Section 7.
The candidate should have demonstrated high-quality teaching practice with significant impact, maintained a commitment to professional growth and currency that has significant impact, developed creative pedagogical approaches within the context of their discipline or beyond, and showed the promise for continued high-quality performance in these areas. Evidence of quality service to the program/department/school, the WPI community, the field/profession, and/or the local/regional community is also expected.
The definitions of the primary areas of teaching practice, continuing professional growth and currency, and service along with guidelines for documenting these are detailed in the Tenure Criteria for the Associate and (full) Professor of Teaching (Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 3.b) and in the Guidance for Documenting and Assessing Activities Toward Tenure for Professors of Teaching (Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 3.c).
Regardless of rank, the Professor of Teaching track emphasizes the professional growth and currency of each faculty member, especially when it advances the candidate's teaching and/or discipline more broadly and contributes to WPI's educational mission and visibility. Professional growth and currency include but are not limited to experimenting and exploring for the purpose of innovative teaching (as described in Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 3.b under the tenure criteria for the Associate and (full) Professor of Teaching) and/or remaining continually active as scholars through the scholarship of discovery, teaching and learning, integration, application and practice, or engagement (as defined in the broad Definition of Scholarship Used for Promotion to (full) Professor, Section 2.a.ii).
While it is expected that these criteria describe the great majority of cases, there may be exceptional candidates whose unique contributions, while not conforming to these guidelines, are deserving of promotion.
(Approved by the Faculty, May 10, 2022)
Professors of Teaching make a variety of contributions as educators, innovators, and leaders that advance WPI's educational mission and visibility.
The specific categories of performance in the (full) Professor of Teaching rank and track are teaching practice; continuing professional growth and currency; and service. The candidate for promotion to full Professor of Teaching should demonstrate continuing high-quality teaching practice with significant impact on students as well as a record of contributions and professional growth and currency that includes creative pedagogical approaches within the context of their discipline or beyond and that demonstrates a positive external impact beyond WPI as appropriate to the candidate's area of expertise. The standards for promotion to full Professor of Teaching are similar to those for promotion to Associate Professor of Teaching, with the expectation of continued contributions that demonstrate a positive external impact beyond WPI since becoming an Associate Professor of Teaching. Contributions to WPI may demonstrate an external impact if they are disseminated and/or recognized externally. In most cases, the high-quality and positive external impact of contributions must be recognized by peers within WPI and by knowledgeable experts external to WPI.
The definitions of the primary areas of teaching practice, continuing professional growth and currency, and service along with guidelines for documenting these are detailed in the Tenure Criteria for the Associate and (full) Professor of Teaching (see Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 3.b) and in the Guidance for Documenting and Assessing Activities Toward Tenure for Professors of Teaching (see Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 3.c).
Regardless of rank, the Professor of Teaching track emphasizes the professional growth and currency of each faculty member, especially when it advances the candidate's teaching and/or discipline more broadly and contributes to WPI's educational mission and visibility. Professional growth and currency include but are not limited to experimenting and exploring for the purpose of innovative teaching (as described in Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 3.b under the tenure criteria for the Associate and (full) Professor of Teaching) and/or remaining continually active as scholars through the scholarship of discovery, teaching and learning, integration, application and practice, or engagement (as defined in the broad Definition of Scholarship Used for Promotion to (full) Professor, Section 2.a.ii).
Because service and citizenship are an integral part of being a tenured faculty member at WPI, a candidate for promotion must also have established a significant record of performance in service and citizenship contributions to the program/department/school, the WPI community, the field/profession, and/or the local/regional community. WPI values both individual and collaborative work within and across the domains of teaching practice, professional growth and currency, and service.
While it is expected that these criteria describe the great majority of cases, there may be exceptional candidates whose unique contributions, while not conforming to these guidelines, are deserving of promotion.
(Ammended by the Faculty, October 9, 2024)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, November 1, 2024)
Recommendations for these promotions will be made based on evaluations accounting for course evaluations, project evaluations, and other relevant feedback.
The candidate for promotion to assistant teaching professor must possess a PhD. degree (or the recognized highest degree for the discipline) and teaching credentials appropriate to the corresponding tenure-track rank, and must have demonstrated effective teaching ability.
The candidate for promotion to Senior Instructor must have demonstrated effective teaching ability.
(Amended by the Faculty, April 14, 2022)
The candidate for promotion to associate teaching professor must have completed at least three years as an assistant teaching professor, and will normally have completed at least five years. The candidate must have exhibited high quality teaching (undergraduate and/or graduate). Professional associate letters of support are required. High quality teaching can be evidenced in many ways, including (but not limited to): course evaluations; faculty peer evaluations; evaluations by alumni; the quality of the Major Qualifying Projects, Interactive Qualifying Projects, the Humanities Inquiry Seminar or Practicum, and graduate student work; freshman advising, academic advising; teaching innovations; new course introductions; and redesign of existing courses. Service is valued and considered in the promotion review. Service can be evidenced in many ways, including (but not limited to): service to WPI (committee work, assistance to administrative offices); service to the candidate's department (curriculum committees, MQP area coordinators, faculty recruitment, seminar series participation and coordination); and service to the profession (participation in national and international committees and panels, in local chapters of professional societies, in conference organization).
To be considered for promotion to teaching professor, an associate teaching professor must have demonstrated considerable professional growth and development of qualities of leadership. This usually requires at least five years as an associate teaching professor. The candidate must have recent accomplishments of high quality in teaching as well as demonstrated leadership in some aspect of teaching. This leadership must be recognized by peers within WPI, and acknowledgement by external peers would be viewed favorably. High quality teaching can be evidenced in many ways, including (but not limited to): course evaluations; faculty peer evaluations; evaluations by alumni; the quality of the Major Qualifying Projects, Interactive Qualifying Projects, the Humanities Inquiry Seminar or Practicum, and graduate student work; freshman advising, and academic advising; teaching innovations; new course introductions; and redesign of existing courses. In evaluating teaching qualifications, the Committee on Appointments and Promotions will consider innovations in teaching and adaptability to the needs of WPI, effectiveness as measured by students, alumni, and colleagues, and the candidate's overall impact and importance in WPI academic programs. Leadership accomplishments in teaching may be demonstrated by some or all of the following: exceptionally high quality teaching that serves as a model for others, development of new courses or other academic activities such as project experiences, leadership in curricular revisions or other academic initiatives within WPI, leadership of teaching - and learning - related grant proposals and funded projects, publications and presentations related to teaching, and leadership roles in appropriate professional organizations. Service is valued and considered in the promotion review. Service can be evidenced in many ways, including (but not limited to): service to WPI (committee work, assistance to administrative offices); service to the candidate's department (curriculum committees, MQP area coordinators, faculty recruitment, seminar series participation and coordination); and service to the profession (participation in national and international committees and panels, in local chapters of professional societies, in conference organization).
The candidate for promotion to associate research professor must have completed at least three years as an assistant research professor, and will normally have completed at least five years. The candidate must have exhibited high quality scholarship. High quality scholarship can be evidenced in many ways, including (but not limited to): peer-reviewed publications such as journal articles, conference papers, and/or book chapters; books; exhibitions, and performances; professional awards; citations in the professional literature; presentations at professional meetings; grant proposals and grants awarded; offices held in professional societies; journal editorships; reviews of papers and proposals; and patents. Service is valued and considered in the promotion review. Service can be evidenced in many ways, including (but not limited to): service to WPI (committee work, assistance to administrative offices); service to the candidate's department (such as faculty recruitment, seminar series participation and coordination); and service to the profession (participation in national and international committees and panels, in local chapters of professional societies, in conference organization).
To be considered for promotion to research professor, an associate research professor must have demonstrated considerable professional growth and development of qualities of leadership. This usually requires at least five years as an associate research professor. The candidate must have recent accomplishments of high quality and demonstrated leadership in scholarship/creativity. This leadership must be recognized by peers within WPI, and by knowledgeable people outside WPI. Scholarship and/or creativity can take many forms. It may be demonstrated, for example, by publications in respected research or scholarly journals, by non-routine presentations at meetings of professional or scholarly societies or at seminars at other colleges, or by authorship of well-regarded textbooks or monographs. Creativity may be shown, for example, by applying knowledge as a consultant or inventor, and through artistic publications, exhibitions, or productions. In evaluating this activity, the Committee will consider how it is regarded by knowledgeable peers. Service is valued and considered in the promotion review. Service can be evidenced in many ways, including (but not limited to): service to WPI (committee work, assistance to administrative offices); service to the candidate's department (curriculum committees, MQP area coordinators, faculty recruitment, seminar series participation and coordination); and service to the profession (participation in national and international committees and panels, in local chapters of professional societies, in conference organization).
All candidates for promotion to (full) Professor, (full) Professor of Teaching, (full) Teaching Professor, and Associate Teaching Professor must be nominated for promotion. The Nominator is normally the Department Head or a tenured full professor at WPI. For promotion to (full) Teaching Professor or to Associate Teaching Professor, the nominator must be the Department Head and/or Program Director (with input from department and/or program faculty members).
Before nomination, the Nominator should discuss with the candidate the strengths and weaknesses of their case based on the promotion criteria and eligibility including time in rank. Departmental promotion procedures should assure equitable treatment of all eligible candidates and should be selective so that only well-qualified candidates are nominated.
The Nominator's initial statement of nomination of a candidate for promotion must be received by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions from the Department Head by April 15 or from nominators other than the Department Head by May 1. The nominator must submit a more detailed letter of nomination, with a description and analysis of the candidate's teaching, scholarship/creativity, service and impact, during the summer prior to the academic year of the promotion review.
After the initial statement of nomination, the Candidate is invited to submit the name of an Advocate and a list of internal and external peers known as Professional Associates, as well as the materials for the promotion dossier (described in Section 3.b).
The Advocate is normally a full-time faculty member who agrees to serve with the Nominator as a non-voting member of a Joint Promotion Committee. The candidate submits the name of the Advocate by May 1.
Professional Associates are contacted by the candidate at the time of the initial nomination and must agree, at that time, to supply a letter of appraisal when later asked by the Joint Promotion Committee.
- In cases of promotion to (full) Professor and (full) Professor of Teaching, the six professional associates should include a mixture of internal peers at WPI and external peers in the candidate's areas of expertise.
- In cases of promotion to (full) Teaching Professor and Associate Teaching Professor, the six professional associates should be internal peers at WPI. While external peers are not required, they would also be viewed favorably.
All professional associates must be qualified to evaluate the candidate's promotion dossier, and they must have agreed to write a letter of appraisal when asked by the candidate before they will be contacted by the Joint Promotion Committee. The candidate should seek advice from the Nominator, Advocate and other mentors well in advance of the nomination deadline in order to submit an appropriate list of Professional Associates. The candidate submits the name of the list of Professional Associates by May 1.
Joint Promotion Committees: For the purpose of considering each promotion case, a Joint Promotion Committee is formed, consisting of six voting members of COAP, and a non-voting Nominator and a non-voting Advocate. The Joint Promotion Committee is chaired by the Chair of COAP.
Recusals: If the candidate and one of the COAP members are from the same department, then that COAP member is recused from the Joint Promotion Committee automatically. The Joint Promotion Committee also will consider whether any of its members should be recused due to direct conflict of interest. If recusal of two COAP members is necessary, then the most recent qualified past Chair of COAP will serve for that particular case. If the Chair is recused, then the Joint Promotion Committee is chaired by the senior-most elected member of COAP participants.
COAP Member Participation: In the event of no recusals due to departmental overlap or conflict of interest, the selection of the six COAP members to sit on each Joint Promotion Committee will be governed by COAP procedures developed to lead to an overall pattern of recusals distributed over the COAP membership so as to ensure appropriate participation for each COAP member.
(Amended by the Faculty, February 14, 2024)
In all promotion cases covered in this Section 3, during the summer before the academic year of the promotion review, in addition to the materials submitted by the candidate, the Joint Promotion Committee will add four other sources of information to the complete promotion review dossier:
Summary student ratings for all courses and projects taught at WPI in the last five years.
Responses to a teaching evaluation sent to a random selection of former students and alumni whom the candidate has taught in the last five years.
Instructional Activity data for the last five years when available.
Letters of appraisal solicited by the Joint Promotion Committee (see Section 3.a.v) from Professional Associates identified by the candidate (see Section 3.a.ii), each for an independent confidential evaluation of the materials submitted by the candidate for the promotion dossier (see Section 3.b.i).
In cases of promotion to (full) Professor and (full) Professor of Teaching, the Joint Promotion Committee will add a fifth source of information:
Solely for cases of promotion to (full) Professor, only, the Joint Promotion Committee will add a sixth source of information:
The Joint Promotion Committee also collects other materials in the summer or the fall, as necessary, to arrive at a fair and equitable evaluation of the candidate.
The Joint Promotion Committee develops a list of peer reviewers to evaluate the candidate's promotion dossier. In all promotion cases included in this Section 3, these peers include six Professional Associates who are selected by the candidate. In cases of promotion to (full) Professor and (full) Professor of Teaching, these peers also include five to six External Reviewers who are selected by the Nominator and the Advocate on the Joint Promotion Committee.
- In cases of promotion to (full) Professor and (full) Professor of Teaching, the six professional associates should include a mixture of internal peers at WPI and external peers in the candidate's areas of expertise.
- In cases of promotion to (full) Teaching Professor and Associate Teaching Professor, the six professional associates should be internal peers at WPI. While external peers are not required, they would also be viewed favorably
All professional associates must be qualified to evaluate the candidate's promotion dossier, and they must have agreed to write a letter of appraisal when asked by the candidate before they will be contacted by the Joint Promotion Committee.
These peer reviewers should be experts in or experienced practitioners of, and therefore appropriate evaluators of, the area or areas of the candidate's contributions. Where appropriate, external reviewers may include experts whose institutional affiliation is beyond the academy if they are well-placed to testify to or evaluate the quality and impact of the candidate's contributions.
The Joint Promotion Committee sends electronic copies of the candidate's promotion dossier as well as the criteria for promotion to the applicable peer reviewers both within WPI and external to WPI early in the summer for an independent assessment of the candidate's professional activities with respect to quality, impact, and commitment, as applicable (see Section 3.b.ii). All of these peer reviewers are asked to submit confidential letters of appraisal to the Committee before the beginning of the academic year of the promotion review (typically by August 15). These letters of appraisal will be read only by people who are directly involved in the evaluation of the nomination for promotion and they will not be shown to the candidate or to anyone else.
The Joint Promotion Committee reviews each nomination for promotion in order to make a recommendation to the appropriate Dean and to the Provost. The welfare of the candidate must be protected by all members of the Joint Promotion Committee by observing strict rules of confidentiality during all phases of the promotion review.
In A-Term and B-Term of the academic year of the promotion review, the Joint Promotion Committee meets to consider the merits of the nomination for promotion. The Joint Promotion Committee reviews the complete promotion dossier (described in Section 3.b.i) including the letters of appraisal from Professional Associates and (if applicable) External Reviewers as well as all other materials collected by the Joint Promotion Committee (described in Section 3.a.iv).
When all the members of the Joint Promotion Committee agree that there has been sufficient discussion, a vote is taken by the six voting members of the Joint Promotion Committee for or against promotion (no abstentions) by means of a secret ballot, with a majority (i.e., at least four votes) in favor of promotion required for a positive promotion recommendation. By the end of B-Term, the six voting members of the Joint Promotion Committee forward to the Dean and to the Provost a letter conveying the result of their vote as a unitary recommendation for or against promotion and summarizing the salient reasons for its recommendation.
The Provost reviews each case and consults with the appropriate Dean and the President. Subsequently, the Provost may ask to meet with the Joint Promotion Committee to discuss any of its recommendations, and the Provost must meet with the Joint Promotion Committee in the case of potential disagreement. The Provost sends to the Board of Trustees the names of candidates for whom the Provost recommends that promotion be granted. At no time shall the identity of any faculty member who was not recommended for promotion be disclosed to the members of the Board of Trustees. The Board votes on the Provost's positive promotion recommendations. The Provost will inform the candidate of the Board's decision.
In the event of a negative decision on promotion, a letter to the candidate discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the case for promotion will be written by the Dean and the Provost. The purpose of this letter is to provide constructive advice to the candidate so that they may address any deficiencies and resubmit the case for promotion consideration in the future. The candidate may meet with the Provost, Dean, or the Nominator to discuss reasons for the promotion decision.
If a candidate for promotion wishes to appeal a negative decision, faculty grievance procedures are available to the extent provided by the Procedure for Complaints of Academic Freedom Violations (see Chapter Five: Faculty Grievance Procedures, Section 1; and Chapter One: Governance, Bylaw Three, Section II) and by the Faculty Grievance Procedure (see Chapter Five: Faculty Grievance Procedures, Section 2; and Chapter One: Governance, Bylaw Three, Section IX).
(Approved by the Faculty, May 10, 2022)
(Amended by the Faculty, March 13, 2024)
Candidates for promotion to (full) Professor, (full) Professor of Teaching, Associate Teaching Professor, and (full) Teaching Professor will submit a promotion dossier representative of their overall career. For promotion to (full) Professor, (full) Professor of Teaching, or (full) Teaching Professor, the emphasis will be on work since tenure and/or promotion to the associate rank in the appropriate track. Overall, all candidates included in this Section 3 should use this documentation to present the case that they have achieved the criteria for promotion. All candidates are invited and encouraged to use the promotion dossier to make arguments for the quality and impact of their work using the categories appropriate to their promotion criteria or in other ways if those other ways are appropriate to the form and impact of their contributions.
The candidate's promotion dossier will include the following: a curriculum vitae (CV); a personal statement; a teaching portfolio; relevant sample artifacts and other indicators to demonstrate the high quality and external impact of the candidate's contributions.
The CV provides comprehensive documentation of the candidate's professional experience and accomplishments.
For promotion to full Professor, the emphasis is on accomplishments in teaching, scholarship/creativity, and service.
For promotion to full Professor of Teaching, the emphasis is on accomplishments in teaching practice, continuing professional growth and currency, and service.
For promotion to Associate Teaching Professor, the emphasis is on accomplishments in teaching and service.
For promotion to (full) Teaching Professor, the emphasis is on accomplishments in teaching, professional growth, leadership, and service.
The personal statement provides a reflective summary and description of the candidate's professional accomplishments and contributions. The statement should provide a narrative arc that helps the committee and the Provost understand the candidate's activities to date, how those activities benefit the candidate and enhance WPI's educational mission and visibility, and how they will lead to the next stage of the candidate's career.
For promotion to full Professor, the personal statement (10 pages maximum) includes a reflective summary and description of the candidate's scholarly contributions, and it typically will include sections on teaching, scholarship/creativity, service, external impact, and future plans.
For promotion to full Professor of Teaching, the personal statement (10 pages maximum) includes a reflective summary and typically will include sections on teaching practice, professional growth and currency, service, external impact, and future plans. The statement should provide a narrative arc that helps the committee and the Provost understand the candidate's activities to date, how those activities benefit the candidate and enhance WPI's educational mission and visibility, and how they will lead to the next stage of the candidate's career.
For promotion to Associate Teaching Professor, the personal statement (5 pages maximum) includes a reflective statement and description of the candidate's contributions to teaching, and it typically includes sections on teaching, service, and future plans.
For promotion to (full) Teaching Professor, the personal statement (10 pages maximum) includes a reflective statement and description of the candidate's contributions to teaching with a focus on professional growth and leadership, and it typically includes sections on teaching, professional growth, leadership, service, and future plans
The teaching portfolio provides documentation of the candidate's teaching. The teaching portfolio presents representative teaching materials and evidence of their effectiveness. Typical elements in a teaching portfolio include a reflective statement of the candidate's approach to teaching and learning (4-6 pages maximum), samples of teaching materials and teaching innovations, and measures of teaching effectiveness or materials that demonstrate student learning. The teaching portfolio should not exceed 50 pages (including the 4-6 pages of the reflective statement).
For promotion to full Professor, the teaching portfolio provides documentation of the candidate's high quality teaching.
For promotion to full Professor of Teaching, the teaching portfolio provides documentation of the candidate's high-quality teaching practice with significant impact.
For promotion to Associate Teaching Professor, the teaching portfolio provides documentation of the candidate's high-quality teaching.
For promotion to full Teaching Professor, the teaching portfolio provides documentation of the candidate's high-quality teaching practice, professional growth and leadership in teaching.
The sample artifacts provide documentation of the high quality and external impact of the candidate's contributions.
For promotion to full Professor, the sample scholarly artifacts provide documentation of the high quality and external impact of the candidate's scholarly contributions. The choice of artifacts should reflect the standard of the discipline and not exceed three examples that have been published during the period of their current rank. Scholarly contributions may be documented and disseminated through a variety of peer-reviewed or other discipline specific critically reviewed artifacts. Sample scholarly artifacts must be publicly available, amenable to critical appraisal, and in a form that permits exchange and use by other members of the scholarly community.
For promotion to full Professor of Teaching, the sample artifacts provide documentation of the high-quality and external impact of the candidate's contributions to teaching practice and their commitment to and successes in professional growth and currency especially as those successes demonstrate innovative teaching and creative pedagogical development, exploration, and experimentation within and/or beyond the context of their discipline. Contributions may be documented and disseminated through a variety of artifacts. The continuum of artifacts through which successful contributions may be documented and disseminated matches, in its inclusiveness and variety, the continuum of ways one may demonstrate impact and quality of teaching practice and impact and commitment to professional growth and currency.
For promotion to Associate Teaching Professor or (full) Teaching Professor, sample scholarly artifacts that the candidate has shown provide evidence of excellence of teaching are welcomed but not required.
Candidates for promotion to full Professor must submit a citation index and any other indicators of external impact appropriate to their scholarly contributions. The citation index should include all citations of the candidate's publications, presentations or other scholarly contributions. Additional indictors of external impact might include reviews of the candidate's work, press and media coverage, downloads of scholarly materials, awards and recognition, or any other indicators that the candidate's scholarly contributions have had an impact beyond WPI.
Scholarly contributions made by candidates for promotion to full Professor may combine or cut across traditional categories of teaching, scholarship/creativity and service.
Professional contributions made by candidates for promotion to full Professor of Teaching may combine or cut across traditional categories of teaching practice, continuing professional growth and currency, and service.
All candidates are welcome to submit any metric of external impact they wish so long as the context is explained.
Joint Promotion Committee members, the Provost, and peer reviewers should provide their independent assessments of the candidate's professional activities with respect to quality, impact, and commitment, as appropriate to the rank and track of the candidate. This section provides guidance that will be shared with all those involved in these assessments.
An assessment of the candidate's professional activities may be based on any and all material in the promotion dossier. Traditional measures to assess quality do not necessarily accommodate all areas of professional activity. Nonetheless, the following six standards have been identified to evaluate quality across diverse areas: clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant results, effective presentation, and reflective critique (Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff, Scholarship Assessed, 1997). Since the dossier includes the candidate's reflective critique in their personal statement, all reviewers are invited to apply these six standards to assess the candidate's professional activities described in the promotion portfolio.
For promotion to (full) Professor, the focus should be on an assessment of high quality teaching, high quality scholarship/creativity, and service to WPI, the field/profession, or community outside of WPI. The assessment may be based on any and all material in the promotion dossier, including the CV, personal statement, teaching portfolio, peer-reviewed scholarship, peer reviews of sample scholarly artifacts, or indicators of external impact, and indicators of service.
For promotion to (full) Professor of Teaching, the focus should be on an assessment of high-quality teaching practice with significant impact, commitment to and significant impact of professional growth and currency, and service to WPI, the field/profession, or community outside of WPI. The assessment may be based on any and all material in the promotion dossier, including the CV, personal statement, teaching portfolio, sample artifacts, or indicators of external impact, and indicators of service.
For promotion to Associate Teaching Professor, the focus should be on an assessment of high-quality teaching and service to WPI, the field/profession, or community outside of WPI. The assessment may be based on any and all material in the promotion dossier, including the CV, personal statement, teaching portfolio, and indicators of service.
For promotion to full Teaching Professor, the focus should be on an assessment of high-quality teaching, professional growth, leadership, and service to WPI, the field/profession, or community outside of WPI. The assessment may be based on any and all material in the promotion dossier, including the CV, personal statement, teaching portfolio, and indicators of service.
