I am posting on behalf of the College of Arts & Sciences (CAS) Faculty Council, as Chair of that Committee. The CAS Faculty Council reviewed a previous version of this document and prepared feedback in Spring 2025, much of which has been considered or incorporated into this current version. However, some additional points remain relevant, as noted below:
The current document specifies that a standard “unit” of teaching is a 3-4 credit course, though this perhaps assumes that all credit hours are equal with regard to effort, intensity, and preparation. The differences between lab vs. lecture, graduate vs. undergraduate, and other course structures and sizes are not accounted for. Who decides equivalencies? The current section on equivalencies notes that this will be determined by numerous parties, including Academic Units, college bylaws and policies, the Dean, and the Provost. This doesn’t provide a great deal of direct guidance for a faculty member who wishes to resolve questions regarding this issue.
Additionally related to distribution of teaching and other units, it is not explicitly acknowledged that there are departments or academic units who have teaching-track and research-track appointments. How are these considered or accommodated within the current workload guidelines?
Teaching and other overloads are mentioned both within the definitions and later within the policy specific to limitations on overload assignments. It seems as though there is a desire to limit overload assignments for tenure-track faculty, but this has historically not been the norm. While protective, is such a prohibition reasonable and possible? Will faculty be appropriately protected when they are unable to complete overload requests from a supervisor?
With regard to reallocation of workload assignments, the proposed workload policy states that this offset may not continue for any more than two consecutive semesters. However, in an institutional environment in which offsets and reallocations of workload responsibilities are common occurrences to compensate for additional responsibilities (e.g., administrative duties, additional required service), is it realistic to limit it to two semesters? After those two semesters, how will faculty who maintain those additional responsibilities be compensated for them if the workload reallocation is to be discontinued?
The final component of the policy includes directives for colleges and departments to develop a task force or other group to determine their own workload policies and procedures. This is perhaps in deference to professional or discipline-specific workload variability. However, why have separate policies and procedures at those levels when there is this university-level document? How much would those college-level or department-level workload policies be permitted to deviate from this one? Additional guidance on which of those would be prioritized, and how they interact with one another, is needed.
I am posting on behalf of the College of Arts & Sciences (CAS) Faculty Council, as Chair of that Committee. The CAS Faculty Council reviewed a previous version of this document and prepared feedback in Spring 2025, much of which has been considered or incorporated into this current version. However, some additional points remain relevant, as noted below: