Chapter 2: Faculty Privileges, Professional Ethics, and Responsibilities
2.1 Academic Freedom
2.2 Free Speech and Assembly
2.3 Professional Ethics and Plagiarism
2.4 Open … reserved
2.5 Student Evaluation of the Faculty
2.6 Faculty Review of Administrators
Sec 2.1. Academic Freedom Sources:
a Members of the faculty individually enjoy and exercise all rights secured to them by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Maine, and by the principles of academic freedom as they are generally understood in higher education, including professional behavior standards and the expectation of academic due process and just cause, as well as rights specifically granted to them by: Trustee action, University of Maine System rules, these policies and procedures, and relevant practices or established custom of their colleges or schools and departments.
b. Academic freedom is defined at the University of Maine as the freedom to discuss, meet with others and present scholarly and personal opinions and conclusions regarding all matters in the classroom and in public, to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression, and to reach conclusions according to one’s scholarly discernment and according to one’s own conscience on all matters, including university operations, policies and employment practices without any Institutional censure, discipline or restraint.
2.2. Academic Freedom of Speech and Assembly
Academic freedom also includes the right to speak, meet or write as a private citizen or within the context of one’s activities as an employee of the university without institutional discipline or restraint on matters of public concern as well as on matters related to professional duties, the functioning of the university, and university positions and policies. Academic responsibility implies the faithful performance of professional duties and obligations, the recognition of the demands of the scholarly enterprise, and the candor to make it clear that when one is speaking on matters of public interest or concern, one is speaking on behalf of oneself, not the institution.
2.3 Professional Ethics and Plagiarism
The University, faculty associations worldwide, and generations of individual faculty members have recognized the need for the highest professional standards for members of the faculty. Online information containing the statement of the American Association of University Professors on professional ethics is found at www.ume.maine.edu/facsen/IV%20FacultyPrivileges.htm.
Certain types of behavior are of particular concern. Among these are:
1. Nonperformance of basic teaching, research, and service obligations (e.g., regularly missing classes, failing to submit student grades, etc.);
2. Improper behavior toward other university employees or students (e.g., hazing, sexual harassment, discrimination, threats of physical violence, etc.); The UMS sexual harassment policy states: “Consenting relationships may constitute sexual harassment under this policy. When a professional power differential exists between members of the University of Maine System and a romantic or sexual relationship develops, there is a potential for abuse of that power, even in relationships of apparent mutual consent. A faculty or staff member should not engage in such relationships.” http://www.umaine.edu/eo/Policy/consenting.htm. There is a nepotism policy concerning institutional relationships of family members. See http://www.umaine.edu/eo/aaplan/appendix3.htm. Faculty should also consult http://www.umaine.edu/hr/guide/Chapter3/conflict.htm
3. Significant violations of criminal law whether or not related to University activities;
4. Plagiarism. Scholars must give full and fair recognition to sources both for the substance and for the formulation of their findings and interpretations. Using the ideas, methods, or written words of others without acknowledgment is plagiarism. Equally unethical is the practice of self-plagiarism, or duplicate publication, where authors re-publish substantial portions of their own previously published work as new without providing appropriate references, and in doing so deviating from the standard practices in their fields.”
5. Other violations of the standards of the faculty member’s professional association.
All faculty members are entitled to expect the highest professional behavior from their colleagues. Faculty members who violate these professional standards may be subject to disciplinary sanctions including termination. Discipline and termination take place only following fair procedures specified by the AFUM agreement, University regulations, and the U.S. Constitution. More information is available at www.umaine.edu/hr/profemp/default.htm.
2.5 Student Evaluation of the Faculty
All instructors, regardless of professorial rank and full- or part-time status, are evaluated for each course taught. While student evaluations are not the sole basis for administrative decisions regarding faculty teaching, they do provide comments to the instructor for self-improvement, allow student opinions to be voiced, and provide data for use in making personnel and course assignment decisions.
Evaluations are generally held in the two-week period prior to the end of classes. The instructor must not be present during the completion of forms or their collection. The instructor may explain the evaluation forms to students before the evaluation. A student or university employee collects the forms, which are then placed in an envelope in view of the class. He or she returns them to the administrative office designated for processing. Some professors or departments are now using online evaluations. As with written paper evaluations, student anonymity must be protected. Results from the evaluations are available to the instructor only after final course grades are issued.