External impact beyond WPI, when relevant to the criteria for the particular promotion, should be assessed based on the relevant standards in the areas of the candidate's contributions. Thus, the starting point to assess external impact is the candidate's personal statement.
For promotion to (full) Professor, the personal statement should identify the area or areas of the candidate's scholarly contributions across teaching, scholarship and service and indicate examples of external impact beyond WPI. Evidence of external impact beyond WPI might include: funding from multiple sources; peer-reviewed articles or presentations in well-regarded journals or conferences; books; reviews, citations or impact factors; downloadable curriculum; patents; films, broadcasts, software, or computer games; discussion of research in legal cases, policy reports, or the media; keynote addresses; workshops for other institutions, regional, national or international societies; artistic exhibitions, performances or productions; K-12 outreach and educational programs; journal editorships; leadership of academic programs or centers; or impact on external communities through teaching, scholarship or service.
For promotion to (full) Professor of Teaching, the personal statement should identify the area or areas of their contributions across teaching practice, professional growth and currency, and service and indicate examples of external impact beyond WPI.
In all cases, while quantitative measures will remain important indicators of quality and impact, WPI recognizes that the weight assigned to quantitative measures and documented evidence of impact varies widely between academic fields as well as along the continuum of contributions and accomplishments of candidates. Consequently, candidates are not limited in the relevant evidence they may provide to demonstrate external impact.
All reviewers - internal and external peers, members of promotion committees, or academic decision-makers - are reminded that implicit and explicit bias has been shown to occur in every aspect of a faculty career that is evaluated. Empirical studies have shown that letters of recommendation for women and men differ in gendered ways: letters for women are often shorter, less detailed, and reinforce gender stereotypes. Women faculty members and faculty members of color also may face bias in student ratings of teaching or in mentoring and sponsorship. The choice of area or areas for professional contributions (e.g., interdisciplinary, qualitative, community-engaged, theoretical, or digital) may result in comparatively traditional recognition but nevertheless demonstrate high quality and impact in forms appropriate to those contributions. The Committee on Appointments and Promotions highlights potential sources of bias in this description of the standards for evaluation of the promotion dossier so that all reviewers at every stage of the review process will be aware of potential implicit and explicit bias and take care to limit opportunities for such bias to influence the consideration of each nomination for promotion.
(Ammended by the Faculty, October 9, 2024)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, November 1, 2024)
Recommendations for promotion from Instructor to Senior Instructor or from Instructor (of either level) to Assistant Teaching Professor will be made by the Department Head and/or Program Director (with input from departmental and/or program faculty members) and the appropriate Dean, and presented to the Provost for action.
Candidates for promotion to Senior Instructor should prepare a dossier for their Department Head or Program Director similar to that described in Section 3b: a current CV, teaching portfolio, and personal statement. Each of these should focus on the candidate's demonstrated effectiveness in teaching, detailing any teaching innovations, course improvements or developments, providing summary data of student course evaluations, and could include plans for future contributions to the academic mission of their department or program.
Recommendations for promotion to Associate Research Professor will be made by the Department Head and/or Program Director (with input from members of the WPI Faculty whose research is most relevant to the work done by the candidate and from other departmental faculty members as is appropriate) and the appropriate Dean, reviewed by COAP, and then passed on to the Provost for action.
Recommendations for promotion to (full) Research Professor will be made by the Department Head and/or Program Director (with input from members of the WPI Faculty whose research is most relevant to the work done by the candidate and from other departmental faculty members as is appropriate) and the appropriate Dean, reviewed by COAP, and then passed on to the Provost for action.
(Approved by the Faculty, October 4, 2018)
Strategic professional development opportunities will empower faculty members to engage in career planning, seek productive collaborations and build communities to accelerate and promote their work. Mentoring is a key component of faculty professional development. It is defined here as a process by which an experienced faculty member serves as a guide to an individual (usually with less experience) for the purposes of socializing them to disciplinary norms, fostering their acquisition of institutional and scholarly knowledge, and providing professional opportunities and personal and/or professional support. Hence, to foster continuing professional development and promotion in academic rank, all tenured associate professors and continuing (i.e., full-time) non-tenure track associate professors are encouraged to establish a Mentoring Team.
Associate Professors, Associate Professors of Teaching or Associate Teaching Professors seeking mentorship are encouraged to choose a Mentoring Team consisting of two faculty members. Individuals are encouraged to also include their respective department head as a third member of their Mentoring Team, when appropriate and to strengthen their relationship with their department head.
Mentoring Team members will be selected by individual faculty members based on their mentoring needs. It is anticipated that most Mentoring Team members will be at a higher rank (e.g., full professor); however, individual faculty members are encouraged to choose those members who they feel will best serve as mentors. Associate professors are encouraged to discuss their Mentoring Team member choice with trusted colleagues.
Faculty members are free to change their selected mentors as their professional interests, goals, and needs evolve.
Mentoring Teams will assist tenured associate professors and continuing (i.e., full-time) non-tenure track associate teaching and associate research professors in their professional development, help them reflect on their longer-term accomplishments and future goals, and provide feedback in a confidential and collegial setting.
Individual associate professors with a Mentoring Team are encouraged to meet with their Mentoring Team every two years. In addition, Mentoring Team members are expected to meet regularly (ranging from once per month to twice per year) with the faculty member on an individual basis where meetings may involve informal conversations about professional development, a discussion of the faculty member's Professional Development Plan (PDP)8, or a more formal assessment of the faculty member's readiness for promotion in rank.
It is expected that Mentoring Team members will advise on the criteria for promotion in academic rank and potentially serve as members of the Joint Promotion Committee. Meetings with the Mentoring Team are not to be considered performance reviews; they are not a substitute for annual meetings with department heads or for regular consultation with other mentors. Rather, Mentoring Team meetings held at regular intervals are intended to facilitate continued professional development and promotion. The results of Mentoring Team meetings are advisory and will be shared exclusively with the faculty member.
Each Mentoring Team member (including department heads) is encouraged to undergo training (as described below).
Mentor training consists of three components: 1) understanding and proper interpretation of WPI's promotion criteria (for both TTT and NTT faculty members); 2) being an effective mentor including the use of Professional Development Plans; and 3) handling implicit bias 9. Training is designed, customized, delivered and refined to meet program needs. Training is administered through the Morgan Teaching and Learning Center and offered biannually to a cohort of identified Mentoring Team members. This training is also required of the provost, deans, department heads and program directors.
Mentoring Team meetings will focus on discussions of the professional development of the faculty member (using the Professional Development Plan, where appropriate) and serve as a group mentoring experience. If desired, the faculty member may draft a summary of the meeting and ask the Mentoring Team to verify that they agree with the contents of the drafted summary. This summary of the meeting is only for their personal communication and will not be shared with anyone else unless agreed to by all parties. The Mentoring Team meeting should take place before the end of the academic year.
All faculty members choosing to establish a Mentoring Team should address career goals, align those goals with the criteria for promotion, and set objectives or milestones that they intend to achieve (using the Professional Development Plan, where appropriate). Faculty members should also maintain annual updates to two forms of vitae: 1) following the more detailed requirements of COAP (organization and categories available from Faculty Governance); and 2) one that is more appropriate for sharing with the faculty member's outside professional community.
The Morgan Teaching and Learning Center will maintain a record mentoring program participants. The content of the meetings will be confidential. Periodically, COAP and COG will request from department heads and the Morgan Teaching and Learning Center reports on actions taken to support mentoring and professional development.
The Associate Professor Mentoring Program will be administered through the Morgan Teaching and Learning Center. Periodic program assessment will be administered through the Center.
Top | Ch 1 | Ch 2 | Ch 3 | Ch 4 | Ch 5 | Ch 6 | Ch 7 | Ch 8 | Ch 9 | Ch 10
(Approved by the Faculty, March 13, 2024)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, May 9, 2024)
All faculty members at WPI - whether tenured, non-tenured, full-time, or part-time - have academic freedom as described in Chapter One: Governance, Section Two, Part V of this Handbook. The guarantee of academic freedom requires that any faculty member who believes their academic freedom has been violated must be able to submit and have their complaint adjudicated by the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom (CTAF) without incurring any additional risk.
The procedures described below are designed to allow CTAF to ascertain the facts needed to reach a decision with respect to allegations of academic freedom violations, while protecting faculty members from harm during the process. This balance is achieved by having CTAF first reach a preliminary finding based on information provided only by those individuals chosen by the faculty member bringing the complaint. And only if a preliminary finding that an academic freedom violation was likely to have occurred, would the complaining faculty member be required to allow CTAF to contact all other relevant individuals if it were to make a final determination that an academic freedom violation had occurred. In this manner, no individual may be informed of the complaint without the permission of the faculty member raising the complaint, while all relevant individuals must be interviewed before a violation of academic freedom is finally established.
Any faculty member who believes their academic freedom has been violated may submit a complaint to the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom (CTAF), which has responsibility to follow the procedures described below to evaluate whether an individual's academic freedom has been violated. It is not CTAF's responsibility to assign intentionality or to sanction any individual. Instead, if CTAF determines that academic freedom has been violated, CTAF will send a detailed report on the finding with recommendations to the Provost. Based on the report, the Provost will take appropriate administrative actions as necessary.
A violation of academic freedom is any serious interference, restriction, or suppression of the rights and liberties that arise from the definition of academic freedom (provided in Chapter One: Governance, Section Two, Part V). These rights enable faculty members as scholars, educators, and citizens of the University to pursue and disseminate knowledge and ideas without undue influence, censorship, or discrimination. Violations of academic freedom can limit these rights in a wide variety of ways, and in certain cases can result in decisions not to renew probationary, tenure-track appointments; decisions not to renew or terminate appointments; negative decisions on tenure; and negative decisions on promotions of tenured, tenure tack, and non-tenure track faculty members.
CTAF shall endeavor to ascertain the facts of the academic freedom case using the procedures described below. At all times, case materials will be confidential, shared only among the members of the Academic Freedom Subcommittee (AFS) chosen to evaluate the case and the faculty governance coordinator. To ensure a fair and effective resolution process, cases should be filed in a timely manner. CTAF will endeavor to move through the process in a timely fashion.
If at any time during the process, the complainant or other relevant individuals leave WPI, the complainant can still proceed with the process.
The Chair of CTAF is available for informal consultation with the complainant at any time before formal procedures are initiated (beginning with Step 2. Submission of a Formal Complaint, below). At this time, the Chair can review evidence provided, discuss the complaint with the complainant and answer questions about the complaint process. There is no investigation and no involvement of other individuals at this time. Instead, the intent is to provide a mechanism by which the complainant may receive information that may help them to decide whether or not to submit a formal complaint, although the complainant may submit a formal complaint without asking for this consultation. An oral or informal written inquiry from the complainant is not considered a formal complaint for the purposes of these rules. All information shared and discussed during this informal consultative phase must be held in confidence by the Chair of CTAF.
If the complaint involves the Chair of CTAF or if the complainant is in the same department as the Chair of CTAF, then the complainant should consult with the secretary of CTAF, who will serve in the role of the Chair throughout the process.
To initiate a formal complaint of academic freedom violation for consideration by CTAF, the complainant must notify the Chair of CTAF (or their replacement) in writing that they intend to submit a complaint. Within two weeks of that notification, the complainant must submit the following:
If the complaint involves the Provost, the Provost's role is replaced by the President everywhere in this procedure.
The CTAF Chair (or their replacement) and the next longest serving CTAF member (who is not in the same department as the complainant and does not have a conflict of interest) will perform an initial review of the submission in order to select a five-member Academic Freedom Subcommittee (AFS) consisting of themselves and three additional CTAF members. These additional CTAF members must not have departmental overlap or conflict of interest with the complainant nor have conflicts of interest in the case. The five members of the AFS will elect their own Chair.
The AFS will investigate cases of alleged violations of academic freedom as soon as possible, constrained by CTAF's Fall tenure case workload and the availability of CTAF members to serve on the AFS.
To the maximum extent practicable, steps should be taken to ensure an impartial and unbiased process, ensuring that members of AFS have no real or perceived unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the investigation that could affect their ability to be objective.
The AFS will review the materials submitted and interview the complainant in order to determine if the case has merit in that: 1) the complaint pertains to academic freedom, 2) the impact of the alleged violation may be serious. If the AFS decides the case does not have merit, the complainant will be informed by the AFS Chair in writing of the decision, the case will be closed, and no further action will be required by CTAF.
If the AFS decides the case may have merit, the AFS will provide an option for the complainant to pursue an informal resolution through mediation between the complainant and any individual(s) identified as being potentially responsible for the alleged violation. Only if the complainant agrees, is/are these identified individual(s) notified of the complaint and invited to participate in the mediation process. Because mediation is voluntary, all individuals must agree to participate for mediation to occur with the expectation that an informal resolution will be practical to implement.
Mediation is a voluntary, confidential process through which a neutral mediator assists the complainant with expressing their concerns and helps all parties in developing solutions to the dispute in a safe and structured environment. The Secretary of the Faculty shall serve as the mediator or appoint an appropriate mediator (in consultation with the AFS Chair). The mediator shall be acceptable to the complainant and all individuals. Mediators do not make judgments, determine facts, or mandate resolutions; instead, they facilitate an appropriate exchange between the participants, who identify the solutions best suited to their situation. Mediators do not engage in evaluation of decisions.
If the individuals come to an informal resolution of the dispute through mediation, the mediator produces a document with details of the mediation process and the agreed-upon resolution. No agreement from the mediation process is reached unless and until it is acceptable to all individuals. The mediator, in consultation with the AFS Chair if necessary, decides whether the Provost needs to approve the mediated resolution. Only if the Provost determines that the mediated resolution is administratively infeasible, then the mediator and the Provost and the complainant and other individuals shall jointly devise an agreeable alternative resolution. The final, agreed-upon document is signed by the mediator and all individuals. The fact that a mediated resolution was agreed upon is conveyed to CTAF in writing, but without any other details. The case is closed, and no further action is required by CTAF. The individuals in the dispute are responsible to each other for ensuring that the provisions of the agreement are followed.
In the event that the individuals do not agree to mediation or are not able to reach a mutual resolution to the dispute through mediation, the AFS will, at the request of the complainant, proceed with the Investigation Phase (Section b.ii).
The AFS shall evaluate the complainant's submitted materials (described in Section b.i.2) and interview the complainant. The complainant may ask for an advisor of their choice to be present during the interview and advisors are subject to the same confidentiality obligations applied to others in this process. The AFS may choose to interview some or all of the individuals identified by the complainant in the original materials.
The AFS may also request additional materials, including emails, annual reviews, or other documents from the complainant if such materials are necessary to verify the facts.
If at any point in the investigation the AFS decides that additional interviews and/or additional information from other individuals not initially provided by the complainant are necessary to come to a determination (see Section b.iii.1), the AFS will provide the complainant with a list of the additional individuals and information that are necessary. The AFS cannot contact any individuals without the written approval of the complainant during this stage of the investigation.
If the complainant is not willing to expand the scope of the investigation in this manner, then the AFS will proceed to the preliminary finding part of the decision phase (Section b.iii.1) and make a decision that the available evidence in the case does not establish that an academic freedom violation occurred (Section b.iii.1, c. Not Enough Evidence).
If the complainant is willing to expand the scope of the investigation, the AFS conducts additional interviews, reviews the additional information requested, and continues to evaluate the full body of evidence. At all times, all individuals shall cooperate with the process, preserve (and not delete or destroy) evidence, and provide information and materials as requested.
The existence of the case must remain confidential to anyone outside the AFS and individuals being interviewed. Case materials must not be shared with any interviewees. Case materials are shared only among members of the AFS.
The complainant has the option to request an informal resolution at any time during the investigation phase, following the process defined in Section b.i.5.
The complainant has the option to withdraw their complaint at any time during the investigation phase. Should the complainant request to withdraw the case, the AFS will issue no finding and the complainant's case will remain confidential. The case is closed and no further CTAF action is required.
Once the AFS has all available evidence or has enough evidence to reach a preliminary finding, the process enters the decision phase.
Based on all the evidence obtained in the order and manner described in Section b.i.2 and Section b.ii, the AFS deliberates and reaches a preliminary finding by majority vote regarding the academic freedom violation. The first vote is whether or not academic freedom was likely violated (preliminary finding "a" below). If not, the second vote is whether academic freedom has not been violated (preliminary finding "b" below). Otherwise, there is not enough evidence to make a determination (preliminary finding "c" below). The committee reaches one of the three possible outcomes regarding the complainant's academic freedom:
Likely Was Violated: If the initial finding is that academic freedom likely was violated, the complainant will be informed by the AFS Chair in writing of additional relevant individuals (as determined by the AFS) that need to be interviewed or additional information that needs to be confirmed. Some relevant individuals may not yet have been interviewed in order to protect the complainant. The complainant will have one calendar week to decide whether to withdraw the case or proceed and will inform the AFS Chair in writing of their decision:
Withdraw and Request Mediation and Informal Resolution: The complainant can decide to withdraw the case and request an informal resolution, following the process in Section b.i.5.
Withdraw the Case: The complainant can decide to withdraw the case, and the case will be closed and will remain confidential; no further CTAF action will be taken.
Proceed: If the complainant wishes to proceed, the case cannot be withdrawn after this point.
Has Not Been Violated: If the initial finding is that academic freedom has not been violated, the complainant will be informed by the AFS Chair in writing of the decision and the rationale for the decision. The case is closed and will remain confidential, no additional reports will be filed, and this academic freedom case shall not be resubmitted in the future. The outcome is conveyed to all relevant interviewed individuals by the AFS Chair. No further CTAF action will be taken.
Not Enough Evidence: If the initial finding is that there is not enough evidence to confirm the faculty member's academic freedom has been violated, the complainant will be informed by the AFS Chair in writing and the case will be closed and will remain confidential. This academic freedom case can only be resubmitted with new evidence of the alleged academic freedom violation that did not exist during the initial investigation. The outcome is conveyed to all interviewed relevant individuals by the AFS Chair. No further CTAF action will be taken.
If there are additional relevant individuals (as determined by the AFS, not the complainant) who have not yet been interviewed (e.g., so as to protect the complainant), the AFS will conduct those interviews and review any relevant materials that are identified through those interviews. The purpose of this additional step is intended for the AFS to help establish and confirm that an academic freedom violation occurred or to contradict an earlier finding. The AFS will inform any new interviewees that the existence of the case and all case materials must remain confidential. If any identified relevant individuals choose not to be interviewed by AFS, the process continues to the next step. All relevant individuals will be offered the opportunity to be interviewed and to provide evidence prior to a final decision.
When the AFS has completed interviewing all relevant individuals and reviewing any additional evidence, the AFS takes a final vote and based on a majority vote arrives at either a positive decision that an academic freedom violation occurred, or a negative decision that the evidence in the case does not establish that an academic freedom violation occurred.
Negative Decision: If the final vote results in a negative decision that the evidence in the case does not establish that an academic freedom violation occurred, then the complainant will be informed by the AFS Chair in writing of the decision. The case is closed and will remain confidential. The AFS issues a detailed, confidential report providing information on the finding, the procedures followed, the materials considered, and the rationale behind the decision that is shared with the complainant. The outcome is conveyed to all relevant individuals by the AFS Chair. No further CTAF action will be taken.
Positive Decision: If the final vote results in a positive decision that an academic freedom violation occurred, then the AFS Chair informs the complainant in writing of the decision, produces a detailed report of the finding, and advances the case to the resolution phase.
The existence of this academic freedom case - as well as the process followed and the outcome of the final decision - must remain confidential. This applies to the complainant, the members of the AFS, and all those interviewed during the process. Any breach in confidentiality by anyone involved in an alleged case of academic freedom violation will be considered a violation of the Faculty Conduct Policy and the AFS will follow the procedures laid out in that section (Chapter 10: Faculty Conduct Policies, Section I).
Upon confirmation of an academic freedom violation, the goal of the resolution is to protect the faculty member, provide information about the process and finding to all relevant individuals, and produce a plan that can help prevent academic freedom violations in the future. It is not CTAF's responsibility to assign intentionality or to sanction any individual.
Based on all information from the case, the AFS shall recommend possible corrective actions to rectify the academic freedom violation, if possible; protect the complainant against possible retaliation; and reduce the likelihood of similar academic freedom violations in the future, if possible. Such recommended actions may include but are not limited to changing the complainant's direct supervisor, extending the terms of a contract, and/or providing regular oversight of the complainant and supervisor, as appropriate.
The AFS issues a detailed, confidential report with recommendations to the Provost. If the complaint involves the Provost, the Provost's role is replaced by the President here and for the remainder of this procedure. The report provides information on the finding, the procedures followed, the materials considered, the rationale behind the decision, and recommendations from Step i (Recommended Actions) of this Section c. As much as possible, the identities of all interviewees should be anonymized. Upon receiving the report, the Provost must meet with the AFS to discuss the case. All aspects of this discussion are confidential between the AFS and the Provost. If any of the AFS's recommendations are administratively infeasible, the Provost and AFS will jointly devise feasible alternatives that address the AFS's concerns about protective and corrective measures. After this meeting, the AFS may choose to revise the recommendations in the report.
The Provost produces a management plan consistent with the report and recommendations that addresses the AFS's concerns about protective and corrective measures. The plan details protective actions taken for the complainant, corrective actions taken, if any, to any relevant individuals, and a timeline for implementation, as appropriate. In consultation with the AFS, the management plan will include appropriate oversight and safeguards to ensure non retaliation against the complainant.
The Provost shall pause the resolution phase until the Board of Trustees has voted on the Provost's positive tenure recommendations.
The Provost sends the management plan first to the AFS, and then the report and pertinent parts of the plan to the complainant.
If the complainant is a probationary faculty member consistent with the minimum time that must be served on a probationary appointment prior to the tenure review (described in Chapter Two: Academic Appointments, Section 3.a.i and in Chapter Three: Tenure, Section 1), the procedures in Section c.vi.1 of this policy are followed before proceeding with Section c.vii. The procedures are intended to help mitigate any damage that might have resulted from the academic freedom violation and to initiate appropriate interventions intended to address conditions that may have led to the violation.
In cases in which the AFS finds that the academic freedom of a probationary faculty member has been violated, the complainant will be invited to apply for tenure to protect the faculty member from retaliation or ongoing harm from the initial violation. The AFS chair will review the tenure process and all possible outcomes and implications with the candidate before the candidate makes a decision whether or not to accept the invitation. In this tenure process, CTAF shall seek to include and evaluate as many of the components of a normal tenure case as possible, without undue jeopardy to the faculty member's confidentiality in the academic freedom case. CTAF shall recommend for tenure if there is good evidence that the nominee would eventually be tenured by the normal procedure and tenure criteria.
All those involved in the tenure case shall endeavor to maintain the strictest confidentiality regarding the existence of the case and to expedite their role in the case to the maximum extent possible. The procedures otherwise to be followed in the tenure review and the granting of tenure (and, in the cases of assistant professors and assistant professors of teaching, promotion to the corresponding associate rank) will be, to the extent possible without exposing the faculty member to further jeopardy, those followed in a normal tenure case, including promotion to the associate rank when the faculty member is at the assistant rank. The Appendix contains details about the revised process.
The Provost sends the report and pertinent parts to all relevant individuals.
The Provost takes appropriate action following the management plan and submits an annual statement to the Chair of CTAF affirming that the management plan's requirements are being met, until the completion of the plan. At that time, the case is closed, and no further action is required by CTAF. If the complainant finds the management plan has not been effective in resolving the initial complaint, they can restart the complaint process (Step b.i). The Provost's office is required to maintain confidential records on management plans.
If the candidate decides to accept the invitation to apply for tenure, a Joint Tenure Committee will be formed according to normal procedure as long as neither elected member of the Department Tenure Committee nor the Department Head is directly involved in the academic freedom complaint. Where one (or more) of the three members of the DTC has been on a complainant's AFS, a modified Joint Tenure Committee will be formed consisting of five members of CTAF and three departmental colleagues, with the most recent past DTC member substituting for the member that is recused because of involvement with the academic freedom case. Members of the JTC that were not members of the AFS that reviewed the initial academic freedom complaint must be informed of the special nature of the case but shall not be given any details of the academic freedom case. This includes members of the DTC but may also include CTAF members where the CTAF membership of the JTC is different than the AFS. All members of the JTC shall keep the existence of the academic freedom case and the resulting tenure case confidential.
A modified procedure will be used to seek external reviews. Members of the modified DTC will seek commitments from senior faculty members (at the rank of associate professor or above) from outside WPI who are able to evaluate the candidate's tenure dossier. The DTC will specifically seek external reviewers similar to those who would have been chosen in a standard tenure case. Reviewers will be given a general explanation of the unusual situation (without providing any details or naming any individuals involved in the academic freedom case), along with copies of WPI's tenure criteria and an explanation of how early tenure cases should be evaluated in cases of academic freedom violation. Details of the tenure case will only be sent to external reviewers who agree in advance to keep the case in complete confidentiality, including from all members of the WPI community other than the JTC and the faculty governance coordinator. External reviewers will not be given any details about the academic freedom case.
No departmental interviews will be conducted. The candidate may choose to request letters from some departmental colleagues, other than DTC members, as part of their professional associate letters.
The JTC will deliberate and reach a decision to either table the early tenure application or recommend for tenure. If the decision is to table the case, the candidate is notified in writing by the CTAF member who served as the Chair of the JTC and the candidate will be eligible in the future to apply for tenure under the normal tenure process. All details about the academic freedom case shall remain confidential.
If the JTC's decision is to recommend for early tenure, it will provide a unitary recommendation to the AFS, written by the CTAF member who served as the Chair of the JTC and signed by all members of the JTC. Each member of AFS will then sign the recommendation and send it to the Provost. While the Provost can consult with the appropriate Dean and the President, the details of the academic freedom case will remain confidential from the Board of Trustees.
The Provost may ask to meet with the JTC to discuss the recommendation and the Provost must meet with the JTC in the case of a disagreement about a tenure recommendation. Any such discussion between the Provost and the JTC is about the tenure case only, does not involve the AFS, does not include materials or issues regarding the academic freedom violation, and is confidential between the Provost and the JTC only.
(Amended by the Faculty, May 9, 2017)
(Amended by the Faculty, March 13, 2024)
Faculty members may submit specific grievances to the Faculty Review Committee (FRC). For these faculty grievances, the FRC has the power to review and to require reconsideration of:
where the action, decision, or recommendation is alleged by an aggrieved faculty member to result from:
When a grievance on any one or more of these grounds is submitted, the grievant shall present all factual or other data that they deem pertinent to the case, as well as all the relevant documentation available to them.
For grievances arising from non-renewal of a probationary appointment (see Chapter Two: Academic Appointments, Section 3.a.iii) or from nonrenewal or termination of appointments of secured nontenure-track faculty members on 3-year and 5-(or more)-year contracts (see Chapter Two: Academic Appointments, Section 4.a.vi, Section 4.a.vii, Section 4.a.viii, Section 4.b.iv, Section 4.b.v), the grievance must be filed within ten business days after the applicable latest non-renewal or termination notification date as stipulated in this Faculty Handbook.
For grievances arising from a negative tenure or promotion decision, the grievance must be filed within ten business days after that meeting of the Board of Trustees (usually February) at which the Provost and President present their tenure and promotion decisions for Board approval, or ten days after the tenure or promotion candidate is notified by the Provost of the negative decision, whichever is later.
When a matter regarding a faculty grievance comes before the FRC, a subcommittee of three elected and two appointed members of the FRC are selected by the Chair of FRC to review the grievance. The exercise of the functions of the FRC requires the presence and participation of all five members of the subcommittee as constituted for a particular grievance.
FRC members who have had a significant prior involvement with the matter in question, or who have a personal relationship with any of the parties directly involved in the matter, shall recuse themselves from participating in the proceedings. Recusals may be requested by FRC members, the grievant, or other parties in the action, such as the Provost or the Chair of CTAF or COAP. Additional recusals necessary to create the subcommittee with three elected and two appointed members will be arranged by the Chair of FRC such that recusals are distributed evenly over the FRC membership.
When a grievance is submitted, the FRC subcommittee shall first decide whether the allegations and the evidence submitted by the grievant merit detailed consideration of the matter, and shall inform the grievant and the appropriate administrator(s) promptly of this decision.
If the FRC subcommittee decides that detailed consideration of a grievance is in order, it shall expeditiously investigate the matter in the manner that it deems appropriate. If the subcommittee finds that there are grounds for formal interviews, it shall conduct such interviews under confidentiality safeguards identical to those practiced by the Faculty Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom (CTAF) or the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (COAP). Only WPI personnel may participate in such interviews.
At all stages of considering the grievance, the FRC subcommittee shall have access to all the relevant documentation under the control of the University in the same manner and to the same extent as had the administrators and committees or other faculty bodies that participated in the decisions or recommendations to which the grievance refers, and with the same obligation of confidentiality that these administrators, committees or bodies were under with regard to any particular document. The body of documents and files available to the FRC must be identical, without addition, deletion, or embellishment, to that available to those participants.
In carrying out its investigation, the FRC subcommittee may appoint ad hoc committees of investigation, reporting to it, and consisting of faculty members with tenure who may, but need not, be members of the FRC. The FRC shall be free to discuss the grievance with the Provost and the President.
The FRC through its subcommittee for each case is charged with reviewing a grievance in a prompt and timely manner, with the intent that it will issue its report prior to the close of the academic year in which the filing was made. Should a grievance be pending at the close of the academic year, its resolution will continue to be the responsibility of the original reviewing subcommittee, notwithstanding the election of a new committee (see Chapter One: Governance, Bylaw Three, Section IX).
Allegations of Improper Procedure: In determining whether a decision or recommendation that is the subject of a grievance was affected by improper procedure, the FRC may examine whether the decision or recommendation by an administrator, committee, or other faculty body was the result of adequate consideration in terms of the relevant standards of the WPI. In no case shall the FRC substitute its judgment for that of the maker(s) of the original decision or recommendation.
If the FRC subcommittee concludes, after detailed consideration of a grievance, that the allegations in it have been established in full or in part and that the aggrieved matters have affected the decision or recommendation at issue, then the subcommittee has the power to require of the maker(s) of the decision or the maker(s) of the recommendation that they reconsider this decision or recommendation to the extent that it is affected by the established allegations. The conclusion of the Committee, its recommendations, the basis for those recommendations, and, if appropriate, requests for reconsideration shall be recorded in a report, and this report shall be provided to the grievant, the maker(s) of the questioned decision or recommendation, and the President. The outcome of a reconsideration required by the FRC subcommittee shall be promptly reported to the FRC subcommittee.
The filing of a grievance or the granting of a reconsideration as an outcome of that filing in no way extends the period of employment beyond that which would apply if no grievance were filed, nor do filing and reconsideration in any way entitle the grievant to automatic tenure through AAUP rules.
Reconsideration of Tenure or Promotion Cases: In the event that, for a tenure candidate, the Joint Tenure Committee, or, for a promotion candidate, the Joint Promotion Committee, conducts a reconsideration of a case, it shall use only the body of documents available during the first hearing of the case, without addition, deletion, or embellishment, except for the FRC subcommittee report on the case and any other information the Joint Tenure or Promotion Committee wishes to obtain using its normal procedures, provided such additional information pertains directly to issues raised in the FRC subcommittee report.
Final Appeals: If the reconsideration(s) required by the FRC subcommittee lead to the same negative decision as that which generated the grievance, the grievant may make a final appeal to the President, who may reverse or uphold the decision.
Top | Ch 1 | Ch 2 | Ch 3 | Ch 4 | Ch 5 | Ch 6 | Ch 7 | Ch 8 | Ch 9 | Ch 10
(Endorsed by the WPI Faculty, May 6, 2004)
WPI's programs shall emphasize fundamental concepts, knowledge, and skills, and ensure that students are able to apply them within the context of their major disciplines.
WPI's programs shall emphasize the development of students as effective thinkers and communicators, able to use evidence to present their ideas with logic, clarity, and persuasion.
Programmatic breadth in general, and balance between technical and humanistic components in particular, are the hallmarks of a WPI undergraduate education. In addition to educating students in their major discipline, WPI's programs shall provide students with a broad preparation for fulfilling lives as responsible professionals and informed citizens.
Grounded in project and course experiences, a WPI education shall provide a firm foundation for life-long learning in a variety of fields. WPI programs shall emphasize inquiry-based learning and open-ended problem solving. Students shall bear a considerable responsibility for learning outside of the classroom.
WPI's programs shall be sufficiently flexible so as to allow students significant choice in and responsibility for planning their courses of study. Faculty, via the central teaching tasks of project and academic advising, shall ensure that student learning experiences encourage critical reflection, decision making, and personal growth.
WPI's programs shall emphasize the scientific, technical, societal, and humanistic contexts in which knowledge is applied and constructed. Educational activities shall challenge students to make connections between disciplines, to consider multiple viewpoints, and to appreciate the consequences of their actions. The curriculum shall prominently feature integrative and interdisciplinary activities.
WPI's learning environment and educational activities shall balance personal responsibility and individual accountability with cooperation, collaboration, and mutual respect. Members of the community shall be encouraged to value academic integrity, and to become conscious of the value that such integrity confers to themselves and to the community.
WPI shall be committed to assessment and improvement of student learning.
(Endorsed by the WPI Faculty, May 6, 2004)
Graduates of WPI will:
WPI shall be committed to regular review of its undergraduate offerings in light of these Undergraduate Learning Outcomes. CAP and UOAC recommend that the Outcomes be conveyed to the Board of Trustees, be conveyed to current and future faculty and undergraduate students, and be included with the Mission and Goals Statements in future editions of the Undergraduate Catalog and the Faculty Handbook.
(Approved by Faculty, October 9, 2014)
Background
Pronounced grade inflation for MQP, IQP, and Sufficiency activity is evident over the last twenty years. This has, in turn, resulted in a steady increase of the percentage of students graduating with honors. Furthermore, data indicate that project grading standards vary considerably from department to department. This not only creates an inequity with respect to honors, but may create barriers to student or faculty participation in multidisciplinary project activities.
Recommendations
Each term a student is registered for a project, the student receives a grade reflecting judgment of accomplishments for that term.
Upon completion of the project, students will receive an overall project grade. It is important to note that this grade reflects not only the final products of the project (e.g., results, reports, etc.), but also the process by which they were attained. No amount of last-minute effort should turn a mediocre project effort into an A.
The available grades and their interpretations are as follows:
A: This grade denotes excellent work that attains all of the project goals and learning outcomes. The product and process of this work meet all of the expectations and exceed them in several areas.
B: This grade denotes consistently good work that attains the project goals and learning outcomes. The product and process of this work meet but generally do not exceed all of the expectations.
C: This grade denotes acceptable work that partially attains project goals and learning outcomes. The product and process of this work meet some but not all expectations.
SP: This grade denotes satisfactory progress and certifies sufficient accomplishments to earn credit for that term. Faculty who assign this grade should provide clear feedback to the student regarding his or her progress during the term. The use of the SP grade is discouraged except in circumstances where the faculty member is unable to judge the quality of the work, yet can attest that the granting of credit is appropriate. This is a temporary grade and must be replaced by a permanent grade consistent with the criteria outlined above by, if not before, the end of the project.
NR: This grade denotes work that did not attain the project goals or learning outcomes and is insufficient for registered credit. Both product and process were inconsistent with acceptable project work at WPI as outlined above.
NAC: This grade is reserved for performance that is unacceptable. It might mean that a student's performance (or lack of it) has seriously impeded group progress, or it has embarrassed the group, a project sponsor, or WPI. Note that this grade remains on the transcript.
The results of a project should be such that an outside reviewer would reasonably deem the project as being worthy of the credit and grade given, based on evidence such as the project report.
In light of the above grading criteria, it is strongly suggested that a formal project proposal or contract be developed early in the project activity, so that all participants in the activity have a clear understanding of the project goals and advisor and student expectations.
(Approved by the Faculty, December 5, 2002)
The purpose of the Grade Appeal Policy is to provide the student with a safeguard against receiving an unfair final grade, while respecting the academic responsibility of the instructor. Thus, this procedure recognizes that,
Every student has a right to receive a grade assigned upon a fair and unprejudiced evaluation based on a method that is neither arbitrary nor capricious; and,
Instructors have the right to assign a grade based on any method that is professionally acceptable, submitted in writing to all students, and applied equally.
Instructors have the responsibility to provide careful evaluation and timely assignment of appropriate grades. Course and project grading methods should be explained to students at the beginning of the term. WPI presumes that the judgment of the instructor of record is authoritative, and the final grades assigned are correct.
A grade appeal shall be confined to charges of unfair action toward an individual student and may not involve a challenge of an instructor's grading standard. A student has a right to expect thoughtful and clearly defined approaches to course, project, and research project grading, but it must be recognized that varied standards and individual approaches to grading are valid. The grade appeal considers whether a grade was determined in a fair and appropriate manner; it does not attempt to grade or re-grade individual assignments or projects. It is incumbent on the student to substantiate the claim that their final grade represents unfair treatment, compared to the standard applied to other students. Only the final grade in a course or project may be appealed. In the absence of compelling reasons, such as clerical error, prejudice, or capriciousness, the grade assigned by the instructor of record is to be considered final.
Only arbitrariness, prejudice, and/or error will be considered as legitimate grounds for a grade change appeal.
Arbitrariness: The grade awarded represents such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the instructor did not actually exercise professional judgment.
Prejudice: The grade awarded was motivated by ill will and is not indicative of the student's academic performance.
Error: The instructor made a mistake in fact.
This grade appeal procedure applies only when a student initiates a grade appeal and not when the instructor decides to change a grade on their own initiative.
This procedure does not cover instances where students have been assigned grades based on academic dishonesty or academic misconduct, which are addressed in WPI's Academic Honesty Policy. Also excluded from this procedure are grade appeals alleging discrimination, harassment or retaliation in violation of WPI's Sexual Harassment Policy, which shall be referred to the appropriate office at WPI as required by law and by WPI policy.
The Grade Appeal Procedure strives to resolve a disagreement between student and instructor concerning the assignment of a grade in a collegial manner. The intent is to provide a mechanism for the informal discussion of differences of opinion, and for the formal adjudication by faculty only when necessary. In all instances, students who believe that an appropriate grade has not been assigned must first seek to resolve the matter informally with the instructor of record. If the matter cannot be resolved informally, the student must present their case in a timely fashion in the procedure outlined below. Under normal circumstances, the grade appeal process must be started near the beginning of the next regular academic term (for term grades) or near the beginning of the next regular academic semester (for semester grades) after the disputed grade is received.
Student Grade Appeal Procedure
A student who wishes to question a grade must discuss the matter first with the instructor of record as soon as possible, preferably no later than one week after the start of the next regular academic term (A-D, for term grades) or the start of the next regular semester (Fall or Spring, for semester grades) after receiving the grade. In most cases, the discussion between the student and the instructor should suffice and the matter will not need to be carried further. The student should be aware that the only valid basis for grade appeal beyond this step is to establish that an instructor assigned a grade that was arbitrary, prejudiced, or in error.
If the student's concerns remain unresolved after the discussion with the instructor, the student may submit a written request to meet with the appropriate Department Head, within one week of speaking with the instructor. For a grade in a course, independent study, Inquiry Seminar or Practicum, Major Qualifying Project (MQP), or thesis or dissertation credit, the appropriate person is the instructor's Department Head. For a grade in an Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP), the appropriate person is the Dean of the Global School (or their designee). If the instructor of record is the Department Head or the Dean of the Global School, then the student should request to meet with the Dean of Undergraduate Studies (for undergraduate students) or the Dean of Graduate Studies (for graduate students), or an alternate if necessary, who will serve as the appropriate Department Head in this step. The appropriate Department Head/Dean will meet within one week with the student, and, if they believe that the complaint may have merit, with the instructor. After consultation with the Department Head/Dean, the instructor may choose to let the grade remain, to change a course grade, to petition the Committee on Academic Operations to change a grade for a Degree Requirement (MQP, IQP, or Humaniteis and Arts Inquiry Seminar or Practicum), or to petition the Committee on Graduate Studies and Research to change a grade. The Department Head will communicate the result of these discussions to the student.
If the matter remains unresolved after Step 2, the student should submit a written request within one week to the Provost's Office to request an ad hoc Faculty Committee for Appeal of a Grade. The Provost's representative (the Dean of Undergraduate Studies, or the Dean of Graduate Studies, or alternate if necessary) will meet with the student, and will ask the Faculty Review Committee to appoint the ad hoc Committee for Appeal of a Grade. The FRC, in consultation with the Associate Provost, will select the members of the ad hoc committee. The Chair of the FRC will convene the ad hoc committee and serve as its non-voting chair.
The ad hoc committee for all undergraduate appeals will be composed of three members of the Faculty Review Committee (FRC).
The ad hoc committee for appeal of a graduate course, thesis credit or dissertation credit grade will be composed of three faculty members. The first member will be the Department Head, Program Director, or Departmental Graduate Coordinator from the instructor's Department. If all three have a conflict of interest, then the Provost's representative will serve on the ad hoc committee. The remaining two members will be two FRC members with no conflicts of interest with either the student or the instructor. Apparent conflicts of interest would include the student's thesis or dissertation advisor, members of the student's graduate committee, and faculty members with close research collaboration or project advising relationships with the instructor.
Appointees to the ad hoc committee must not have any apparent conflicts of interest with the instructor of record (which might include but are not limited to frequent co-advising or research collaboration).
The Chair of the FRC requests a written statement from the student and a written response from the instructor. The ad hoc committee examines the available written information on the dispute, may meet with the student and with the instructor, and may meet with others and gather additional information as it sees fit.
Through its inquiries and deliberations, the ad hoc committee is charged to determine whether the grade was assigned in a fair and appropriate manner, or whether clear and convincing evidence of arbitrariness, prejudice, and/or error might justify changing the grade. The ad hoc committee will make its decisions based on a majority vote.
If the ad hoc committee concludes that the grade was assigned in a fair and appropriate manner, then the ad hoc committee will report its conclusion in writing to the student and instructor. This decision of the ad hoc committee is final and not subject to appeal.
If the ad hoc faculty committee determines that compelling reasons exist for changing the grade, it would request that the instructor make the change, providing the instructor with a written explanation of its reasons. At this point, the instructor may change the grade. If the instructor declines to change the grade, they must provide a written explanation for refusing. If the ad hoc faculty committee concludes that the instructor's written explanation justifies the original grade, then the ad hoc committee will report this in writing to the student and instructor and the matter will be closed. If the ad hoc faculty committee concludes that it would be unjust to allow the original grade to stand, then the ad hoc committee will determine what grade is to be assigned. The new grade may be higher than, the same as, or lower than the original grade. Having made this determination, the three members of the committee will sign the grade change form and transmit it to the Registrar. The instructor and student will be advised of the new grade. Under no circumstances may persons other than the original faculty member or the review committee change a grade. The written records of these proceedings will be filed in the student's file in the Registrar's Office.
Faculty Grade Change Procedure
The Student Grade Appeal Procedure affirms the principle that grades should be considered final. The principle that grades for courses, projects, and thesis and dissertation credit should be considered final does not excuse an instructor from the responsibility to explain his or her grading standards to students and to assign grades in a fair and appropriate manner. The appeal procedure also provides an instructor with the opportunity to change a grade for a course or project on his or her own initiative. The appeal procedure recognizes that errors can be made and that an instructor who decides that it would be unfair to allow a final grade to stand due to error, prejudice or arbitrariness may request a change of grade for a course or project without the formation of an ad hoc committee.
For undergraduate courses or degree requirements (MQP or IQP), an instructor may request a grade change in one of two ways. First, for courses, an instructor may submit a course grade change to the Registrar at any time prior to a student's graduation. Second, for degree requirements (MQP or IQP), an instructor must submit a petition to the Committee on Academic Operations (CAO) to change the grade.
For graduate courses, thesis credit, or dissertation credit, an instructor may request a grade change by submitting a course, thesis credit or dissertation credit grade change to the Registrar at any time prior to a student's graduation.
Top | Ch 1 | Ch 2 | Ch 3 | Ch 4 | Ch 5 | Ch 6 | Ch 7 | Ch 8 | Ch 9 | Ch 10
The Board of Trustees voted the following recommendation by one of its committees, at the Annual Meeting on June 6, 1959:
That a FACULTY AWARD be established to give recognition from time to time to a faculty member who, in the judgment of a suitable committee of the faculty, is an outstanding teacher who has made a notable professional contribution.
It is important in the concept of this award that only faculty members known for excellence in teaching be eligible.
The professional contribution could be in any appropriate category, including distinguished excellence in teaching; writing a fine textbook; study or teaching; conceiving an idea of great importance to the advancement of the engineering profession or of engineering education; directing or conducting outstanding research; creating an important invention; carrying out some distinguished service to the Institute, the community, the Nation or to mankind.
Nominations should be made to the Board of Trustees by a committee of the faculty. The Executive Committee of the Faculty might perform this function. However, there would seem to be greater merit in having a special committee for this important, time-requiring purpose - made up of faculty with a rotating membership involving, after a starting period, at least three years of service per member. Such a committee might well be chosen by faculty members who have served at WPI for more than a designated number of years. It is proposed that a committee of the faculty be designated to prepare Governing Rules relating to the Faculty Award and to the Faculty Award Committee, its composition, organization, and operations. These Governing Rules should be subject to approval of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, with counsel of the Institute President and Executive Vice-President.
It is proposed that the Board of Trustees specify that except in most unusual circumstances, not more than one such award will be made per year, and that there shall be no requirement that such an award be made each year.
It is proposed that the award consist of an appropriately worded, hand-illuminated, framed certificate or a suitably designed and worded, wood-mounted plaque. In addition, it is proposed that at some suitable, prominent location at the Institute, there be an appropriate plaque on which will be inserted the names and years of Faculty Award recipients. Further, it is proposed that the Journal or handbook of the Institute include the names of Faculty Award recipients who are currently on the WPI faculty, together with a terse statement of the faculty contribution recognized in each case.
As to the occasion for presenting such awards and as to other questions which may arise, it is proposed that the faculty committee assigned responsibility for formulating Governing Rules be given such additional responsibilities also - their decisions similarly to be subject to approval of the Board Chairman.
(Faculty Award Committee, April 13, 1960)
In the selection of the recipient of the Faculty Award, the Faculty Award Committee acted in accordance with the general instructions provided in the action of the Board of Trustees and used the following criteria in making its choice.
First, and foremost, the recipient had to satisfy the requirement of being an outstanding teacher. The Committee realized at the start of its deliberations that what constituted an "outstanding teacher" would, of necessity, involve intangibles incapable of being transformed into clearly stated language. With this in mind, the Committee felt that the teacher would have to be judged as a whole, rather than by a strictly numerical rating system assigning certain weights to fixed categories. However, the Committee did examine each nomination with respect to the degree to which some of the following attributes of an excellent teacher were met.
The excellent teacher is sincerely interested in both the students and his subject matter. He has the knack of "getting his material across." He is devoted to the persistent and patient search for truth, and is anxious to share his learning experiences with others. The first-rate professor has far more than the average ability and desire to communicate. He is excited about the why and how of many things.
An important part of the reward of an outstanding teacher is in the stimulation of the students' intellectual curiosity, and the feeling that he has played a significant role in their resulting growth. Frequently, his approach is imaginative and sensitive. He expects and obtains a high level of accomplishment. This demands, among other things, ability on the instructor's part to equitably evaluate the work of his students. His interest in them is further evidenced by a willingness to patiently discuss their problems with them. He is respected by his students and is esteemed by his colleagues for his knowledge, scholarship and intellectual integrity. Usually such a person is considered as an authority in his chosen field, and is so recognized by other authorities in that field.
In addition to the above attributes the Committee also took into account other scholarly and professional contributions of the nominee such as publications, consulting work in his field, activities in professional organizations, research, and public service. And finally, the recipient's career was characterized by generous service to Tech.
In summary, the selection of the recipient was made on the basis of the individual as a whole.
The following rules were also drawn up and followed in making the selection:
(Committee on Governance, November 20, 1995)
The selection committee for the Trustees' Award for Outstanding Teaching was established by recommendation of the Committee on Governance, November 20, 1995, as follows:
COG recommends to the Provost and the Trustees' Committee on Academic Policy and Student Affairs the following composition for the award committee: five faculty, including the three most immediately prior recipients (if willing and able to serve); one faculty member nominated by COG from a slate selected by CAP, CSA [now CASL], and CGSR; and one faculty member nominated by the Provost; five students, including four undergraduates nominated by SGA and one graduate student nominated by GSA. The faculty serve rolling three-year terms; the students one-year terms.