Although most units use a common evaluation instrument which allows comparisons across courses, there is no requirement to use any specific evaluation instrument. In addition, a professor or unit may add questions if desired. Two types of Course Evaluation forms (long or “traditional” and short or“new”) are available from the Faculty Development Center (http://www.umaine.edu/it/fdc/pages/scoring.php).
At any time during the semester, faculty members may conduct evaluations of their teaching for their own information. They may use their own forms and procedures for these evaluations.
2.6 Faculty Review of Administrators
The principles of shared governance at The University of Maine are spelled out in the “University of Maine Shared Governance Policy” agreed to by The Faculty Senate and administration April 19, 2009, available at https://umaine.edu/facultysenate/wp-content/uploads/sites/218/2010/12/SharedGovernanceUMaine.pdf.
See Section II. Shared Governance Process and Implementation, subparts “A. Faculty Representation in Decision Making” and “E.b Academic Personnel Decisions: Evaluation.”
Currently, there is no mechanism for joint Faculty Senate and administration evaluation of Department Chairs or unit Directors. For the evaluation of chairs and directors, each college will determine the process which will include significant faculty input, both from inside and outside the department.
The process for reviews for reappointment of deans and directors reporting to the Provost is explained in the “4th Year Evaluation Procedure for Deans/Directors” available from the Provost office. These deans and directors are reviewed early in the last year of the individual’s current appointment. A Dean or Associate Provost, selected by the Provost, will chair the committee. Three faculty member will serve on the committee, two from within the college of the individual being reviewed and one from outside the college, chosen from a list of names provided by the faculty senate (six faculty members within the college and three from outside the college). Faculty representative shall comprise at least half of each evaluation committee. The Provost will select other committee members: a department chair to serve on the committee, and one or more people outside the unit to serve on the committee. Names can be requested through the PEAC and/or the CEAC. Among the information gathered will be the results of a questionnaire sent to faculty/staff/stakeholders of the college/unit.
The process and timing of reviewing the President is specified in the University of Maine System Policy Manual, section 204.1 President – Evaluation Process, available at
http://www.maine.edu/about-the-system/board-of-trustees/policy-manual/section204-1/
A Comprehensive Review is scheduled for the third year of service and every four years thereafter. The faculty role in that evaluation is described: “Interviews with, or other means of obtaining feedback from, all Board members, representatives of faculty, students and staff, Board of Visitors, and any other parties selected by the reviewer and Chancellor.”
The university President conducts annual reviews of those reporting directly to that office. At present, faculty have no formal role other than by participation through annual reports of the Cabinet and direct reports. All input is welcomed. Each year, the President conducts an annual performance evaluation of each member of the President’s Cabinet (Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, Senior Vice President for Administration and Finance, Senior Advisor to the President, Vice President for Student Life, Vice President for Development, and Director of Athletics). The Executive Vice President and Provost, in consultation with the President, evaluates the Vice President for Research, Vice President for Enrollment Management, and Vice President for Innovation and Economic Development due to their direct report to the Provost. The Senior Vice President for Administration, in consultation with the President, evaluates the Associate Vice President for Human Resources and Administration. The President also evaluates the Director of Equal Opportunity as a Direct Report.
The Annual Performance Evaluation consists of review and discussion of the divisional annual report completed by the Administrator addressing the following major emphases: (1) Executive Summary of Major Goals Accomplished in the Division in Relation to the Major Presidential Goals and Objectives and the Blue Sky Project, (2) Identification of Major Challenges in Meeting Goals; Status of Unmet Goals, (3) Noteworthy Divisional Points of Pride, (4) Noteworthy Efforts to Increase Revenue, Decrease Expenditures, and Increase Fiscal Efficiency, and (5) Desired/Planned Professional Development Opportunities for the Administrator and Divisional Staff, as appropriate.
The Annual Performance Evaluation prepared by the President is then reviewed personally with the Administrator in order to set consensus based goals for the upcoming year affirming success and/or addressing challenges and improvements. The Annual Performance Evaluation is filed with the Office of Human Resources.