The Selection Committee shall consist of the three most recent recipients of the awards, the Associate Provost and a person selected by the Committee on Graduate Studies & Research. The chair of the committee should be the award recipient serving the third year. If the committee cannot be wholly formed in this manner, then the Chair of the Committee on Graduate Studies and Research shall make appointments as necessary.
Except in most unusual circumstances, not more than one such award will be made per year. There is no requirement that the award by made each year.
The name of the nominee selected should be given to the Provost by March 28.
The recipient must be a member of the WPI faculty as defined in the Constitution of the WPI faculty.
Members of the Selection Committee and previous recipients of the award are ineligible.
Nominations may be submitted by members of the faculty, department heads, administrators, and students.
In the 2003-2004 academic year the recipient will be selected for creative scholarship for Engineering and Management; in 2004-2005 Natural, Computer and Mathematical Sciences; in 2005-2006, Humanities and Social Science; in 2006-2007, Engineering and Management; 2007-2008 Natural, Computer and Mathematical Sciences. This five-year cycle will start again in 2008-2009.
The award should be for continuing creative scholarship over at least a five-year period at WPI rather than for a particular single accomplishment, although naturally an individual brilliant accomplishment should be weighed by the Committee.
The Selection Committee will select the award recipient by considering the creative scholarship of the nominees. They may solicit scholarship materials from the nominators, nominees, department heads, or others as necessary. Such supporting materials should reflect a minimum five-year period at WPI.
Revisions of these rules may be initiated by the Selection Committee. Proposed changes will be submitted to the Provost.
Note 1: The Award is conferred for scholarship and research in a discipline regardless of the individual's department.
Note 2: The term "creative scholarship" encompasses creativity exemplified in works such as musical composition and poetry.
Resolution Re: Trustees' Award For Outstanding Academic Advising - February 2000
In recognition of the important role that academic advisors play in guiding and mentoring students through states of professional and personal development, the WPI student chapter of Tau Beta Pi, the national engineering honor society, has for about 10 years presented an annual award for outstanding academic advising. This faculty member is selected based on input from the entire WPI student body.
The students of Tau Beta Pi, wishing to enhance the status and recognition of academic advising on the WPI campus, are requesting that the WPI Board of Trustees establish a WPI Trustees' Award for Outstanding Academic Advising, to be awarded at Faculty Convocation along with the current awards for outstanding teaching and outstanding creative scholarship. It is their hope that this award would gain the prestige already accorded to the existing two Trustees' Awards, and that it would carry the same monetary stipend. The faculty Committee on Advising and Student Life voted to endorse this recommendation at their meeting of January 26, 2000, and WPI's senior administration endorses that recommendation.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees, upon the recommendation of the senior administration of WPI, hereby establishes the Trustees' Award for Outstanding Academic Advising to be presented annually and to carry with it a stipend equal to the then current stipends for the Trustees' Awards for outstanding teaching and outstanding creative scholarship.
Romeo Moruzzi grew up in the north end of Boston and served with the U.S. Air Force in Europe during World War II. After the war, he graduated from Northeastern, received his Master's Degree from Harvard and his Doctor of Engineering degree from Yale.
In 1954, after several years on the faculty of the University of Connecticut, he joined the Electrical Engineering Department of WPI. He set exceptionally high standards for his students while always concerned with their personal welfare. As the years went on, he served not only as a role model for his undergraduates, but a valued mentor to the younger faculty.
In the late 1960s, Romeo became a campus leader in two historic developments. Through his efforts, and at some risk to his own position he was the person primarily responsible for bringing tenure to the faculty of WPI. In 1969, he was one of the six faculty elected to the WPI Planning Committee which developed and promoted the famous "Two Towers" series. These documents revolutionized education at WPI, and in May 1970, they were accepted by the faculty for implementation as the WPI Plan.
Romeo retired from WPI in the late 1980s and passed away in 1993. It is in his memory that the Romeo L. Moruzzi Award has been established to recognize innovation in undergraduate education by a young faculty member. The Educational Development Council accepts nominations and selects the award winner on an annual basis.
(Approved by the Trustees, March 2, 2003)
Award Title: Denise Nicoletti Trustees' Award for Service to Community
This award is in memory of Denise Nicoletti, a faculty member in Electrical and Computer Engineering from 1991-2002, whose passion for life and humanity touched many lives. The award is intended to keep her spirit alive in the WPI community.
The award consists of an engraved plaque and a check. At the initiation of the award the amount of the check is $1500; this amount may increase commensurate with the other Trustee Awards.
Candidates will be determined by an open nomination process. Anyone inside or outside WPI may submit nominations. Nominations must include:
The committee may seek additional information from the nominator or others. Nominations must be submitted to the President's Office or other designated location, with a target deadline of November 1 of each year, in hard copy or by email.
The selection committee will consist of:
It is suggested that the current "Faculty Honors Convocation" be renamed "WPI Honors Convocation", be reorganized appropriately, and the presentation be made at that event.
Professor Denise Nicoletti was a member of the WPI faculty from 1991 until July 22, 2002.
She was the first tenured female faculty member in the history of Electrical and Computer Engineering Department. During eleven years of association with WPI she made major contributions to knowledge in her discipline, brought the outside world of engineering into her classroom, and became a mentor and a role model for WPI female students as well as new faculty/staff. Such was her compassion and commitment to each student that she greatly aided the academic success of the first blind student who graduated in electrical engineering at WPI.
Among her many contributions to the local community were the dissemination of science knowledge among youngsters, and the encouragement of young girls to "think engineering," to aspire to become tomorrow's scientists and astronauts. This thrust culminated in the foundation of Camp Reach in 1996 and an NSF-funded project for developing pre-engineering curricula for grades K-6.
All of her activities were marked by concern for the disadvantaged and for the student in trouble. She upheld high standards of fairness and ethical conduct, and she stood up for the rights of women on the WPI campus. She contributed broadly to the welfare of students and to the advancement of WPI, leaving an indelible mark with her teaching, advising and her humane attitude. She accomplished all these things within the context of her family and local community, being a mother, a wife, and an active member of her church congregation.
Top | Ch 1 | Ch 2 | Ch 3 | Ch 4 | Ch 5 | Ch 6 | Ch 7 | Ch 8 | Ch 9 | Ch 10
(Faculty Handbook, 1980)
The University encourages members of the faculty to do consulting work and, where appropriate, to expand consulting activities into on-campus research programs.
Participation as a consultant for extra compensation should be cleared with the Department Head concerned, and while time is made available for such participation, it must not substantially detract from full-time salaried responsibilities to the University.
Ordinarily, outside consulting work or participation in a university-industry program for extra compensation should not exceed the equivalent of one day per week. Participation in industry-sponsored programs requiring the equivalent of more than one day per week should be undertaken with released time from teaching with no additional compensation beyond the "one day equivalent." Each member of the faculty who undertakes consulting work or research is encouraged to seek that kind of activity which will enhance his or her long-range professional development.
In work for industry, routine testing in competition with established commercial testing laboratories is discouraged, unless no commercial testing facilities are reasonably available. More than casual use of University facilities for outside consulting work is discouraged. Where the Department Head believes that such use is justified, the Director of Research Administration must be consulted and a formal contract should be entered into between the University and the client to be sure that appropriate charges are made. Modest use of special campus facilities should compensate the Department for such use.
In all work with industry, arrangements should be made with the sponsor to permit adequate publication of results, where appropriate, without jeopardizing the proprietary interests of the sponsor.
The University letterhead is not to be used for promotion of one's own business interests or for any purposes other than University business.
(Modified, April 14, 2011 and October 14, 2011)
Compensation for summer academic activities (including independent study courses, project work and thesis advising) and summer educational youth programs (e.g., Frontiers, STRIVE, and GEMS) will be paid on a lump sum basis. Payment will be made on the last business day of the month in which the activity ends. These will be coordinated by the Summer Programs Office.
Payroll Authorization forms should be submitted to the Provost's office by the respective Department Head for faculty assigned administrative summer responsibilities (e.g., Acting Head, etc.).
First- or second-year faculty members scheduled to receive summer support should contact the Provost's office before June 1 of the year(s) in which the summer support is to be paid.
WPI policy allows faculty members with summer salary and employee benefits budgeted on a sponsored project to receive supplemental income.
Monthly compensation for work performed during the summer will be paid at the rate of 1/9 of the faculty member's regular academic year salary.
Authorization forms for summer salary to be charged to sponsored or restricted accounts must be completed, approved by the Department Head, and forwarded to the Provost's office before the 10th of the month in which the salary is to be paid. Faculty members may indicate whether or not pension (TIAA/CREF) contributions should be made and charged to the grant.
Please check with the Office of Sponsored Programs regarding any restrictions on the total amount of supplemental pay allowed by a particular contract or grant.
WPI place no restriction on maximum faculty compensation. Additional duties may receive additional compensation beyond the regular monthly rate. However, faculty with sponsored research projects must comply with limitations on compensation or "total effort" imposed by the granting agency.
Payment for teaching and research activities must be received as salary. From time to time contributions may be made to faculty members' professional development accounts but these deposits may not be taken in place of salary. WPI does not contribute to faculty pension plans for summer academic (non-research) activities.
Faculty are required to participate in WPI's retirement plan on the first day of the month following completion of twelve months of continuous service, if in an eligible class of participants, and working at least 1000 hours per calendar year. The waiting period will be waived for anyone with one year of continuous service as a non-student at any non-profit educational organization or teaching hospital, or already participating in TIAA/CREF immediately prior to the start of employment at WPI.
Detailed information on WPI's Retirement Plan is available in the "Summary Plan Description" available in the Human Resources office.
Top | Ch 1 | Ch 2 | Ch 3 | Ch 4 | Ch 5 | Ch 6 | Ch 7 | Ch 8 | Ch 9 | Ch 10
(Presented to the Faculty, December 16, 2016)
(Adopted by the Board of Trustees, February 24, 2017)
(Revised by the Faculty, October 9, 2024)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, November 1, 2024)
Worcester Polytechnic Institute is committed to ensuring that its research and other activities are conducted in a manner that upholds the integrity and credibility of its faculty, staff, students, and associates. This policy establishes a shared ethical standard of ensuring that relationships with business entities are transparent, grounded in objectivity, and do not improperly influence professional judgment, exercise of WPI responsibilities, or performance of WPI-related activities. This policy and its procedures promote compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, and sponsor policies regarding financial conflict of interest, including among others the policies of the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, and private foundations.
For the purpose of this policy, a Conflict of Interest means a situation in which an individual's financial interests and relationships/commitments outside of WPI could improperly influence that individual's professional judgment, exercise of WPI responsibilities, or performance of WPI-related activities.
WPI recognizes the value of entrepreneurship, as well as engagement in external organizations and activities. It encourages faculty, staff, and students to engage in appropriate outside relationships and activities, including consulting and starting their own companies. However, the financial interests that accompany such relationships may lead to real or apparent financial conflicts of interest. These financial interests need to be disclosed, reviewed, and managed in accordance with this policy and the associated procedures.
This policy applies to all faculty and exempt staff employed by WPI. It also applies to all other individuals with responsibility for the design, conduct, or reporting of sponsored research at WPI, including students, consultants, and affiliate faculty.
Annually, covered individuals, including those who are temporarily away from campus (e.g., leave, sabbatical), must complete a Conflict of Interest (COI) Disclosure listing all significant financial interests and relationships/commitments outside of WPI which are related to their institutional responsibilities at WPI. "Institutional responsibilities" may include, but are not limited to teaching, research, departmental administration, committee membership, purchasing of goods and services etc. Covered individuals must disclose their own financial interests as well as those held by members of their families. A current disclosure must be on file prior to the submission of any proposal in which the covered individual is named.
In addition to the annual disclosure requirements, all covered individuals must complete a new disclosure within 30 days of a substantial change in a business or financial interest that relates to their WPI institutional responsibilities. A "substantial change" includes, but is not limited to, the acquisition of a new financial interest or an increase in the value of an existing financial interest to a value that qualifies it as a significant financial interest.
Covered individuals must disclose all significant financial interests ("SFIs") that reasonably appear to be related to the individual's institutional responsibilities. An SFI must be disclosed even if the individual does not believe that it creates a conflict of interest. Significant Financial Interests include any of the following when reasonably related to the covered individual's institutional responsibilities:
Remuneration. Any remuneration (income) received from an outside entity in the calendar year preceding the COI disclosure, or anticipated during the calendar year following the disclosure. Disclosure is required when the annual amount received from an entity is $5,000 or greater.
Equity Interests. Any equity (ownership) interests in a business entity. This includes stock, stock options, warrants, futures, purchase rights, or convertible securities. Disclosure is required when the market value of the equity exceeds $5,000 for a given entity, or when a covered individual owns 5% or more of an entity's total equity. Equity in non-publicly-traded entities, or any other equity where the value cannot be readily determined through reference to market prices, must be disclosed regardless of the amount or value. Equity interests which are subject to a vesting requirement must be reported regardless of whether or not they are vested.
Royalties Paid in Connection with Intellectual Property Rights. The value of any royalties paid in connection with intellectual property rights, e.g., patents and copyrights, and any agreements to share in royalties related to such rights.
Travel Expenses. Covered individuals must disclose travel that is estimated to exceed $5000 and is paid for or reimbursed by an outside entity (except as described in the following section). New sponsored travel expenses should be reported within 30 days of the trip by way of an updated disclosure.
Covered individuals are not required to disclose the following:
Salaries, royalties, or other remuneration paid by WPI to the covered individual. This includes remuneration paid from grant funds awarded to WPI.
Income (including honoraria) from seminars, lectures, or teaching engagements sponsored by a federal, state, or local government agency, an institution of higher education, an academic teaching hospital, a medical center, or a research institute affiliated with an institution of higher education. (This exception applies to income from U.S. agencies and institutions only.)
Income from service on advisory or review panels for a federal, state, or local government agency, an institution of higher education, an academic teaching hospital, a medical center, or a research institute affiliated with an institution of higher education. (This exception applies to income from U.S. agencies and institutions only.)
Income and equity related to certain investments, such as mutual funds or blind trusts, where the covered individual does not directly control the investment decisions being made.
Travel expenses paid for or reimbursed by a governmental agency, an institution of higher education, an academic teaching hospital, a medical center, or a research institute that is affiliated with an institution of higher education. (This exception applies to expenses paid by U.S. agencies and institutions only.)
WPI's Director of Research Integrity & Compliance (and/or other qualified individual(s) designated in writing by the Vice Provost for Research) will be the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) responsible for reviewing each annual or updated disclosure. The DIO, in consultation with the individual's Department Head and/or Program Director will determine if any of the disclosed SFIs constitute a conflict of interest with the covered individual's institutional responsibilities.
If the individual disclosing the SFI has any active research projects or proposals, the DIO will conduct a further review to determine (1) whether or not the SFI is related to the individual's research, and (2) whether the SFI could constitute a conflict of interest.
If the DIO believes that a disclosed SFI could constitute a conflict of interest, the DIO will refer the matter to the Conflict Management Committee (CMC).
The Conflict Management Committee is charged with determining (1) whether or not it is possible to manage an identified conflict of interest, and (2) if so, what conditions and restrictions are needed in order to do so. The committee may issue a written Conflict Management Plan describing these conditions in detail. Conflict Management Committee membership shall consist of five voting members and two non-voting members:
Voting Members:
Non-Voting Members:
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) will serve in an advisory capacity to CMC.
COG shall also annually appoint an alternate faculty member to the Committee to serve in the event of the recusal or absence of one of the other appointed faculty members. In the event that more than one alternate is needed, the Vice Provost for Research shall appoint additional faculty member alternates as necessary. Recusal shall be required when it appears that a member of the Conflict Management Committee will be unable to fairly judge a potential conflict raised by a disclosure statement. If any of the non-faculty members are unable to serve, the Vice Provost for Research shall appoint a replacement. Such appointees will have the same voting authority as the member they replace. If the positions of the non-faculty members are renamed, reorganized, vacated, or otherwise changed, the Vice Provost for Research shall work with the Committee on Governance (COG) to update the committee membership.
Should the individual not agree with the Conflict Management Committee's conditions or restrictions, he/she can appeal in writing to the Provost within ten (10) days after receipt of notification from the Vice Provost for Research, detailing why such conditions and restrictions are inappropriate.
The Provost will then consult with the Conflict Management Committee and make a decision, which will be final.
Disclosures associated with the submissions of protocols for Institutional Review Board (IRB) review will be reviewed following the same process as for sponsored research proposals. Protocols will not be approved until all conflicts are resolved or addressed by the Conflict Management Committee.
The designated institutional official will report financial conflicts of interest or non-compliance to PHS in accordance with PHS regulations. If the funding for the research is made available from a prime PHS-awardee, such reports shall be made to the prime awardee prior to the expenditure of any funds and within 60 days of any subsequently identified financial conflict of interest such that the prime awardee may fulfill their reporting obligations to the PHS.
Covered Individuals must be in full compliance with this policy in order to submit proposals or participate in sponsored research at WPI. In the event of an individual's failure to comply with this Policy, the Conflict Management Committee may suspend all activities relevant to that conflict of interest until the matter is resolved through the appropriate disciplinary conduct policies. For faculty members, the relevant conduct policies are described in the Faculty Handbook. The institution will promptly notify sponsors, if applicable, of any non-compliance and the remedial actions taken.
In addition, if a Financial Conflict of Interest was not identified or managed in a timely manner, WPI will complete a retrospective review of the covered individual's activities and the research project to determine whether the research conducted during the period of non-compliance was biased in its design, conduct or reporting. If bias is found, WPI will promptly notify the sponsor and submit a mitigation report in accordance with applicable regulations.
Individuals will comply with training requirements mandated by sponsors. OSP will notify individuals of such requirements when applicable. Sponsors may require the completion of training prior to the expenditure of grant funds.
WPI will retain all disclosure forms, conflict management plans, and related documents for a period of three years from the date the final expenditure report is submitted to the sponsor, unless any litigation, claim, financial management review, or audit is started before the expiration of the three-year period. In that case, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been resolved.
WPI will normally treat conflicts of interest as confidential. However, with regard to any PHS-funded research, WPI will make accessible to the public, within five business days of written request, information concerning any Significant Financial Interest disclosed to the institution that meets all of the following criteria:
For non-PHS-funded research, WPI will comply with established public accessibility requirements if so required.
Subrecipients on federal grants and contracts must have an active and enforced conflict of interest policy that meets the requirements of the funding agency. If a subrecipient does not have such a policy, they will be required to comply with WPI's policy.
"Conflict of Interest (or COI)" means a situation in which an individual's financial interests and relationships/commitments outside of WPI could improperly influence that individual's professional judgment, exercise of WPI responsibilities, or performance of WPI-related activities.
"Designated Institutional Official (or DIO)" means the WPI employee responsible for soliciting and reviewing disclosures of financial interests pursuant to this policy.
"Family" means the covered individual's spouse/partner, dependent children, and any other dependents living in the covered individual's household.
"Institutional Responsibilities" may include, but are not limited to teaching, research, departmental administration, committee membership, and purchasing of goods and services.
"Institutional Review Board (or IRB)" means any boards established or contracted to review protocols for human subjects research whether federally funded or not.
"Public Health Service (or PHS)" means the Public Health Service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and any components of the PHS to which the authority of the PHS may be delegated (including the National Institutes of Health).
"Sponsored Research" means any research-related activity, including training, which is funded by a grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or fellowship awarded to WPI.
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, May 13, 2016)
It is the policy of Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) to encourage creativity and entrepreneurism among its faculty, students, and staff. WPI invests in this endeavor by making available its own facilities, equipment, personnel, and information resources. WPI also actively seeks specific support for creative activity from external sources, both public and private.
The Policy supports the strategic goals of creating an outstanding student experience that promotes personal and intellectual development; recruiting and retaining excellent students, faculty and staff; and strengthening research, and scholarship, as well as institutional financial resources.
Inventions, discoveries, and creative works that are developed by individuals at WPI, may have commercial as well as scientific and scholarly value. The intent of this policy is to provide incentives that foster creative activity and to help assure that any such intellectual property produced will be exploited for the benefit of the creator(s), WPI, and the public. To help meet these policy objectives, WPI makes available from the Office of Intellectual Property and Innovation's, technical and legal assistance to protect ownership of intellectual property and to aid in its commercial development.
The specific aims of this policy are the following:
For purposes of this policy, WPI personnel community refers to WPI faculty members (this includes full time, part time, tenured, tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty), visiting faculty, postdoctoral scholars, researchers (research associates, scientists and engineers, and postdoctoral fellows), visiting scholars, investigators, administrators, office and technical staff, students, contractors (as appropriate), consultants, and all others whose work affiliation is with WPI, whether compensated by WPI or not. WPI personnel are obligated under this policy when their creative work is developed partially or entirely during performance of their WPI responsibilities or when it involves the use of WPI resources such as space, facilities, equipment, staff, or funds, as stipulated for the particular circumstances described in the sections below "Determination of Rights for Patentable Subject Matter" for both patentable and copyrightable material.
As a condition of affiliation with WPI, members of the WPI personnel community are bound by all WPI policies, including this one.
All intellectual property produced at WPI by its personnel (defined above) is covered by this policy. Intellectual property shall consist of, for example and without limitation: inventions, creative works, patentable subject matter, copyrightable materials, know-how, electronic or paper documents, software, multimedia or audiovisual materials, and photographs. For purposes of this policy, intellectual property is divided into two categories:
2.1 "Patentable intellectual property" (Section 2.1) shall include, without limitation, all inventions, discoveries, know-how (despite the fact that these may not benefit from patent protection) and discoveries or other material that is patentable under US law (whether or not produced in the US), as well as all software that is excluded from "copyrightable material" (whether or not patentable under US law).
2.2 "Copyrightable intellectual property" (Section 2.2) shall include, without limitation, all creative works, electronic or paper documents, software, multimedia or audiovisual materials, and photographs, and any other materials that may be copyrightable under US law (whether or not produced in the US).
2.3 All research lab notebooks, data sets, data images, gene constructs, reagents, animal, human and plant cell lines, model organisms remain the exclusive property of WPI.
Responsibility for Disclosure of Patentable Intellectual Property: WPI personnel who alone, or in association with others, create patentable subject matter with any use of WPI resources are responsible for disclosing the patentable subject matter to WPI. Such disclosure shall be made in a timely manner when it can be reasonably concluded that a patentable subject matter has been created, and sufficiently in advance of any publications, presentation, or other public disclosure to allow time for possible action that protects rights to the intellectual property for the creator and WPI (http://www.wpi.edu/offices/ipi/forms.html).
Determination of Rights to Patentable Subject Matter: Except for Patentable Intellectual Property developed independently and without WPI resources as noted below, all Patentable Intellectual Property produced by WPI Personnel shall be deemed "work made for hire" and be WPI's sole and exclusive property. WPI will assert ownership rights to patentable intellectual property developed under any of the following circumstances:
2.1.1 Development was funded by an externally sponsored research program or by any agreement that allocates rights to WPI.
2.1.2 Development required use of WPI resources (for example but not limited to facilities, equipment, funding, or personnel). WPI has rights to patentable material derived from research carried out with any use of WPI resources. However, patentable material developed independently by the creator outside of normal duties associated with the creator's position and with no use of WPI resources or facilities is vested with the creator and/or with the organization whose resources were used.
2.1.3 The creator was assigned, directed, or specifically funded by WPI to develop the material.
2.1.4 Material was developed by administrators or staff in the course of their employment duties and constitutes "work for hire" under US law.
Responsibility for Disclosure of Copyrightable Intellectual Property: In contrast to historical business practice, the tradition of academic institutions is to give its personnel the right to retain ownership of their copyrightable products. This policy protects that traditional right and personnel are not obligated to disclose the creation of copyrightable material, even when the product might have commercial value, unless the material was developed under one of the qualifying conditions listed in the next section, in which case the creator is responsible for timely disclosure.
Determination of Rights to Copyrightable Intellectual Property: Except for Copyrightable Intellectual Property developed independently and without WPI resources as noted below, all Copyrightable Intellectual Property produced by WPI Personnel shall be deemed "work made for hire" and be WPI's sole and exclusive property. To the extent that copyrightable material is developed for courses or curriculum at WPI by such individuals, and as a condition of employment by WPI, the creators of such copyrightable material grant a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to WPI to use of such material for educational and research purposes. WPI will assert ownership rights to copyrightable intellectual property developed under any of the following circumstances.
2.2.1 Development was funded by an externally sponsored research program or by any agreement, which allocates rights to WPI.
2.2.2 WPI personnel was assigned, directed, or specifically funded by WPI to develop the material, or WPI has negotiated an understanding or formal contract with the creator.
2.2.3 The material was developed with extraordinary or substantially more use of WPI resources than would normally be provided for the creator's employment duties. This might occur as disproportionate use of staff time, networks, equipment, or direct funding.
2.2.4 Works created by non-faculty independent contractors on behalf of WPI, unless otherwise specified in a written agreement between such independent contractor and WPI. Such contractors do not share in the creator's portion of Net Royalty Income (as defined below under "Income Distribution").
2.2.5 Laboratory Notebooks, data sets, biological materials.
Scholarly and Artistic Works Exception: "Scholarly and Artistic Works" means copyrightable and copyrighted works that are in the nature of academic and scholarly works of authorship and works of visual art, including but not limited to photography, film, audio-visual works, sculpture, painting, choreography and the like. "Scholarly and Artistic Works" include by way of example 1) scholarly articles and papers written for journal publication (rights to these is assigned to the publisher as a condition for publication), presentations and scholarly papers prepared for seminars and conferences, pedagogical works, and teaching and curriculum materials (including classroom lectures, seminars and presentations reduced by or for the author to written or other recorded form); and 2) paintings, drawings, musical compositions and performances, dramatic compositions and performance, poetry, fiction and other works of artistic expression authored by WPI faculty, post-graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows and postdoctoral associates ; provided that, the definition shall not apply to the works of WPI Students authored pursuant to activities undertaken as Teaching Assistants that are Scholarly or Artistic Works as described in this paragraph will remain the property of their authors.
"Scholarly and Artistic Works" shall be and remain the property of their Authors ("Individually-Owned Works") unless such copyrighted works are (i) developed as part of a WPI project, program or activity that is the subject of an external WPI agreement; (ii) developed within the scope of employment by non-faculty WPI Employees; or (iii) developed as part of a WPI- Commissioned project. All Scholarly and Artistic
Works described in the preceding sentence under (i), (ii), or (iii) are WPI-Owned.
It is the general policy of WPI that WPI Students shall have ownership rights in Intellectual Property developed by them independently, except where it is developed using WPI funds, part of any project, Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP), Major Qualifying Project (MQP), directed study, directed research, or where WPI has external obligations with respect to Student Intellectual Property, such as via a contract with a company, or where there are federal funds involved. If there are no WPI external obligations for the Intellectual Property, Student Intellectual Property may assign to WPI and be treated as a WPI Invention.
If there is Student Intellectual property that is free from WPI external obligations the Students may choose to enter into an agreement with WPI for the value of that Intellectual Property. Such value will not exceed 1% of the current value of that Intellectual Property. The waiver provisions of this Policy shall apply to WPI Students (Section 6). Activities undertaken by WPI Students receiving financial aid as tuition assistance shall not be considered "WPI funds" unless such assistance consists of employment at WPI (including, but not limited to teaching assistantships) or is charged against a grant, contract or other agreement between WPI and an external funding source.
As a condition of study or a degree award, each student shall grant to WPI a non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-commercial license to reproduce and publicly distribute, including by electronic means, copies of the student's work in which the student retains copyright.
Generally, an invention, software, or other copyrightable material, will not be considered to have been developed using WPI funds or facilities if:
3.1 only a minimal amount of unrestricted funds has been used; and
3.2 the Intellectual Property has been developed outside of the assigned area of research of the inventor(s)/author(s) under a research assistantship or sponsored project; and
3.3 only a minimal amount of time has been spent using significant WPI facilities or only insignificant facilities and equipment have been utilized (note: use of office, library, machine shop facilities, and of traditional desktop personal computers are examples of facilities and equipment that are not considered significant); and
3.4 the development has been made on the personal, unpaid time of the inventor(s)/author.
Ownership of copyrightable and patentable intellectual property developed pursuant to an agreement with any sponsor will be governed by the provisions of that agreement.
Government and nonprofit sponsors generally allow rights to intellectual property that arise from the research program to vest with the institution, subject to certain retained rights held by the federal government. Under special circumstances, sponsors, including government agencies, will provide for the institution to retain title to all intellectual property that arises in the course of the research program, with the sponsor retaining an option to acquire commercialization rights through a separate license agreement.
Since WPI aims to encourage creativity, it reserves the right to allow some flexibility in applying this policy. The inventor(s) or author(s) my request the VPR Office to release the intellectual property to them, at their own expense, unless other agreements exist.
WPI may determine that WPI will not take ownership of invention or WPI may, after initially exercising ownership, determine that WPI will no longer pursue or maintain intellectual property protection, for example in cases without a revenue producing license. Where WPI determines that it will not pursue or maintain intellectual property protection and licensing of WPI-Owned Intellectual Property, it will promptly and in writing advise the inventor(s) or author(s).
To the extent permitted by external obligations, including any applicable laws and regulations, WPI may consider application by inventor(s) or author(s) for alternative funding of prosecution or maintenance of intellectual property, or waiver of ownership rights and the terms under which such waiver may be made. WPI will not consider requests for waiver of ownership with respect to any invention or software program unless all inventors and authors, as legally determined, concur with the request for waiver. Ownership waivers, if granted, will be made to all relevant inventors and authors as joint owners. Waiver agreement terms between WPI and the inventor(s) will include a perpetual, royalty-free right and license retained by WPI to use the invention or software for its own education and research purposes, and will be further subject to any external obligations as may be required.
Except as otherwise specified in this policy or as otherwise duly authorized by WPI, the IPI department has responsibility for the interpretation, implementation and oversight of this Policy. The IPI department will issue such administrative guidelines and procedures to facilitate Policy as may be reasonable and consistent with it. In accordance with otherwise applicable WPI policy or contract terms, WPI may also pursue disciplinary, or civil or criminal action, for Policy violations. These duties are delegated to the Director of Intellectual Property and Innovation
WPI personnel who wish to pursue the commercialization of their independently developed and owned intellectual property through WPI may offer such intellectual property to WPI by following the administrative process outlined above.
Costs and Net Royalty Income: Unless otherwise agreed, Net Royalty Income shall mean Gross Royalties in the form of cash or cash proceeds whether from the sale of equity or obtained in licensing transactions, less all commercialization costs, including but not limited to, previous and ongoing billed costs for protection of intellectual property, marketing, legal fees and other licensing costs.
Distribution of Net Royalty Income: With respect to intellectual property owned by WPI hereunder, Net Royalty Income shall be distributed (usually annually) as follows:
| 50% | Creator(s) (personal) |
| 5% | Creator(s) Department |
| 5% | Creator(s) Office of the Dean |
| 5% | Office of Intellectual Property and Innovation |
| 35% | WPI |
It is encouraged for the Department share give priority to the inventor's laboratory if at all possible. The funds should be directed towards a continued investment in research and technology development. Dean and Department shares may involve multiple Deans or Departments. If this occurs, the split will go according to how the inventors have agreed to split their share.
Note that Intellectual Property created by students may have a different distribution per the conditions in section 4. The creator will receive personal royalties as income. If the creator chooses to donate a portion of the royalties to research, the creator may do so in accordance with the policy and procedures of the Development Office of WPI and in accordance with local, state and federal tax policies.
Where all or a portion of the Royalty Income received by WPI is in shares of stock, stock options, warrants or other indicia of ownership ("Equity"), Inventors and Authors shall be entitled to shares to be negotiated with the company. If Inventors and Authors obtain Equity from the company, WPI Equity will be wholly owned by WPI. For all other Inventors/Authors who did not receive Equity from the Company, WPI, upon occurrence of a liquidation event, distribute cash according to the distribution agreed upon among the inventors in their original invention disclosure.
WPI may postpone the distribution of Net Royalty Income when future expenses relating to the applicable technology, such as patent prosecution costs, or an infringement suit, are reasonably anticipated.
Creators may receive equity in return for their contributions as founders or consultants only in accordance with specific WPI policies. Annually, creators must fully disclose their equity positions and shall otherwise be and remain in compliance with the WPI Conflict of Interest policies.
Where a Creator(s) holds or will acquire an equity or founder's stock and/or option position in a company to which Intellectual Property that the Creator(s) helped develop is licensed by WPI, WPI will accept an equity position in lieu of royalty. In all such situations, Creator(s) who remain in the employ of WPI will not use WPI students for research and development projects sponsored by the company without expressly disclosing to students the inventor(s)' equity ownership interest in the company and without the express approval of the academic department head or other appropriate administrative unit supervisor. In addition, inventor(s) will not restrict or delay access to their research results so as to benefit the company (apart from any WPI- authorized agreement with the company) and will not engage in such other activities that may create a presumption of conflict of interest between their activities as faculty or staff of WPI and their activities with or on behalf of the company. The limitations and conditions of this paragraph are in addition to those required by WPI's conflict of interest or other related policies.
All licenses and rights granted to WPI will survive any termination of employment or end of enrollment by a student as applicable.
When a disagreement arises between WPI and the inventor(s) concerning the interpretation of this policy, an Intellectual Property Appeal Board (the "Appeal Board") will be appointed and convened to resolve the disagreement. Appeals shall state explicitly what is in dispute and be submitted in writing to the President of WPI and to the Committee on Governance. When a request for an appeal is received, an Appeal Board shall promptly be appointed.
11.1 The Appeal Board is composed of five persons, three appointed by the Committee on Governance and two appointed by the WPI administration. The COG-appointed members shall be members of the faculty chosen from a current list of tenure-track faculty members who have agreed to serve on the Appeal Board if so requested, and who have a variety of experience. In making their respective appointments, COG and the WPI Provost will seek to ensure that some of the appointees are familiar in detail with this policy and its past applications, and some of the appointees are familiar with the technical area of the intellectual property under consideration. No person with a special interest in the outcome of its decisions, including people who have participated in the decision that is under appeal, shall be appointed to the Appeal Board.
11.2 The Appeal Board shall promptly meet, elect a chair, and hear the appeal. The Appeal Board shall receive written briefs from each party to the dispute, take oral presentations open to all parties and their counsels, and receive written emendations to the written briefs. The Appeal Board shall have the power to summon witnesses and documents necessary to reaching its decisions. The Appeal Board shall consider all relevant facts, policies, and precedents, and then reach a decision. The Appeal Board shall report its decision in a written finding that includes the principal arguments leading to its conclusions.
The WPI name, seal, or logo may not be used:
Any questions regarding the use of the WPI name, seal, or logo should be referred to the WPI Chief Marketing Officer.
The Provost will periodically initiate review of this Policy to address legal developments and to reflect experience gained in its administration. Policy changes will be made in accordance with governance and applicable legal requirements.
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, February, 1986)
(Revised through the Administrative Policy Group and approved by President Soboyejo, March 2023)
WPI shall indemnify and hold harmless all of its Faculty, Professional Staff and all other Employees including those who serve at its request as Faculty, officers, employees or agents of any affiliated organization, and their respective heirs, administrators, successors and assigns, against any and all reasonable liabilities, losses, costs and expenses, including amounts paid upon judgments, legal counsel fees, and amounts paid in settlement (before or after suit is commenced), actually and necessarily incurred by such persons in connection with the defense or settlement of any claim, action, suit, investigation or proceeding, whether civil or criminal, or both, in which they, or any of them, are made parties, or a party, or which may be asserted against them or any of them, by reason of being or having been in one of the above-described relationships with WPI, or of such affiliated organization. No indemnification shall be provided for any person with respect to any matter as to which they shall have been adjudicated in any proceeding not to have acted in good faith in the reasonable belief that their action was in the best interests of WPI and conformed to the requirements of their employment. Each person to be indemnified shall provide WPI with an undertaking to repay the amounts advanced on their behalf if they shall be adjudicated not to have been entitled to indemnification, which undertaking may be accepted without reference to the financial ability of such person to make repayment.
(Updated by SOF through the VP for Student Affairs, August 15, 2016)
In December 1987, the anti-hazing legislation, Chapter 269, Sections 17 through 19, was amended by the Legislature in Chapter 665 of the Acts of 1987. The amendment increases the criminal penalties for hazing infractions and alters the manner in which institutions notify individuals of the law.
Specifically, WPI is required to inform groups, teams or organizations of the provisions of M.G.L. MA State Law Chapter 269, Section 17, 18 and 19. A club officer must read Sections 17, 18, and 19 of this law and pass out a copy to each member of the organization. Once you have shared the information with your organization:
Not only is hazing against the law, but it is a practice which diminishes the integrity of individuals and their organizations. Hazing is clearly defined with the sections of the law, and has no place in our society, particularly at an institution of higher education.
WPI is committed to emphasizing that all organization activities be made constructive, educational and safe. Therefore, in support of the university's commitment to the mental, emotional and physical well-being of every student, it is the policy of the University and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that "hazing" in any form be prohibited, and its practices in any fashion be condemned.
(Updated by SOF through Human Resources, August 15, 2016)
WPI is committed to the principles of equal opportunity for all persons and it is the policy of WPI to affirmatively seek, employ, and promote the best qualified employees, students, and applicants without regard to race, sex, age, color, national origin, religion, genetic identity, disability, gender identity or expression, marital or parental status, sexual orientation, transgender status, veteran status, or any other protected status. This policy applies to the total WPI community and is designed to comply with both the spirit and letter of governing state and federal laws. It is expected that this policy, as well as the WPI Affirmative Action Plan will be effectuated by employees, students and others who act on behalf of WPI.
All supervisors, managers, and administrators are responsible for helping the campus fulfill its equal opportunity responsibilities. This is accomplished by making good faith efforts toward meeting affirmative action goals and ensuring a workplace that is free of discrimination and harassment. WPI's goal is to employ and retain a diverse workforce of the best-qualified individuals.
The Institute's Affirmative Action Program is intended to expand our efforts to guarantee equality of opportunity in employment and in education and to reduce underrepresentation and underutilization of minorities and women at WPI. For all Institute categories of employment, our objectives are to achieve a representation of minorities and women that is at least in proportion to their current availability and to provide new opportunities for career development which both stimulate and respond to their changing interests and aspirations. WPI's obligations as a federal contractor under Executive Order 11246 includes the development of an affirmative action program which provides for analysis of utilization of minorities and women in all job groups in each organizational unit.
The Institute's program for the employment of individuals with disabilities is intended to expand WPI's efforts to provide opportunities for employment and advancement for qualified persons with disabilities. The Institute will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of physical or mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant is qualified.
WPI's obligations as a federal contractor under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, include an assessment of all employment practices to assure that any adaptation that permits the employment or advancement of individuals with disabilities is reasonably accommodated, provided it does not cause undue hardship to the employer. Some individuals may require flexible work schedules, worksite accommodations, or auxiliary aids in order to perform the required duties of a job. Reasonable accommodation to needs such as these is the Institute's affirmative action responsibility under the law.
Inquiries regarding this policy may be directed to the Benefits Administrator in the Office of Human Resources
In compliance with the Vietnam-Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended, and the 2002 Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA), as amended, WPI does not discriminate against any qualified employee or applicant for employment because he or she is a veteran with a disability or other covered veteran. WPI, in this respect, takes affirmative action to employ, advance in employment, and treat without discrimination, veterans with disabilities and other covered veterans.
A covered veteran is a person in one of the following categories:
Armed Forces Service Medal Veteran: Any veteran who, while serving on active duty in the U.S. military, ground, naval or air service, participated in a United States military operation for which an Armed Forces service medal was awarded pursuant to Executive Oder 12985.
Recently Separated Veteran: Any veteran during the three year period beginning on the date of such veteran's discharge or release from active duty in the U.S. military, ground, naval or air service.
Other Protected Veteran: A person who served on active duty in the U.S. military, ground, naval or air services during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized.
Disabled Veteran: A veteran of the U.S. military, ground, naval or air service who is entitled to compensation (or who but for the receipt of military retired pay would be entitled to compensation) under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, or a person who was discharged or released from active duty because of a service-connected disability.
As a government contractor, WPI will take affirmative action to ensure that job applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, national origin, sex, or other protected classifications.
WPI also invites all employees to voluntarily self-identify themselves to the Office of Human Resources. More information can be found on our website.
Top | Ch 1 | Ch 2 | Ch 3 | Ch 4 | Ch 5 | Ch 6 | Ch 7 | Ch 8 | Ch 9 | Ch 10
(Approved by the Faculty, February 7, 2019)
Members of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute ("WPI") faculty have traditionally conducted themselves in accordance with high standards of professional performance, ethical behavior and personal conduct. Nonetheless, from time to time it may be necessary to take action with respect to a faculty member who engages in conduct incompatible with the responsibilities of faculty membership or who fails to meet reasonable standards of performance or behavior. In recognition of this need, WPI has developed the following policy to respond to allegations of misconduct not covered by WPI's Research Misconduct Policy and WPI's Sexual Misconduct Policy and to inform members of the community of the appropriate channels for bringing such matters to the attention of WPI. This Policy applies to tenured, tenure-track, and continuing full-time non-tenure track members of the WPI faculty, including the President, the Provost, the Vice Provost for Research, and the Academic Deans.
Complainant. The individual, department or entity alleging misconduct.
Respondent. The individual against whom an allegation of misconduct is made.
Dean. The Dean of the Respondent's School, department or program.
Investigator. The individual responsible for conducting an impartial investigation of the allegations of misconduct when the process moves beyond the initial review.
Judicial Committee. The panel of three faculty members and three senior academic administrators responsible for determination of responsibility and sanctions when the process moves beyond the initial review.
Generally, grounds for misconduct are based on violations of professional ethics11 in carrying out one's responsibilities to: a) teaching and students; b) scholarship; c) the University; d) colleagues; and e) the community. Nothing in this policy restricts a person's rights to privacy, academic freedom, free speech, and free expression including the right to speak out against a policy or action of the University.
The ethical responsibilities and examples of violations in each category are described as follows:
Teaching and Students: As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to ensure that their evaluations of students reflect each student's true merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from them. They protect their academic freedom. Examples of unacceptable behavior are:
Scholarship: Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although professors may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry. This Policy covers misconduct related to scholarship only if it is not covered by the Research Misconduct Policy https://www.wpi.edu/sites/default/files/docs/About-WPI/Policies/Research_Misconduct_Policy.pdf.
The University: As members of an academic institution, professors seek above all to be effective teachers and scholars. Although professors observe the stated regulations of the institution, provided the regulations do not contravene academic freedom, they maintain their right to criticize and seek revision. Professors give due regard to their paramount responsibilities within their institution in determining the amount and character of work done outside it. When considering the interruption or termination of their service, professors recognize the effect of their decision upon the program of the institution and give due notice of their intentions. Examples of unacceptable behavior are:
Colleagues: As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates, even when it leads to findings and conclusions that differ from their own. Professors acknowledge academic debt and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution. Examples of unacceptable behavior are:
The Community: As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of other citizens. Professors measure the urgency of these obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their subject, to their students, to their profession, and to their institution. When they speak or act as private persons, they avoid creating the impression of speaking or acting for their college or university. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom. Examples of unacceptable behavior are:
A finding of responsibility for faculty misconduct can result in a wide range of sanctions, depending on the circumstances of a particular case. Sanctions must be commensurate with the seriousness of the misconduct. Seriousness, and thus the sanction, will depend on the egregiousness of a particular action and may be affected by the Respondent's level of cooperation with the process set forth in this Policy, and persistence of behavior in the face of prior warnings, counseling or sanctions. In some instances, a single instance of unacceptable activity by a faculty member may be severe enough to warrant sanctions, including dismissal. In other instances, only a pattern of activity or the continuation of a particular activity or activities may warrant sanctions.
The circumstances that may lead to disciplinary sanctions cannot be anticipated in precise terms and thus grounds for sanctioning faculty members are not made the subject of a precise or comprehensive statement. The determination of appropriate sanctions will account for the following factors, including but not limited to:
As with the definition of misconduct, it is not feasible or wise to automatically assign a specific sanction to particular misconduct. Examples showing the range of possible sanctions include, but are not necessarily limited to:12
Sanctions of demotions in rank or revocation of tenure are only appropriate in cases where appointment, promotion, or tenure were obtained by fraud or dishonesty.
All parties are encouraged to resolve disputes and disagreements in a mutually acceptable manner before this Policy is invoked. After this Policy is invoked, allegations of misconduct may be resolved at any time by mutual agreement of the Respondent, the Complainant and the Dean.
At all times, the parties shall cooperate with the process, preserve (and not delete or destroy) evidence, and provide information and materials as requested.
The Respondent should be provided with reasonable updates and opportunities to respond.
The Respondent shall be permitted the assistance of one (1) advisor or legal counsel during any investigative proceeding, including any related meeting, interview, or hearing. Advisors may communicate with their advisee but may not speak or otherwise communicate on behalf of a party. Advisors are subject to the same confidentiality obligations applicable to others in attendance.
The Respondent is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the opportunity to respond to allegations of misconduct, and the opportunity to present a defense and offer evidence. The standard of proof in deciding that misconduct has occurred should be based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. This standard requires the determination of whether it is more likely than not that a fact exists or a violation of this Policy occurred.
Deadlines under this Policy may be extended upon a showing of reasonable cause.
Allegations of misconduct (a "Complaint") should be made in writing to the Dean of the School, department or program of the Respondent named in the Complaint. The fact that a Complaint has been received should be made known only to the Respondent and to other persons who need to know, based on the Dean's discretion. It should be expected that the Dean will notify the Provost and/or the President about allegations of misconduct. Because the Provost and President may be involved later in the process, they must each respect the integrity of the process as it moves forward.
Upon receiving a Complaint, the Dean shall promptly send a copy of the Complaint and a copy of this Policy to the Respondent, and shall take appropriate action to obtain and secure relevant evidence.
The Respondent shall have an opportunity to provide a written response to the allegations within ten (10) days of receiving the Complaint from the Dean.
Once a Complaint has been received, the Dean may explore the possibility of a satisfactory resolution outside the scope of this Policy.
If the Dean believes the alleged misconduct poses any risk to the community, the Dean may, in the Dean's discretion, impose appropriate interim sanctions up to and including suspension with pay and an order that the Respondent not enter WPI's property, or participate in WPI activities or programs. The suspension shall become effective upon notification in writing to the faculty member. The Secretary of the Faculty shall be informed of the suspension. The Dean may revoke a suspension at any time. If not revoked earlier, a suspension shall remain in effect until the final disposition of the process set forth in this Policy.
Upon receipt of a Complaint, the Dean shall review the Complaint and determine whether the allegations in the Complaint would, presuming the allegations to be true, meet the definition of misconduct as set forth in this Policy. If, presuming the allegations to be true, the Complaint does not meet the definition of misconduct, the Dean shall dismiss the Complaint. Otherwise, the process will move forward as set forth herein. In either case, the Dean will promptly provide written notice of the decision and rationale to the Respondent and the Complainant.
If the Dean concludes that the process should move forward, the Dean shall appoint three unbiased faculty members from outside of the Respondent's home department to:
Review the written Complaint and meet with the Complainant to get their version of the alleged misconduct and relevant events;
Review the written response from the Respondent and meet with the Respondent to get their version of the relevant events;
Assess whether the behavior alleged constitutes a violation of this Policy and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of such misconduct may be identified.
Prepare a written report summarizing the process and information reviewed and, based on the criteria described in Section 7.g.iii above, recommend to the Dean whether the process under this Policy should continue or whether the Complaint should be dismissed. The report should identify the names of the Complainant and the Respondent, contain a description of the allegations, explain why the faculty members recommend that the Complaint should be dismissed or that the process should continue under this Policy, and reflect the numerical vote (but not the names) of the three faculty members. The report shall be sent to the Dean.
The Dean will consider the faculty's recommendation and then decide whether the process under this Policy should continue or whether the Complaint should be dismissed. When the allegations are within the faculty's area of primary responsibility (i.e., curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process), the Dean should normally accept the faculty's decision. In rare instances and for compelling reasons, however, the Dean may reject the faculty's determination. Regardless of the decision, the Dean shall state in writing the basis for the decision and promptly send a copy of both the Dean's report and the report written by the three faculty members to the Complainant and the Respondent. In all cases, the Dean shall also send a copy the of the Dean's report to the three faculty members. If the Dean decides that the process should continue, then the Dean's report will include a sufficiently detailed description of the allegations, the portions of this Policy that are alleged to have been violated, and any interim measures in place about which either party should be made aware. This written notice does not constitute a finding or a determination of responsibility. If the Dean decides that the process should continue, the Dean shall also provide a copy of both reports to the Provost, and the matter shall proceed as described below.
The Dean shall make the decision about whether the Complaint will proceed under this Policy within sixty (60) days following the Dean's receipt of the Complaint. The Dean may extend this deadline for a reasonable time if necessary under the circumstances. The Dean shall notify all parties of any extensions.
Within ten (10) days after receipt of the Dean's decision to continue the process under this Policy, the Provost and the Secretary of the Faculty shall collaborate in good faith, concerning the appointment of an unbiased, qualified Investigator. Following such good faith collaboration, the Provost and the Secretary of the Faculty shall agree upon and appoint an unbiased, qualified Investigator (e.g., Title IX coordinator or qualified investigator from outside the university) charged with responsibility for conducting a prompt, fair, and impartial investigation of the alleged conduct and presenting evidence to the Judicial Committee (described below). The Provost and/or the Secretary of the Faculty may consult with the Office of General Counsel, the Vice President of Human Resources, and/or such other persons who would be helpful in selecting the appropriate Investigator. If the Secretary of the Faculty and the Provost cannot agree on an Investigator, the President shall select one after reviewing the Secretary of the Faculty's and the Provost's recommendations. The Provost will promptly provide the Respondent with the name of the Investigator. As soon as possible, but no later than three (3) calendar days after delivery of the identity of the Investigator, the Respondent should inform the Provost (in writing) of any potential conflicts of interest about the selected Investigator. The Provost will collaborate in good faith with the Secretary of the Faculty in considering the nature of the potential conflict and in determining if a change is necessary. Following such good faith collaboration, the Provost shall determine if a change is necessary. The Provost's decision regarding any conflicts with the Investigator is final.
The investigation conducted by the Investigator should focus on the violation(s) alleged in the Complaint. The investigation will include the review of documentation or other items relevant to the reported conduct as well as separate interviews with the Complainant, the Respondent, and any witnesses whom the Investigator believes will provide necessary and relevant information. The Respondent will have the opportunity to provide the Investigator with written notice of the names and contact information of potential witnesses with whom they would like the Investigator to speak, together with a brief explanation of how the persons, documents, and/or items are relevant to the reported conduct. The Respondent may also provide the Investigator with any documentation or other items they would like to be considered. The Investigator will exercise discretion in determining what information and questions to consider and which potential witnesses will be interviewed.
The purpose of the investigation is not to look for evidence of misconduct unrelated to the allegations in the Complaint. To the contrary, the investigation should focus on the violation(s) alleged in the Complaint. However, if in the normal course of gathering evidence, the Investigator discovers evidence of other potential violations of this Policy that are separate from or in addition to the allegations in the original Complaint, then the Investigator should inform the Dean (in writing) of the new allegation. The Dean shall notify the Respondent of the additional potential violations and give the Respondent ten (10) days to provide a written response to the additional potential violations. This deadline may be extended by the Dean as necessary under the circumstances. The Dean will treat any new unrelated allegation as a separate Complaint starting at Section 6 of this Policy (Initial Review of Allegations).
The Investigative Report: After the investigation is completed, the Investigator will deliver an Investigative Report to the Dean. The Investigative Report shall:
- include a clear Statement of Charges that specifies the conduct that allegedly violates this Policy, the particular section(s) of this Policy allegedly violated, the time period when the conduct allegedly occurred, and any other information necessary to give the Respondent fair notice of the charges and alleged violations;
- include a summary of the information presented during the investigation including a section where the Investigator points out relevant consistencies or inconsistencies (if any) between different sources of information;
- not include a recommendation or a determination as to whether the Respondent has committed misconduct or what sanctions may be appropriate. These determinations will be made by the Judicial Committee (see below).
Review by the Respondent: Within five (5) business days of receiving the Investigative Report, the Dean will provide the Respondent with a copy of the Investigative Report. The Respondent shall respond in writing to the Statement of Charges included in the Investigative Report. The Respondent will also have an opportunity to submit written comments to the Dean about the Investigative Report within five (5) business days of receiving the Report. The time to submit written comments may be extended if the Dean concludes, in his/her sole discretion, that additional time is warranted. After reviewing the submission, if any, from the Respondent, the Dean may determine that additional investigation is required, in which case the Investigator will supplement the Investigative Report and submit a final Investigative Report to the Dean. Any submissions made by the Respondent, as well as any other documentation deemed relevant by the Investigator, will be attached to the Investigative Report. Within three (3) business days of receiving the final Investigative Report, the Dean will provide the Respondent with a copy of the final Investigative Report.
Convening the Judicial Committee: After receipt of the final Investigative Report, the Provost and the Secretary of the Faculty shall appoint a six member Judicial Committee ("Committee") comprised of three senior administrators and three faculty members from outside the Respondent's home department.
- The faculty members shall be selected from the elected members of the Faculty Review Committee (FRC) and the elected faculty members of the Campus Hearing Board (CHB).
- The senior administrators shall be selected from a pool of senior academic administrators.
Once the Committee has been appointed, the Dean shall notify the Respondent in writing of the names of the members of the Committee. Within five (5) days, the Respondent may challenge the composition of the Committee based on alleged bias or conflict of interest. If a challenge is raised, the remaining members of the Committee shall determine whether bias or a conflict exists. If a bias or conflict is found, the Provost and the Secretary of the Faculty shall select a replacement from the pool of elected FRC and CHB members or from other academic administrators, as appropriate.
Roles and Responsibilities of the Judicial Committee: Within ten (10) days following the establishment of the Committee (and the resolution of any challenge(s) based on bias or conflict of interest), the Committee should meet and select one faculty member and one senior academic administrator to serve as Co-Chairs.
The Judicial Committee will obtain the Investigative Report from the Dean and convene to review the Investigative Report. The Judicial Committee, in its discretion, may request the Investigator to attend a Judicial Committee meeting and answer questions. The Judicial Committee, in its discretion, may request the Investigator to conduct additional investigation on specific points. In addition, the Judicial Committee must interview the Complainant and the Respondent (where those individuals are available and willing to be interviewed) and, in its discretion, may request to speak with any other individual identified in the Investigative Report as well as any other individual with relevant information including individuals identified by the parties.
The Judicial Committee may request the parties that participated in the investigation to appear at a hearing to answer questions posed by the Judicial Committee. The Respondent should indicate whether the Respondent waives the holding of a hearing. If a hearing is to take place, then:
- The Committee Co-Chairs should promptly set a schedule for the hearing and the other disclosures and responses addressed in this section. The hearing schedule may take place over several days, as necessary. Before setting the schedule, the Committee Co-Chairs should discuss the proposed schedule with the Respondent. Once the schedule is set, the Committee Co-Chairs may allow reasonable extensions of time upon request.
- The Committee Co-Chairs shall provide the Respondent with copies of all materials the Committee intends to use at the hearing and the names of witnesses expected to testify. Thereafter, the Committee Co-Chairs may supplement these materials as necessary with adequate notice given to the Respondent.
- The Respondent shall provide the Committee Co-Chairs with copies of all materials the Respondent intends to use at the hearing and the names of any witnesses expected to testify. Thereafter, the Respondent may supplement these materials as necessary with the permission of the Committee Co-Chairs.
At the hearing:
- The Respondent shall have an opportunity to present the Respondent's defense to the Committee including any documents, witnesses or other evidence. The Respondent should be allowed, within reasonable limits set by the Committee Co-Chairs, to question witnesses.
- The Committee will not be bound by rules of evidence applicable in a court of law, and may admit any evidence which, in its opinion, is of probative value in deciding the issues involved. If any facts are in dispute, the Committee shall determine the order in which evidence is offered at the hearing and the process for questioning witnesses.
The Committee shall conclude its review of the case (including the hearing) and make a decision within sixty (60) days after the establishment of the Committee (and the resolution of any challenge(s) based on bias or conflict of interest). All findings and determinations of responsibility and sanctions will be made based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. This standard requires the determination of whether it is more likely than not that a fact exists or a violation of this Policy occurred.
Upon reaching a determination by majority vote (4 to 2, 5 to 1, or 6 to 0), the Committee shall provide a written report to the Dean, the Provost, the Respondent and the Complainant consisting of: (i) the Committee's factual findings; (ii) a decision as to whether the Respondent committed misconduct; (iii) any sanction; and (iv) the rationale for these decisions addressing the merits of any reasonable explanation or defense provided by the Respondent; and (v) the numerical vote of the Committee without identifying individual votes.
In the case of a tie vote (3 to 3), the Committee shall deliver its report (with its factual findings, with appropriate rationale both for and against a finding of responsibility, and without a determination of responsibility and sanctions) to the President. The Committee's report shall indicate that the vote was tied and whether the three faculty members all voted to find the Respondent not responsible. The President will have access to all written reports and materials relevant to the case. In all such cases, the President shall consider the matter and consult with the Judicial Committee and the Secretary of the Faculty before making a decision.
- If the three faculty members on the Judicial Committee did not all vote to find the Respondent not responsible then the President shall make a final written decision with supporting reasons about whether the Respondent committed misconduct and any sanctions to be imposed. The President's final written decision shall be delivered to the Provost, the Complainant, the Respondent, and the Judicial Committee. The Respondent, the Complainant, and the Provost shall also receive the Judicial Committee's written report.
- If the three faculty members on the Judicial Committee did all vote to find the Respondent not responsible and the President agrees with the faculty position, then the President will notify the Judicial Committee, the Dean, the Provost, the Complainant and the Respondent that the Respondent has been found not responsible. The Respondent, the Complainant, and the Provost shall also receive the Judicial Committee's written report.
- If the three faculty members on the Judicial Committee did all vote to find the Respondent not responsible and the President disagrees with the faculty position, then the President will state the reasons for doing so, in writing, to the Judicial Committee and the Respondent and shall provide an opportunity for a response from the Respondent before transmitting the Judicial Committee's report and the supporting materials relevant to the matter, to the Board of Trustees. The Board's review will be based on the supporting materials relevant to the case, and it will provide the opportunity for argument, oral or written or both, at the hearing, by the parties and one of the faculty members on the Judicial Committee, or by their representatives. If the Board is inclined to find the Respondent responsible, then the Board shall state the basis for its inclination in writing and return the proceedings to the Judicial Committee for reconsideration. The Committee will then reconsider, taking into account the Board's comments and receiving new evidence, if necessary. The Board of Trustees will make a final decision only after study of the Committee's reconsideration. The Board's final written decision shall be delivered to the President, the Provost, the Complainant, the Respondent, and the Judicial Committee. The Respondent shall also receive the Committee's written report.
The Respondent may appeal any finding of misconduct and any sanction to the President within two (2) weeks after the Respondent received notification of the decision. If the Respondent is appealing from a decision made by the President (where the Committee vote had been tied) then the appeal should be directed to the Chair of the Board of Trustees. The President (or Board Chair) will have access to all written reports and materials relevant to the case.
Before the President (or Board Chair) decides the appeal, the President (or Board Chair) shall consult with the Judicial Committee Chair and the Secretary of the Faculty. The President (or Board Chair) should issue a decision within thirty (30) days of receiving the appeal. The President's (or Board Chair's) decision shall be final in all cases except cases involving a sanction of termination of employment or revocation of tenure.
If the President (or Board Chair) imposes a sanction of termination of employment or revocation of tenure, the Respondent may appeal the finding of misconduct and the sanction to the full Board of Trustees within two (2) weeks after the President (or Board Chair) notifies the Respondent of the imposition of the sanction. If the Respondent appeals to the full Board, the Chair of the Board (or Board Vice-Chair in a case where the appeal was decided by the Chair), following good faith collaboration with the Secretary of the Faculty, shall appoint a committee of five (5) faculty members (who have not had prior involvement in the case) who will make a recommendation regarding the finding of misconduct and the sanction imposed. The faculty committee will have access to all written reports and materials relevant to the case. The faculty committee will summarize the basis for its recommendation in a written report to the Board Chair (or Board Vice-Chair) within thirty (30) days. The Board Chair (or Board Vice-Chair) should issue a written decision within thirty (30) days of receiving the faculty committee's report. The Board Chair's (or Vice-Chair's) decision shall be final.
Other than interim institutional actions which may already be in effect, any finding of misconduct, and the imposition of any sanction, will be stayed while an appeal is pending before the President or the Board of Trustees.
No Bias or Conflicts of Interest: To the maximum extent practicable, steps should be taken to ensure an impartial and unbiased process, including participation of persons who have no conflicts of interest that could affect their ability to be objective and unbiased.
In cases where allegations of misconduct have been brought against the Dean or the Provost, or where there is a claim of bias or conflict of interest involving the Dean or the Provost, then the President shall resolve any questions of bias or conflict of interest and adjust the process as necessary. The President's decision on such questions shall be final. In cases where allegations of misconduct have been brought against the President, or where there is a claim of bias or conflict of interest involving the President, then the Provost shall resolve any questions of bias or conflict of interest and adjust the process as necessary.
In the case when allegations have been brought against the Secretary of the Faculty, the Chair of the Committee on Governance will play the role of the Secretary of the Faculty in this policy.
Duty of Honesty: Any person who knowingly makes a false statement - either explicitly or by omission - in connection with any part of the process will be subject to separate disciplinary action. A false or unfounded report of misconduct determined to have been made in bad faith and dishonesty is a serious offense. Such offenses should themselves be investigated under the appropriate WPI policy and may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment or other affiliation with WPI. A report made in good faith is not considered false merely because the evidence does not ultimately support the allegation of violation of the Policy.
Good Faith Participation by the Parties and Witnesses: The investigation is a neutral fact-gathering process. Although participation in the process is not required, the Complainant, the Respondent, and all witnesses are expected to participate in good faith in the process set forth in this Policy, and they may be required by WPI to attend meetings related to the process. Any person who knowingly interferes with the reporting, investigation, or resolution of matters under this Policy may be subject to separate and/or additional disciplinary action.
Confidentiality: Proceedings concerning misconduct often raise difficult issues for those making the allegations, for those who are the subject of the allegations, and for those responsible for reviewing the allegations. Review of the allegations should therefore be conducted promptly and with care and sensitivity. All participants in the review process under this Policy are expected to maintain confidentiality to protect the privacy of all involved, to the extent possible and as permitted by law. Participants should keep in mind the effect that allegations can have on reputations, even if the allegations are not sustained by the proceedings.
No Retaliation: Retaliation is typically a significant adverse action taken against an individual because the individual participated in a review process. Retaliation is a serious offense. No one shall be retaliated against for participating in a review of a misconduct allegation in good faith as a Complainant, a witness, a factfinder, or investigator or in any other capacity. Reasonable efforts should be made to counter potential or actual retaliation against these complainants, witnesses and committee members. A complaint of retaliation may be investigated and may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including terminating the individual's relationship with WPI.
Record Keeping: The Provost should receive and maintain all records relating to proceedings under this Policy including all notices to and from the parties, all written reports, all decisions, all appeals by the parties, and all decisions involved in the appeals process under this Policy.
Special Measures: If there is no finding of misconduct, the University should make reasonable and practical efforts as appropriate to restore the reputation of the Respondent. Any such concerns by the Respondent should be directed to the Provost for follow up with other administrators as appropriate.
(Approved by the Faculty, December 12, 2017)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, December 15, 2017)
The integrity of the University and its academic endeavors require that teachers, researchers, advisors and other members of its community be dedicated to maintaining the highest ethical standards in their professional activities. Unethical behavior in research and scholarship strikes at the heart of the scholarly and educational enterprise. A shared understanding of expectations and responsibilities is, therefore, critical - not only to the quality of the research enterprise but also to the collegial life of this community.
Supervisors must enforce the highest standards for conducting research and creating and maintaining records of the research. The risk of misconduct increases in an environment where there is a lack or deficiency of supervision. Specifically, faculty supervisors, principal investigators, laboratory and center directors and Department Heads, should clearly articulate standards and protocols for research, scholarship, and creative work, through discussion and review of research, and, when possible, with written guidelines and training that adhere to best practices.
In recognition of the need to maintain the highest standards in research conduct, WPI has developed the following policy to respond to allegations of research misconduct13 and to inform members of the community of the appropriate channels for bringing such matters to the attention of the University.14 This policy applies to Research Activities conducted at WPI or by WPI faculty, staff, fellows, students.
The appropriate institutional response to research misconduct will vary with the facts and circumstances of each case. In addition to requiring correction of the research record, WPI has recourse to a variety of disciplinary actions against individuals whose conduct violates this policy, including, in severe cases and following applicable procedures, expulsion of a student, termination of an employee, or revocation of tenure.
The procedures described in this policy are consistent with requirements that apply to the review and reporting of allegations of research misconduct arising in the context of certain federally sponsored research. This Policy should be reviewed and updated periodically in order to ensure compliance with applicable legal requirements.
If a student is involved in the review of an allegation of Research Misconduct (whether as a Complainant, as a Respondent, or as a person from whom information about allegations is obtained), fact finders and investigators must seek guidance from the Office of the Vice Provost for Research regarding the legal and policy requirements that may apply.
Except as they may be subject to the requirements of grants, sponsored research or research funded by a governmental authority, allegations of Research Misconduct committed by students will be addressed in accordance with provisions of the Student Code of Conduct dealing with Student Academic Dishonesty.
Research Activities are proposing, conducting, processing, reviewing, or reporting the results of research or other scholarly inquiry.
Research Misconduct is Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism in Research Activities or Deliberate Interference. It does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the Research Record.
Research Record is the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific or other scholarly inquiry and includes, but is not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records (both physical and electronic), progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, and journal articles.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
Deliberate Interference is intentionally causing material harm to the research or scholarly work of others, and may include damaging or destroying the property of others, such as research equipment or supplies; disrupting active experiments; or altering or deleting products of research, including data and program codes.
Complainant is an individual who reports allegations of Research Misconduct.
Respondent is an individual who is the subject of allegations of Research Misconduct at WPI.
WPI Advisor is a WPI community member of the Respondent's choice, not the Respondent's family member or subordinate, who may participate and provide support to a Respondent in any meeting in connection with a review under this Policy. The role of the WPI Advisor is to provide support and guidance, not to be a substitute for the Respondent, who is the primary participant.
Preponderance of the Evidence is proof by information that, compared with the information opposing it, leads to a conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.
Impartial and Unbiased Persons are those who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the inquiry or investigation.
Each member of the WPI community has a responsibility to report any conduct that they believe in good faith to be Research Misconduct at WPI. There may be circumstances in which, prior to taking that action, it would be appropriate for the Complainant to discuss any concerns with the prospective Respondent. Consultation and guidance is always available from the Vice Provost for Research or from senior academic officers (e.g., Deans, Department Heads, laboratory Directors), who themselves are bound by a Duty to Report.
All allegations of Research Misconduct, wherever initially received, must be conveyed promptly to the Vice Provost for Research. A supervisor who becomes aware of possible Research Misconduct, either from the supervisor's own observations or because of reports, has a responsibility to bring allegations of Research Misconduct directly to the Vice Provost for Research in order to ensure that proper procedures are followed.
If a supervisor feels that the Vice Provost for Research is not the appropriate official to whom to report allegations in a particular case, the allegations may be reported to the Provost. If a Complainant reports allegations to a supervisor and the supervisor fails to forward the allegations to the Office of the Vice Provost for Research or the Provost, then the Complainant should report the allegations to the Vice Provost for Research or the Provost directly.
In order to enter a finding of Research Misconduct, WPI must determine by a preponderance of the evidence that:
Upon receipt of an allegation of Research Misconduct, within 5 business days the Vice Provost for Research will conduct an initial assessment of the allegations, to determine whether the alleged misconduct falls within the scope of this Policy. The Vice Provost for Research may appoint an impartial fact finder with appropriate expertise to conduct this initial assessment and to make a recommendation to the Vice Provost for Research.
If the Vice Provost for Research determines that the allegations do not fall within this Policy, the Vice Provost for Research will either close the matter or refer it to another office at WPI with authority or responsibility over the matter.
If the Vice Provost for Research determines that the allegations do fall within this Policy, the Vice Provost for Research will initiate a two-stage review process under this Policy. The decision of the Vice Provost for Research to initiate or not to initiate a review is final.
The first stage of review (the "Inquiry") under this Policy consists of preliminary fact-finding stage to decide whether to recommend to the Provost a further, formal review. The Inquiry should begin within 30 days after the Vice Provost for Research's initial assessment of the allegations. Once initiated, the Inquiry normally must be completed within 60 calendar days.
If after the Inquiry, there is a decision by the Provost to initiate a further review, WPI will proceed to a second stage of review (the "Investigation"), which entails a formal review leading to a recommendation to the Provost whether or not WPI should make a finding of Research Misconduct and, if so, what the appropriate sanction should be. If a formal investigation is warranted, it shall begin within 21 days of the conclusion of the Inquiry, and it is normally to be completed within 120 days once it has begun.
At any point in the process, the Vice Provost for Research may institute appropriate interim institutional actions to protect the community, public health, federal or other governmental funds and equipment, and the integrity of the Public Health Services (PHS) supported research process. For such actions, the Vice Provost for Research should state the basis for such decision in a document maintained with records relating to the case and provided to the Respondent.
The Inquiry consists of information gathering and fact-finding to determine as a preliminary matter whether an allegation of Research Misconduct warrants further, formal review. The Inquiry should begin within 30 days, if called for, after the Vice Provost for Research's initial assessment of the allegations.
The Vice Provost for Research will appoint three impartial fact finders to conduct the Inquiry. If necessary, fact finders may be found from outside the WPI community. At this time, the Vice Provost for Research will provide written notice to the Respondent that an Inquiry has been initiated. The written notice ordinarily summarizes the allegations under review and advises the Respondent of the right to select a WPI Advisor to support the Respondent in the course of the proceedings. The Respondent will be given an opportunity to respond, in writing, to the Vice Provost for Research within 10 days following the Respondent's receipt of the allegation. The Respondent may, in lieu of a WPI Advisor, have legal counsel for assistance or support during the Inquiry stage of the process.
Either before or when the Respondent is notified, the Office of the Vice Provost for Research will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the records and other evidence needed to conduct proceedings under this Policy and will sequester them in a secure manner. The Office of the Vice Provost for Research will provide Respondent with reasonable, supervised access to the records or, when appropriate, copies of the records. The Office of the Vice Provost for Research may seek additional records or other materials that may be potentially relevant during the course of the review.
Oversight for the Inquiry process will be provided by the Office of the Vice Provost for Research. The Inquiry should, to the extent reasonably possible, be limited to a review of documentary materials, including the Respondent's written response to the allegations. The fact that an Inquiry has been initiated should be made known only to the Respondent and other persons with a need to know.
At the conclusion of the Inquiry, the Inquiry Committee will prepare a draft written report summarizing the process and information reviewed and recommending whether to proceed with an Investigation. The draft Inquiry report should identify the name and position of the Respondent, a description of the allegations, the PHS support (if any), including the specific grant or contract, and should explain why the allegations do or do not warrant an investigation.
A recommendation to proceed should be based on whether there are reasonable grounds to conclude that the allegations may have substance and that Research Misconduct may have occurred based on the information reviewed. In either case, the Respondent will be given a copy of the draft Inquiry report and an opportunity to respond within a reasonable time period set by the Vice Provost for Research. Such response will be reviewed by the Inquiry Committee before finalizing the Inquiry report. In addition, any comments provided by the Respondent will be included as an appendix to the final Inquiry report. The final Inquiry report should state the number (but not the names) of the members of the Inquiry Committee who voted that an allegation warrants further review. The final Inquiry report will be forwarded to the Vice Provost for Research.
The Vice Provost for Research will review the Inquiry report and may ask the fact-finding committee for additional review or explanation. If this additional review by the fact-finding committee results in revisions to the report, the Respondent will have a further opportunity to submit written comments before any supplemental final Inquiry report is resubmitted to the Vice Provost for Research.
The Vice Provost for Research will submit a final Inquiry report to the Provost along with a written recommendation whether or not to proceed with an Investigation. The Provost will then decide whether or not to proceed with an Investigation. Before the Provost decides to proceed with an investigation, the Provost shall consult with the fact-finding committee and with the Secretary of the Faculty. If a majority of the Inquiry Committee voted not to proceed with an Investigation, but the Provost decides that there should be an Investigation, then the Provost should state the basis for such decision in a document maintained with records relating to the Investigation.
Following these consultations, the Vice Provost for Research will send written notice to the Respondent of the Provost's decision whether or not to proceed with an Investigation. The Complainant, if known, will be informed whether an Investigation will or will not be initiated.
The Inquiry, including preparation of the final Inquiry Report and the decision of the Provost on whether an investigation is warranted, must be completed within 60 calendar days of initiation of the Inquiry, unless the Vice Provost for Research determines that circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the Vice Provost for Research approves an extension, the inquiry record must include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 60 day period.
Within 30 days of a finding by the Provost that an investigation is warranted, the Provost shall provide ORI (and any other funding agency or authority required to be notified) with a copy of the Inquiry report, regardless of the vote of the Inquiry Committee.
If a formal investigation is warranted, it shall begin within 21 days of the conclusion of the Inquiry. The Vice Provost for Research initiates the Investigation by requesting the Secretary of the Faculty (SOF) and the Chair of the Faculty Review Committee (FRC) to appoint a five member investigation committee ("the Committee") to be selected from elected FRC members who have the expertise to evaluate the particular issues and evidence involved in the alleged misconduct. The faculty members must be unbiased toward the Complainant, Respondent and witnesses. (If there are not five unbiased elected FRC members with the required expertise, then the SOF and FRC chair will appoint the required number of qualified faculty from outside the FRC. If the Respondent or Complainant is either the SOF or FRC Chair, then the other will appoint the Committee.) The Committee shall elect its own Chair who shall be responsible for determining the manner in which the witness interviews and other procedures will be conducted by the Committee.
The Vice Provost for Research will provide written notice to the Respondent that the Investigation has been initiated. The written notice will:
The Respondent may challenge the composition of the Committee, if s/he believes that one or more of its members is biased. The remaining members of the Committee shall determine whether bias exists and otherwise act to ensure its own credibility. The Committee shall request that the Chair of the FRC and the Secretary of the Faculty replace a committee member when appropriate.
The Investigation consists of a formal examination and evaluation of all relevant information to determine if Research Misconduct occurred. The Investigation will typically include an examination of all relevant documentation and interviews of individuals who may have relevant information about the research in question. The Investigation Committee may review the Inquiry findings but is not bound by the findings of the Inquiry.
Oversight of the Investigation and specific guidance as it proceeds will be provided by the Office of the Vice Provost for Research.
As the Investigation proceeds, the Office of the Vice Provost for Research should provide the Respondent with reasonable updates and opportunities to respond to information obtained in the investigation.
Throughout the Committee Investigation process, the Respondent is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and:
Once the Investigation is completed, the Committee will prepare a draft written report offering a judgment based on the evidence as to whether the Respondent has committed Research Misconduct, and if so, its level of severity. If the Committee determines Respondent has committed Research Misconduct, it shall also recommend disciplinary action. The report should summarize the facts and analysis that support those conclusions, addressing the merits of any reasonable explanation or defense provided by the Respondent, and including the numerical vote of the Committee without identifying individual votes.
The Respondent will be provided with a copy of the draft Investigation report with an opportunity to respond within a reasonable time period set by the Vice Provost for Research. Such response will be considered by the Committee before the Committee takes a final vote, makes its final recommendation for disciplinary action, and issues its final Investigation report. In addition, any comments provided by the Respondent will be included as an appendix to the final Investigation report. The final Investigation report will be forwarded to the Vice Provost for Research.
The Vice Provost for Research will review the Investigation report and may ask the Investigation Committee for additional review or explanation. If this results in revisions to the report, the Respondent will have a further opportunity to submit written comments before any supplemental final Investigation report is resubmitted to the Vice Provost for Research.
The Vice Provost for Research will submit the final Investigation report to the Provost and the Respondent along with a written recommendation whether or not WPI should make a finding of Research Misconduct. If the Vice Provost for Research recommends a finding of Research Misconduct, he or she will also recommend disciplinary actions to be taken. Before the Provost makes a finding of Research Misconduct, the Provost shall consult with the Committee and with the Secretary of the Faculty.
If the Provost finds that Research Misconduct has been committed, the Provost shall decide on appropriate disciplinary actions, which may include, but are not limited to, formal reprimand, suspension, expulsion, revocation of degree, change in WPI status, revocation of tenure and termination of employment. If a majority of the Investigation Committee voted that the Respondent did not commit Research Misconduct but the Provost decides that the Respondent did, or if the Provost decides on a disciplinary action that is different than the action recommended by the Investigation Committee, then the Provost should state the basis for such decisions in a document maintained with records relating to the investigation.
The Vice Provost for Research will provide written notice of the Provost's decision to the Respondent. The Complainant, if known, will be informed whether there was a finding of Research Misconduct. However, WPI officials will not notify the Complainant of any disciplinary action taken. The Vice Provost for Research will send the final report to ORI (and any other funding agency or authority required to be notified), regardless of the vote or the disciplinary action recommended by the Investigation Committee.
The Investigation is to be completed within 120 days of beginning it, including conducting the Investigation, preparing the report of findings, providing the draft report for comment and sending the final report to ORI. However, if the Vice Provost for Research determines that the Investigation will not be completed within this 120-day period, the Vice Provost for Research will submit to ORI a written request for an extension, setting forth the reasons for the delay.
The Respondent may appeal any finding of Research Misconduct, and any sanction other than termination of employment or revocation of tenure to the President within two weeks after the Provost notifies the Respondent of the imposition of the sanction. The grounds of any appeal of a finding of Research Misconduct shall be limited to two instances:
when there are alleged procedural violations that are substantial and material and which would have changed the outcome of the case; and
when the Investigation Committee voted that the Respondent did not commit Research Misconduct but the Provost finds that Research Misconduct has occurred.
Before the President decides the appeal, the President shall consult with the Provost and the Secretary of the Faculty. The President should issue a decision within thirty days of receiving the appeal. The President's decision shall be final.
If the Provost imposes a sanction of termination of employment or revocation of tenure, the Respondent may appeal the sanction to the Board of Trustees within two weeks after the Provost notifies the Respondent of the imposition of the sanction (or within two weeks after the President decides an appeal of a finding of Research Misconduct based on grounds a) or b) described above. If the Respondent appeals to the Board, the Chair of the Board, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Faculty, shall appoint a committee of five faculty members who will make a recommendation regarding the sanction imposed by the Provost. The faculty committee will have access to all written reports and materials relevant to the case. The faculty committee will summarize the basis for its recommendation in a written report to the Board Chair within thirty days. The Board Chair should issue a written decision within thirty days of receiving the faculty committee's report. The Board Chair's decision shall be final.
Other than interim institutional actions which may already be in effect, any finding of Research Misconduct, and the imposition of any sanction imposed by the Provost, will be stayed while an appeal is pending before the President or the Board of Trustees.
The Provost has the authority to mitigate the effects of the misconduct, including withdrawing WPI's name and sponsorship from pending abstracts and papers, notifying individuals known to have relied upon research that was affected by the misconduct, and taking formal steps to correct or retract publications and the Research Record.
If there is no finding of Research Misconduct, all reasonable and practical efforts if requested and as appropriate, should be made to protect and restore the reputation of the Respondent. All reasonable and practical efforts should be made to protect or restore the position and reputation of any complainant, witness or committee member and to counter potential or actual retaliation against these individuals.
To the maximum extent practicable, steps should be taken to ensure an impartial and unbiased process, including participation of persons (including fact-finders and investigators) who: (1) have sufficient expertise to carry out a thorough evaluation of the relevant information; and (2) have no real or perceived unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the inquiry or investigation that could affect their ability to be objective reviewers.
In cases where the Provost has a conflict of interest, the President shall serve in the Provost's role. In cases where the Vice Provost for Research has a conflict of interest, the Provost will serve in that role. In cases where allegations of Research Misconduct have been brought against the Vice Provost for Research, the Provost or the President, then the process outlined in this policy will be adjusted accordingly to avoid any conflicts of interest. The President shall resolve any questions of bias or conflict of interest. The President's decision on such questions shall be final.
Proceedings concerning Research Misconduct often raise difficult issues for those making the allegations, for those who are the subject of the allegations, and for those responsible for reviewing the allegations. Review of the allegations should therefore be conducted promptly and with care and sensitivity.
All participants in the review process under this Policy are expected to maintain confidentiality to protect the privacy of all involved, to the extent possible and as permitted by law. Participants should keep in mind the effect that allegations can have on reputations, even if the allegations are not sustained by the proceedings. Thus, only those people with a need to know should be informed of a complaint.
No one shall be retaliated against for participating in a review of a misconduct allegation in good faith as a Complainant, a witness, a factfinder, or investigator or in any other capacity. Reasonable efforts should be made to counter potential or actual retaliation against these complainants, witnesses and committee members. Retaliation is typically a significant adverse action taken against an individual because the individual participated in a review process. Retaliation is a serious offense. A complaint of retaliation may be investigated and may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including terminating the individual's relationship with WPI.
A false or unfounded report of misconduct determined by the Institute to have been made in bad faith and dishonesty in the context of an Inquiry or Investigation are serious offenses. Such offenses may themselves be investigated and may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment or other affiliation with WPI.
All members of the WPI community must cooperate with efforts to review allegations of Research Misconduct.
While the destruction or absence of, or failure to provide upon request, information relating to allegations of Research Misconduct is not misconduct per se, such failure may be considered to be evidence supporting a finding of Research Misconduct when the evidence shows the Respondent had relevant information and intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly destroyed it; had the opportunity to maintain the information but did not do so; or maintained the information and failed to produce it in a timely manner in connection with a Research Misconduct proceeding, with the result that the Respondent significantly departed from accepted practices of the relevant academic community.
The Office of the Vice Provost for Research is the custodian of records relating to proceedings under this Policy.
To the extent a sponsor requires notification from WPI that research it funded has become the subject of proceedings under this Policy, the Vice Provost for Research will supply that notification. In addition, the Vice Provost for Research will give applicable sponsors written notice of any decision of the Provost entering a finding of Research Misconduct at WPI.
(Approved by the Faculty, May 8, 2018)
(Approved by the Board of Trustees, May 11, 2018)
Note! This policy is not active. WPI is under the Interim Title IX & Sexual Misconduct Policy (updated February 23, 2023).
WPI is committed to maintaining a learning and working environment that is free from sexual misconduct, remedying the effects of such misconduct when it occurs, and preventing its re-occurrence. The prohibition of sexual misconduct applies to everyone at WPI, including all faculty members (including academic administrators), staff members (including non-academic administrators), students, trustees, alumni and all visitors to the WPI campus.16
This Policy applies whenever sexual misconduct occurs: a) on WPI property; or b) off WPI property if: i) the sexual misconduct was in connection with a WPI or WPI-recognized program or activity; or ii) the sexual misconduct may have the effect of creating a hostile environment for a member of the WPI community.
"Sexual misconduct" is prohibited under this Policy. Sexual misconduct is a broad term that includes sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual exploitation, gender motivated stalking, relationship abuse, engaging in certain inappropriate relationships, and retaliation against a person reporting sexual misconduct or participating in any investigation or proceeding related to this policy, all as defined below. This definition of sexual misconduct includes sexual assault (e.g., rape, fondling, incest, or statutory rape) as defined by the Clery Act, a federal law on campus safety and security. Sexual misconduct can occur between individuals who know each other, individuals who do not know each other, individuals who have an established relationship, and individuals who have previously engaged in consensual sexual activity. Sexual misconduct can be committed by persons of any gender identity, and it can occur between people of the same or different sex. Use of alcohol or other drugs will not excuse any behavior that violates this policy.
Sexual Harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, including sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature, when:
Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment or academic standing;
Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for significant employment decisions (such as advancement, performance evaluation, or work schedule) or academic decisions (such as grading or letters of recommendation) affecting that individual;
The conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person would consider it intimidating, hostile, or abusive and it adversely affects an individual's educational, work, or living environment.
A partial list of examples of conduct that might be deemed to constitute sexual harassment if sufficiently severe or pervasive include:
Examples of verbal sexual harassment may include unwelcome conduct such as sexual flirtation, advances or propositions or requests for sexual activity or dates; asking about someone else's sexual activities, fantasies, preferences, or history; discussing one's own sexual activities, fantasies, preferences, or history; verbal abuse of a sexual nature; suggestive comments; sexually explicit jokes; turning discussions at work or in the academic environment to sexual topics.
Examples of nonverbal sexual harassment may include unwelcome conduct such as displaying sexual objects, pictures, or other images; invading a person's personal body space, such as standing closer than appropriate or necessary or hovering; displaying or wearing objects or items of clothing which express sexually offensive content; making sexual gestures with hands or body movements; looking at a person in a sexually suggestive or intimidating manner; or delivering unwanted letters, gifts, or other items of a sexual nature.
Sexual assault is any intentional sexual contact or activity that occurs without the consent of any individual involved.
Sexual Exploitation is purposefully taking sexual advantage of another person without consent. Examples of sexual exploitation include:
Sexual voyeurism, such as watching a person undressing, using the bathroom or engaged in sexual activity without the consent of the person observed.
Taking pictures or video or an audio recording of another person engaging in sexual activity or exceeding the boundaries of consent (such as allowing another person to hide in a closet and observe sexual activity or disseminating sexual pictures without the photographed person's consent).
Engaging in sexual activity with another person while knowingly infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or other sexually transmitted disease (STD) without informing the other person of the infection.
Administering alcohol or drugs (such as "date rape" drugs) to another person without their knowledge or consent.
Stalking is defined as a pattern of actions or course of conduct directed at a specific person over time that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear. This policy covers those instances where the stalking of a person is motivated by the person's real or perceived gender, sex, or sexual orientation. For the purposes of this definition, "course of conduct" means two or more acts, including, but not limited to, acts in which the stalker directly, indirectly, or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means, follows, monitors, observes, surveils, threatens, or communicates to or about a person, or interferes with a person's property.
Stalking can take many forms. Examples include, but are not limited to, two or more instances of the following conduct (that also meet the definition of stalking above): following a person; appearing at a person's home, class or work; continuing to contact a person after receiving requests not to; leaving written messages, objects, or unwanted gifts; vandalizing a person's property; photographing a person; and other threatening, intimidating, or intrusive conduct. Stalking may also involve the use of electronic media such as the internet, social networks, blogs, cell phones, texts, or other similar devices (often referred to as cyber-stalking). Such conduct may include, but is not limited to, non-consensual communication, telephone calls, voice messages, emails, texts, letters, notes, gifts, or any other communication that are repeated and undesired.
Relationship abuse is defined as behavior that serves to exercise control and power in an intimate relationship. The behaviors can be physical, sexual, psychological, verbal and/or emotional. Relationship abuse can occur between current or former intimate partners who have dated, lived together, have a child together, currently reside together on or off campus, or who have otherwise connected through a past or existing relationship. It can occur in opposite-sex and same-sex relationships.
Examples of relationship abuse include but are not limited to: attempting to cause or causing bodily injury by hitting, slapping, punching, hair pulling, kicking, sexual assault and/or other forms of unwanted physical contact that cause harm; knowingly restricting the movements of another person; isolating or confining a person for a period of time; controlling or monitoring behavior; being verbally and/or emotionally abusive; and exhibiting extreme possessiveness or jealousy.
With undergraduate students. Except in rare and unusual circumstances involving preexisting relationships, sexual and romantic relationships between WPI employees3 and undergraduate students are inappropriate and are prohibited.
With graduate students. Implicit in the area of professionalism is the recognition by those in positions of authority that in relationships with graduate students there is always an element of power and consent to a romantic relationship that may not be valid where either person in the relationship has direct or indirect power or control over any aspect of the other person's academic or employment environment. Therefore, sexual and romantic relationships between employees and graduate students are prohibited where there is a supervisory relationship between the employee and the graduate student.
With supervisees. It is incumbent upon members of the WPI community to refrain from abusing, and seeming to abuse, the power with which they are entrusted, because relationships between supervisors (including TA's and RA's) and supervisees are fundamentally asymmetric in nature, may be the product of subtle or not-so-subtle coercion, or may lead to favoritism for the subordinate. If a student employee (i.e. TA, RA, PLA, undergraduate student assistant, or work-study student) is assigned to a course and has a preexisting sexual or romantic relationship with one of the enrolled students, he or she is obligated to inform the instructor of the course so that alternative arrangements can be made.
Retaliation means any materially adverse action or threat taken or made against an individual, including through third parties and/or legal counsel, for making a report of misconduct or participating in any investigation or proceeding related to this policy. Retaliation includes threatening, intimidating, harassing, or any other conduct that would discourage a reasonable person from engaging in activity protected under this policy, such as seeking services, receiving interim protective measures and accommodations, and/or reporting misconduct. Retaliation includes maliciously and purposefully interfering with, threatening, or damaging the academic and/or professional career of another individual before, during or after the investigation and resolution of a report of misconduct under this policy in response to and/or on account of the report of misconduct. This provision only applies to reports made or information provided in good faith, even if the facts alleged in the report are determined not to be accurate.
Consent is the positive, unambiguous, and voluntary agreement to engage in specific sexual activity throughout a sexual encounter. Consent must be an informed, deliberate and voluntary decision to engage in mutually acceptable sexual activity. It is the responsibility of the person who initiates sexual activity to make sure consent is received from any other person(s) involved. WPI recognizes that there are a wide variety of sexual interactions, that there is no single way to communicate consent, and that context matters. At all times, each party is free to choose where, when, and how they participate in sexual activity. Accordingly, when evaluating whether sexual activity was consensual, WPI will consider the entirety of the sexual interaction and the relevant circumstances.
Consent is active not passive. Individuals should be able to clearly articulate why and how they believed they received consent and what they considered to be indications of consent as they engaged in sexual activity. Consent must be received for each sexual act. It is important to remember:
Consent may not be inferred from silence, passivity or a lack of objection. The absence of a negative response, such as silence or a failure to resist, does not equal consent. Some behaviors and comments that do not indicate affirmative consent include but are not limited to:
Someone who is incapacitated. It is a violation of this Policy to engage in sexual activity with a person who an individual knew or should have known was incapacitated. A person can be incapacitated through the use of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance, medications or when they are unconscious, asleep or otherwise unaware that sexual activity is occurring.
Someone under the legal age of consent. The legal age of consent in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is sixteen (16).
Someone who is mentally disabled or cognitively impaired. It is a violation of this Policy to engage in sexual activity with a person whose mental disability or cognitive impairment renders them incapable of giving consent and the disability/impairment is known or should have been known to the non-disabled sexual partner.
The use of alcohol or drugs does not relieve an individual of the obligation to obtain consent before initiating and/or engaging in sexual activity.
All employees (except Confidential Resource Advisors; identified below) who learn of a violation of this Policy involving students are required to immediately report such information to the Title IX Coordinator or a Deputy Coordinator.
All supervisors (except Confidential Resource Advisors) who learn of a violation of this Policy are required to immediately report such information to the Title IX Coordinator or Deputy Coordinator.
Employees will receive regular training in their duty to report sexual misconduct.
The following employees, who will receive regular training, may serve as confidential advisors for students and are not required to report violations of this Policy:
Anyone who has experienced sexual misconduct or is aware of someone who may have been the victim of sexual misconduct is strongly encouraged to report such misconduct and to take advantage of resources available on campus and in the community.
Reporting Sexual Misconduct Immediately After a Sexual Assault If you or someone you know has recently been assaulted:
Go to a safe place as soon as you can.
In an emergency, call campus police at 508-831-5555, or 5555 from a campus phone or via a blue light phone on campus. If it is not an emergency, then call the WPI Police Department at 508-831-5433.
Seek medical attention. The WPI Student Development and Counseling Center offers counseling appointments to all students. The Emergency Room at UMass Medical Center offers services and support for people who have experienced sexual assault. WPI Police can provide students with an escort to the hospital.
Try to preserve all physical evidence.
If you are the victim of a sexual assault, try not to wash your face or hands, bathe, brush your teeth, drink or eat, douche, or change clothes if you can avoid it. If you do change your clothes, put all clothing you were wearing at the time of the assault in individual paper bags (not plastic). It is important to preserve as much evidence as possible should you later decide to press criminal charges.
Reporting Sexual Misconduct to the Title IX Coordinator and or Deputy Title IX Coordinators
The Title IX Coordinator plays an integral role in carrying out the University's commitment to provide a positive learning, teaching and working environment free from sexual misconduct and discrimination. Any student, faculty member, or staff member who has concerns about sexual misconduct is encouraged to seek the assistance of those listed below. They will provide information on resources for assistance and options to address concerns. Those options may vary depending on the nature of the situation, whether the individuals involved are students, faculty, or staff members, the wishes of the individuals involved regarding confidentiality, and whether the individuals involved prefer to proceed formally or informally.
During business hours, anyone who has experienced sexual misconduct or is aware of someone who may have been the victim of sexual misconduct may contact the Title IX Coordinator or any Deputy Title IX Coordinator. Contact information for the Title IX Coordinator and Deputy Coordinators can be found HERE.
If you are concerned about a visitor, student, faculty, or staff member who may have experienced a Title IX violation or may have committed a Title IX violation, you may report the situation anonymously by clicking HERE. In that case, you will not be contacted and will remain anonymous. If you wish, you may include your contact information, so we may contact you if we have additional questions.
NOTE: This is not a system to use for emergencies. In case of an emergency, regardless of time of day, in which someone's well-being is in jeopardy, please contact Campus Police at +1-508-831-5555.
All reports of alleged sexual misconduct will be referred to the Title IX Coordinator. Within five business days of receiving such a report, the Title IX Coordinator or their designee17 will take several initial steps. These initial steps will include, but are not limited to, the following:
Notifying the Complainant about their rights and options under this Sexual Misconduct Policy, including the right to report and the right to decline to report the matter to campus police and/or to local law enforcement, the options for reporting to WPI, and the availability of medical treatment, counseling, and other resources, both on and off campus.
Meeting with the person who has allegedly committed sexual misconduct (the "Respondent") to explain the allegation and to get their version of events, and providing that person with the option and adequate opportunity to provide a written response to the allegations. The Respondent should be notified about their rights under this Sexual Misconduct Policy, and about the availability of counseling and other on- and off-campus resources.
If the Complainant requests that the process not move forward, the Title IX Coordinator will weigh that request against WPI's obligation to address any risk of harm to the Complainant or other individuals in the community, and the nature of the incident or conduct at issue. If, following the receipt of an alleged violation of this Policy, the person who allegedly experienced sexual misconduct declines to participate in the investigation or resolution process or requests that the process not proceed, the Title IX Coordinator may decide to close the investigation or choose to continue the process without the person's participation.
Assessing the reported conduct to determine whether the circumstances warrant appropriate interim measures including, but not limited to, no-contact orders, interim suspension of a student, deadline extensions, reassignment of housing, or placing an employee on paid leave prior to completing an investigation. Failure to comply with an interim measure may lead to additional disciplinary action.
Assessing whether the behavior alleged constitutes a violation of this Policy and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of such misconduct may be identified. If the Title IX Coordinator determines that the reported conduct would not trigger this Policy, they will advise both the Complainant and the Respondent in writing, and based on the information gathered may also refer the reported conduct to the appropriate administrator or department for handling consistent with any other applicable policy. If the Title IX Coordinator determines that the reported conduct does fall under this Policy, then the case will proceed to the Investigation Phase, as described below.
Notice of an Investigation: If it is determined that an investigation is required, the Title IX Coordinator will send a written notice to the Complainant (or "party") and to the Respondent (or "party") (collectively, the "parties"). The notice will include a sufficiently detailed description of the allegations, the portions of this Policy that are alleged to have been violated, and any interim measures in place about which either party should be made aware. This written notice does not constitute a finding or a determination of responsibility.
The notice will also state that if either party requires any kind of accommodation due to disability pursuant to the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, it is the responsibility of that party to make the Title IX Coordinator aware of the need for an accommodation. The Title IX Coordinator will work with each of the parties and as applicable, Office of Disability Services (for students) and/or the 504 Coordinator (for employees) to ensure that appropriate accommodations are available.
Information about Advisors: Each party may have a single advisor present during any investigative proceeding, including any related meeting, interview, or hearing. Any person may serve as an advisor, including an attorney. Each party must provide the name and contact information of their advisor to the Title IX Coordinator within five business days of receiving notice of an investigation. Advisors may communicate with their advisee but may not may not speak or otherwise communicate on behalf of a party. Advisors are subject to the same confidentiality obligations applicable to others in attendance.
Designation of Role of the Investigator: The Title IX Coordinator shall designate at least one unbiased, qualified investigator(s)19 to conduct a prompt, fair, and impartial investigation of the reported conduct and prepare a report of investigative findings (the "Investigative Report").20 More than one investigator may be designated or the investigation may be conducted by the Title IX Coordinator. Investigator(s) need not be employees of WPI. The Title IX Coordinator will provide each of the parties with the name of the Investigator(s). As soon as possible, but no later than three (3) calendar days after delivery of the identity of the Investigator(s), the parties should inform the Title IX Coordinator (in writing) of any potential conflicts of interest about the selected Investigator(s). The Title IX Coordinator will consider the nature of the potential conflict and determine if a change is necessary.21 The Title IX Coordinator's decision (in appropriate collaboration with the Secretary of the Faculty, as described in footnote 9) regarding any conflicts regarding the investigator(s) is final.
Nature of the Investigation: The investigation will include separate interviews with the Complainant (unless that person chooses not to participate in the investigation), the Respondent, and any witnesses whom the Investigator(s) believe will provide necessary and relevant information. The investigation will include the review of documentation or other items relevant to the reported conduct.
Identification of Potential Witnesses and Documentation: The parties will have the opportunity to provide the Investigator(s) with written notice of the names and contact information of potential witnesses with whom they would like the Investigator(s) to speak together with a brief explanation of how the persons, documents, and/or items are relevant to the reported conduct. The parties may also provide the Investigator(s) with any documentation or other items or questions they would like to be considered or posed to any witness or the other party. The Investigator(s) will exercise discretion in determining what information and questions to consider and which potential witnesses will be interviewed.
Participation in the Investigation: Participation in the process (by providing information to the Investigator(s), responding to questions from the Investigator(s), responding to information provided by a party or a witness, etc.) is not required, but the Investigation will proceed even if a party or witness declines to participate. During the investigation, the parties will have an equal opportunity to participate. If a party initially declines but then later in the Investigation decides to participate, the Investigator(s) may consider that timing when determining the credibility of the information/evidence offered and the weight to give that information/evidence.
Investigation Prohibitions: The Investigator(s) will not gather or consider information related to either party's sexual history with other persons except as relevant to the alleged violation, as determined in the sole discretion of the Investigator(s).
Coordination with Law Enforcement: The Investigator or designee may contact any law enforcement agency that is conducting its own investigation to inform them that a WPI investigation is also in progress; to ascertain the status of the criminal investigation; and to determine the extent to which any evidence collected by law enforcement may be available to WPI in its investigation. At the request of law enforcement, the Investigator may delay the investigation temporarily while an external law enforcement agency is gathering evidence. The Investigator will generally resume the investigation when notified that law enforcement has completed the evidence-gathering stage of its criminal investigation.
At any time prior to convening a Judicial Panel (defined below), a Party may contact the Title IX Coordinator to request an informal resolution of a complaint. All parties and the Title IX Coordinator must agree to informal resolution for this option to be used. If the Title IX Coordinator determines that informal resolution is appropriate, the Title IX Coordinator will attempt to reach a resolution. The allegation will be deemed resolved when the parties expressly agree to an outcome that is acceptable to them and is approved by the Title IX Coordinator in consultation with other appropriate administrators.
After the Investigation Phase, the Investigator(s) will deliver an Investigative Report to the Title IX Coordinator. The Investigative Report should include a description of the alleged sexual misconduct, and a summary of the information presented during the Investigation Phase including a section where the Investigator(s) point out relevant consistencies or inconsistencies (if any) between different sources of information. The Investigative Report will not include a recommendation or a determination as to whether a party has violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy or what sanctions may be appropriate. These determinations will be made by the Judicial Panel, as described below.
Within five (5) business days of receiving the Investigative Report, the Title IX Coordinator will provide each party with a copy of the Investigative Report. Each party will have an opportunity to submit written comments to the Title IX Coordinator about the Investigative Report within five (5) business days of receiving the report. The time to submit written comments may be extended if the Title IX Coordinator concludes, in his/her sole discretion, that additional time is warranted. After reviewing the submissions, if any, from the parties, the Title IX Coordinator may determine that additional investigation is required, in which case the Investigator will supplement the Investigative Report and submit a final Investigative Report to the Title IX Coordinator. Any submissions made by either party, as well as any other documentation deemed relevant by the Investigator(s), will be attached to the Investigative Report. Within three (3) business days of receiving the final Investigative Report, the Title IX Coordinator will provide each party with a copy of the final Investigative Report.
The Title IX Coordinator will convene a five-member Judicial Panel (the "Judicial Panel") from a previously established pool of WPI faculty members elected by the Faculty to the Campus Hearing Board, staff members and students trained to decide sexual misconduct cases. The process for selecting staff members and students for the pool and the training process for all members of the pool is set by the Title IX Coordinator in collaboration with the Dean of Students Office, the Secretary of the Faculty, and the Human Resources Department. Students will only serve on panels where the Respondent is a student. If the Respondent is a student, the Judicial Panel should include a student member unless either party elects not to have a student serve on the Judicial Panel. If the Respondent is a faculty member, the Judicial Panel should include at least three faculty members. If the Respondent is a staff member, the Judicial Panel should include at least three staff members. The Title IX Coordinator will provide the parties with the names of the persons assigned as the Judicial Panel members for their case. As soon as possible, but no later than three (3) business days after delivery of the identity of the assigned Judicial Panel members, the parties should inform the Title IX Coordinator in writing of any conflicts of interest regarding the members assigned to the Judicial Panel. If a conflict of interest is raised regarding any of the individuals assigned to the Judicial Panel, the Title IX Coordinator will consider the nature of the conflict and determine if different individuals should be assigned to the Judicial Panel. The Title IX Coordinator should consult with other WPI personnel (and shall collaborate with the Secretary of the Faculty in the case of any conflict of interest raised by a faculty member who is a party in the case or with respect to a proposed Judicial Panel member who is a faculty member) to assess any conflicts of interest. The Title IX Coordinator's decision (in appropriate collaboration with the Secretary of the Faculty) regarding any conflicts is final. The Title IX Coordinator will then submit the Investigative Report to the Judicial Panel members who will set a schedule for the Judicial Panel to convene a hearing or hearings.
Proper training is a vital aspect of the integrity of the judicial process. Therefore, all members of the Judicial Panel shall receive appropriate orientation and training, in keeping with applicable law and national best practices. Training and orientation shall be overseen and approved by the Title IX Coordinator.
The Judicial Panel will obtain the Investigative Report from the Title IX Coordinator and convene to review the Investigative Report. The Judicial Panel, in its discretion, may request the Investigator(s) to attend a Judicial Panel meeting and answer questions. The Judicial Panel, in its discretion, may request the Investigator(s) to conduct additional investigation on specific points. The Judicial Panel must request the parties that participated in the investigation to appear and answer questions posed by the Judicial Panel. In addition, the Judicial Panel, in its discretion, may request to speak with any individual identified in the Investigative Report as well as any other individual with relevant information including individuals identified by the parties.
In general, a Complainant, witness, or Respondent who had the opportunity to participate during the Investigation but elected not to participate will not be permitted to participate verbally in the hearing or submit documents prior to the hearing. The Judicial Panel may permit a Complainant, witness, or Respondent who did not participate in the Investigation to participate in the hearing upon a showing of good cause. Exceptions of this nature are expected to be rare. The possibility of a law enforcement investigation or criminal court proceedings will generally not be considered good cause for an exception. In general, documents that have not been submitted during the Investigation may not be presented to the Judicial Panel, although the Judicial Panel may permit documents to be submitted that were not part of the Investigation upon a showing of good cause. The Judicial Panel may, however, consider the fact that the documents were not provided during the Investigation when determining the credibility of the information/evidence offered and the weight to give that evidence.
The Judicial Panel will decide by majority vote whether the Respondent is responsible for violating the Sexual Misconduct Policy, whether sanctions are appropriate and, if so, what those sanctions shall be. The Judicial Panel should state the basis for such decisions in a document maintained with records relating to the case.
All findings and determinations of responsibility and sanctions will be made using a preponderance of the evidence standard. This standard requires the determination of whether it is more likely than not that a fact exists or a violation of the Sexual Misconduct Policy occurred.
Throughout the process, the parties shall have:
A finding of responsibility for Sexual Misconduct can result in a wide range of sanctions, depending on the circumstances of a particular case. When the Respondent is a student, examples of sanctions include community service, counseling, probation, suspension from residence hall, suspension from the university for one or more terms, expulsion from WPI. When the Respondent is a staff member or a faculty member, examples of sanctions include community service, counseling, probation, reassignment of duties, suspension with pay, suspension without pay, and termination of employment at WPI. In deciding an appropriate sanction, the Judicial Panel shall consider the following factors:
Upon reaching a determination of responsibility by majority vote, the Judicial Panel will provide a written notification of its decision to the Title IX Coordinator. The written notification will consist of a statement of the allegations, the Judicial Panel's factual findings, a decision as to whether the Respondent committed Sexual Misconduct, any sanction, and the rationale for these decisions. This written document shall be maintained with records relating to the case. The Title IX Coordinator will forward to the parties simultaneously (i) the Judicial Panel's written notification described above; and (ii) the procedures for either party to appeal. The Title IX Coordinator will also inform other WPI officials as necessary and appropriate.
All appeals (in Section "a" below) and special appeals (in Section "b" below) should be delivered to the Title IX Coordinator who will transmit the appeal to the appropriate Appellate Officer.
Within seven (7) business days following the delivery of the notice of the Judicial Panel's determination of responsibility and sanction, either Party may appeal the decision and/or sanction to the appropriate Appellate Officer. If the Respondent is a student, the Appellate Officer is the Vice President for Student Affairs. If the Respondent is a faculty member, the Appellate Officer is the Provost (unless the Respondent is a full-time faculty member who the Judicial Panel has determined should be dismissed or suspended, in which case Section b. below applies). If the Respondent is a staff member, the Appellate Officer is the Vice President of Talent and Chief Diversity Officer.
If potential bias or conflict of interest is raised by either party regarding the Appellate Officer, the President will consider the nature of the potential bias or conflict (and, before deciding the matter, shall collaborate on the matter with the Secretary of the Faculty in the case of any conflict of interest raised by a party who is a faculty member) to assess any conflicts of interest and determine if a different individual should be assigned the role of Appellate Officer. The Appellate Officer shall not be involved in the appeal until the President has resolved any questions of conflict of interest.
The party submitting the appeal must set forth in detail the grounds for appeal and must identify or attach all materials to be considered in the appeal process. The Title IX Coordinator will provide a copy of the appeal submitted by one party to the other party, and the other party may submit any additional materials that they wish to have considered in the appeal process within seven (7) business days of receipt of the appeal.
Within 14 business days after receiving an appeal (including additional materials, if any), the Appellate Officer will decide the merits of the appeal. In deciding the appeal, the Appellate Officer should rev iew evidence considered by the Judicial Panel and may also consult with the Investigator(s), the Judicial Panel, or any other individual that the Appellate Officer deems appropriate.23 In a case where the Appellate Officer overturns a decision of the Judicial Panel, the Appellate Officer shall first consult with the Investigator(s), the Judicial Panel, and any other individual that the Appellate Officer deems appropriate.
Sanctions may be imposed, in full or in part, while an appeal is pending.
The decisions concerning responsibility and sanction, if any, and reasoning of the Appellate Officer(s) will be provided in a written document and will be final, except for circumstances that permit a Special Appeal, as described below. The written document shall be maintained with records relating to the case.
The Appellate Officer will forward the written document to the Title IX Coordinator, and the Title IX Coordinator will inform the parties simultaneously of the outcome of the appeal by forwarding to them the Appellate Officer's written document.
The following appeal process applies in two cases:
As the sole method of appeal of a determination by a Judicial Panel that a Respondent who is a full-time faculty member should be dismissed or suspended; and
As an appeal of a determination by the Appellate Officer that a Respondent who is a full-time faculty member should be dismissed or suspended when that determination was made on appeal of a Judicial Panel's decision not to impose such sanctions on the Respondent.
Such appeals appeal will be subject to the following procedure:
The Respondent may appeal (both the finding of responsibility and the sanction) to the President within fourteen days after the Title IX Officer notifies the Respondent of the imposition of the sanction by the Judicial Panel or within fourteen days after the Appellate Officer imposes a sanction of suspension or dismissal on the first appeal. The appeal to the President should state why the Respondent believes the determination of responsibility and/or the sanctions were inappropriate. The appeal must also set forth in detail the grounds for appeal and must identify or attach all materials to be considered in the appeal process. The Title IX Coordinator will provide a copy of the appeal to the Complainant (if that person has not declined to participate in the investigative and judicial case). The Complainant may submit a response to the Title IX Coordinator within five days of receiving a copy of the appeal. The Title IX Coordinator will forward that response to the President.
Before the President decides the appeal, the President should consult with the previous Appellate Officer (if there were one) and the Secretary of the Faculty. The President should issue a decision within thirty days of receiving the appeal. If the decision will take longer than thirty days, the President should inform the parties of the additional time necessary to render a decision. The decisions concerning responsibility and sanction, if any, and reasoning of the President will be provided in a written document. The written document shall be maintained with records relating to the case.
The President will forward the written document to the Title IX Coordinator, and the Title IX Coordinator will inform the parties simultaneously of the outcome of the appeal by forwarding to them the President's written document.
If the President decides to impose a sanction of dismissal or suspension, the Respondent may appeal the sanction to the Board of Trustees within fourteen days after the Respondent is notified of the President's decision. If the Respondent appeals to the Board, the Chair of the Board, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Faculty, shall appoint a committee of five faculty members who will make a recommendation regarding the sanction imposed. The faculty committee will have access to all written reports and materials relevant to the case. The faculty committee will summarize the basis for its recommendation in a written report to the Board Chair within thirty days. The Board Chair should issue a written decision within thirty days of receiving the faculty committee's report. If the decision will take longer than thirty days, the Board Chair should inform the parties of the additional time necessary to render a decision. The decision and reasoning of the Board Chair will be provided in a written document. The written document shall be maintained with records relating to the case. The Board Chair will forward the written decision document to the Title IX Coordinator, and the Title IX Coordinator will inform the parties simultaneously of the outcome of the appeal by forwarding to them the Board Chair's written document.
The Board Chair's decision shall be final.
WPI will endeavor to complete the investigation and disciplinary Judicial Panel process, if any, within sixty (60) days of the delivery of the written notice of investigation to the parties. This period does not include the time for any appeal. Timeframes set forth in this Policy may be extended for good cause. WPI's overarching goal is that the process should be prompt, fair, and impartial.
To the maximum extent practicable, steps should be taken to ensure an impartial and unbiased process, including participation of persons (including investigators) who: (1) have sufficient qualifications and training to carry out a thorough evaluation of the relevant information; and (2) have no unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the inquiry or investigation that could affect their ability to be objective reviewers.
In cases where the Title IX Coordinator has a conflict of interest, a Deputy Title IX Coordinator appointed by the President will serve in the Title IX Coordinator's role. In cases where the Appellate Officer has a conflict of interest, the President shall appoint another Appellate Officer. In cases where allegations of Sexual Misconduct have been brought against the Title IX Coordinator, the Vice President for Talent/Chief Diversity Officer, the Provost, or the President, then the process outlined in this policy will be adjusted accordingly to avoid any conflicts of interest. Except in cases involving the President, the President shall resolve any questions of bias or conflict of interest. The President's decision on such questions shall be final.
Any person who knowingly makes a false statement - either explicitly or by omission - in connection with any part of the process will be subject to separate disciplinary action. A false or unfounded report of misconduct determined by WPI to have been made in bad faith and dishonesty is a serious offense. Such offenses will themselves be investigated under the appropriate WPI policy and may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment or other affiliation with WPI. A report made in good faith is not considered false merely because the evidence does not ultimately support the allegation of violation of the Policy.
The investigation is a neutral fact-gathering process. Although participation in the process (providing information to the Investigator(s), responding to questions from the Investigator(s), responding to information provided by a party or a witness, etc.) is not required, the Complainant, the Respondent, and all witnesses are expected to participate in good faith in the process set forth in this Policy, and they may be required by WPI to attend meetings related to the process. Any person who knowingly interferes with the reporting, investigation, or resolution of matters under this Policy may be subject to separate and/or additional disciplinary action
Proceedings concerning Sexual Misconduct often raise difficult issues for those making the allegations, for those who are the subject of the allegations, and for those responsible for reviewing the allegations. Review of the allegations should therefore be conducted promptly and with care and sensitivity.
The University will administer any complaint of sexual misconduct using the process described in this Policy while providing the utmost degree of privacy and confidentiality possible under the circumstances of each matter and as permitted by law. All participants in the review process under this Policy are expected to maintain confidentiality to protect the privacy of all involved, to the extent possible and as permitted by law. Participants should keep in mind the affect that allegations can have on reputations, even if the allegations are not sustained by the proceedings. Thus, only those people with a need to know should be informed of a complaint. Any participant in the process set forth in this Policy who violates their duty of confidentiality may be subject to discipline under the appropriate WPI policy.
The parties are not permitted to make video, audio, or other electronic, photographic, or digital recordings of any meetings or proceedings held under the Sexual Misconduct Policy or these procedures or the Investigative Phase. The Title IX Coordinator may make exceptions to this prohibition in limited circumstances if he or she concludes, in his or her sole discretion, that a recording is warranted, and upon written request of the party seeking the recording that explains the need for the recording.
The Title IX Coordinator should receive and maintain all records relating to proceedings under this Policy including all notices to and from the parties, all reports of Investigators, all decisions by a Judicial Panel, all appeals by the parties, and all decisions by Appellate Officers and others involved in the appeals process under this Policy.
If there is no finding of Sexual Misconduct, the University should make reasonable and practical efforts as appropriate to restore the reputation of the Respondent. Any such concerns by the Respondent should be directed to the Title IX coordinator for follow up with other administrators as appropriate.
Such information, including about filing a complaint with the Department of Education related to this Policy, may be obtained from the Office of Civil Rights at the United States Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202-1100; 800-421-3481 TDD: 800-877-8339; OCR@ed.gov.
More about Title IX at WPI may be found at https://www.wpi.edu/offices/title-ix.
The Title IX Coordinator shall annually evaluate the effectiveness of the Policy with respect to meeting the needs of Complainants and Respondents during the process.
Top | Ch 1 | Ch 2 | Ch 3 | Ch 4 | Ch 5 | Ch 6 | Ch 7 | Ch 8 | Ch 9 | Ch 10
Throughout this Handbook, whenever "Faculty," "the Faculty," "faculty member," or "member of the Faculty" is used in the context of voting, service on committees, and the responsibilities of governing the Faculty, these terms indicate tenured, tenure-track, or secured faculty members - those responsible for the governance of the Faculty.↩︎
Former tenured members of the Faculty who are in phased retirement (with fifty percent appointments or greater) retain their privileges to vote on all faculty governance matters and to serve on all governance committees.↩︎
Former tenured members of the Faculty who are in phased retirement (with fifty percent appointments or greater) retain their privileges to vote on all faculty governance matters and to serve on all governance committees.↩︎
If there are any inconsistencies or disagreements between language elsewhere in the Faculty Handbook and in this appointment letter, the terms of this appointment letter will apply.↩︎
If there are any inconsistencies or disagreements between language elsewhere in the faculty handbook and in this appointment letter, the terms of this appointment letter will apply.↩︎
The WPI teaching mission is distinguished by inquiry-based learning, open-ended problem solving, and integrative and interdisciplinary thinking. A WPI education balances personal responsibility with cooperation, collaboration, and mutual respect, and encourages critical reflection, sound decision making, and personal growth. WPI prepares its graduates broadly to lead fulfilling lives as responsible professionals, informed community members, and ethical citizens.↩︎
Currency is not defined by any product or artifact, including peer reviewed journal articles or extramural funding.↩︎
The template for Professional Development Plans is available through the Morgan Teaching and Learning Center.↩︎
Implicit biases are unconscious thoughts that are automatically activated without conscious awareness that can inadvertently influence thoughts, decisions, and behaviors. Implicit biases are pervasive, but they do not necessarily align with explicit beliefs, biases, or motivations.↩︎
This policy replaces and supersedes all previous Faculty Conduct Policies, including policy entitled "Worcester Polytechnic Institute Faculty Conduct Policy" approved by the Board of Trustees on May 11, 2018. The procedures outlined herein apply to conduct predating the implementation date unless a proceeding is pending under the old policy. All faculty members and instructional staff not covered by this Policy should consult the Work Behavior/Discipline section of the Human Resources Employee Benefits and Policies Manual.↩︎
See for example AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics.↩︎
The referral of a faculty member to the Employee Assistance Program (see https://www.wpi.edu/offices/talent/benefits-payroll-perks/benefits-matrix/employee-assistance-program), training, counseling, or coaching is not considered a disciplinary sanction under this policy.↩︎
This policy is based upon the federal regulations governing research misconduct in connection with United States Public Health Service ("PHS")-supported activities and will be interpreted and applied so as to be in compliance with those regulations. WPI has also determined that this policy will be applied as the minimum standard to all allegations of research misconduct, regardless of the funding source(s) or whether the scholarly activity is funded. Institutional response to research misconduct allegations in areas not PHS-supported will follow the same general principles except for the actual involvement of PHS. In the event another research sponsor has additional requirements beyond those covered by this policy, all research funded by that source will be subject to those additional requirements.↩︎
This policy replaces the prior policy entitled "Policy and Procedure for Removal of Tenured Faculty Member for Cause" adopted in 1969 as it relates to matters concerning research misconduct. This policy also replaces the Research Misconduct Policy passed by the Board of Trustees on December 13, 2013 and the Research Misconduct Policy passed by the Faculty on January 23, 2014.↩︎
This Policy supersedes all WPI policies dealing with Sexual Misconduct including the "Sexual Misconduct Policy" in the Student Responsibilities and Code of Conduct, the "Sexual Harassment Policy" in the WPI Employee Benefits and Policies Manual, and the "Sexual Harassment Policy" in the Faculty Handbook.↩︎
Probationary staff, part-time employees, visitors, and employees subject to a letter of appointment or a collective bargaining agreement may be subject to a different disciplinary process in accordance with applicable policies and terms of their appointment.↩︎
As necessary and appropriate, the Title IX Coordinator may designate a Deputy Title IX Coordinator or another qualified person to assume the Title IX Coordinator's responsibilities under this Policy.↩︎
Throughout this Policy, the term "Complainant" refers to the person who experienced sexual misconduct regardless of who reported the misconduct.↩︎
The investigator shall be deemed "qualified" if the individual has received training in conducting Title IX investigations and has the requisite professional experience to conduct the investigation.↩︎
If the Respondent is a faculty member, the Title IX Coordinator will collaborate with the Secretary of the Faculty, in appointing the Investigator and in rendering a decision regarding any potential conflicts of interest involving the investigator.↩︎
If the Respondent is a faculty member, the Title IX Coordinator will collaborate with the Secretary of the Faculty in making a decision about whether or not to disqualify an Investigator when the faculty member objects based on a potential conflict of interest. If a party raises an objection based on a potential conflict of interest involving the Title IX Coordinator serving as investigator, the role of the Title IX Coordinator in deciding about whether a conflict exists, and whether another investigator should be designated, will be assumed by the President.↩︎
All Appellate Officers, including the President and Board Chair, will receive Title IX training.↩︎
Because the President may have a role in the appellate process involving full time faculty members facing suspension or dismissal, the appellate officer shall not communicate with the President regarding a full-time faculty member's appeal.↩︎