Texas Tech University
philosopher sculpture

Departmental BylawsPhilosophy

department of philosophy wordmark
Bylaws
Department of philosophy
College of Arts & Sciences 
Texas Tech University

Last Updated May 7, 2025

 

  1. Preamble:
    The Philosophy Department is committed to democratic, egalitarian, shared governance for general decision-making. While the department is constrained by Texas Tech University’s Operating Policies and Procedures1 (especially section 32: Academic Policies: Faculty) and the College of Arts and Sciences’ Operating Policies,2 the faculty as a whole shall clarify and interpret the ways in which these OPs apply to the department, and to the individual department members. The faculty shall set long-term goals as well as departmental policies that guide and govern the day-to-day operations of the department. Departmental aims include teaching and research excellence, fairness, collegiality, efficiency, transparency, and intellectual engagement with the university and broader communities. 

    1To be found at TTU OP Manuals Page. Faculty are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the University OPs. 

    2To be found at A&S Policies Page. Faculty are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the College of Arts and Sciences OPs. 

  2. Structure and Governance 
    1. Definition of Faculty
      1. For general issues of departmental governance, voting members of the department include all full-time, permanent faculty. This includes faculty on the continuing appointment stream such as lecturers and professors of practice as well as tenure-stream faculty. 
      2. Other members of the faculty (visiting professors, part-time instructors, emeriti, or other former faculty) as well as guests may attend meetings when appropriate but shall not vote. 
    2. Leadership Positions
      1. Department Chair
        1. The Department Chair is appointed by the Dean of the College. The appointment process and duties of the position are partially governed by OP 32.03, which states, The chairperson, in cooperation with the faculty, is responsible for supervising activities of the department or area, scheduling classes, assisting in faculty evaluations, preparing budget requests, initiating appointment recommendations, and developing the curriculum. (OP 32.03)
        2. As a matter of university policy, the Chair is entrusted with managing the financial, physical, and human resources of the department. The Chair initiates appointments of faculty and staff, supervises and evaluates faculty and staff, schedules classes, allocates resources, prepares budgets, and generally coordinates the department’s programs and curriculum. The Chair is responsible for ensuring adherence to University and College policies. The Chair shall delegate or share tasks with other faculty and staff as appropriate, and act in consultation with the rest of the faculty as individuals, in committees, and as a whole as appropriate and feasible. However, the ultimate authority and responsibility for departmental matters lies with the Chair. While fairness, collegiality, efficiency, and transparency are the responsibility of everyone in the Department, they are particularly important goals for the Chair.
        3. The Chair is the representative of the Department to the student body, the university community, the Lubbock community, and the national and international academic philosophy community.
        4. When possible, the Chair shall notify the faculty and the Dean’s office in advance of any absences such as vacations, research travel, presentations at conferences, and other extended absences. The Chair shall arrange for coverage, typically by the Associate Chair, for any planned absence. 
      2. Associate Chair
        1. The Associate Chair will be appointed by the Chair. The Associate Chair assists the Chair in managing the operations of the Department. If the Chair is unavailable for required university business, the Associate Chair will represent the Department in the Chair’s stead. In the case of an extended absence, the Associate Chair will serve as Acting Chair of the Department. At the discretion of the Chair, the Associate Chair may receive additional compensation for administrative work and/or course releases. 
      3. Director of Graduate Studies
        1. The Director of Graduate Studies (DGS) shall be appointed by the Chair for a term of three years with the possibility of re-appointment. The DGS shall assist the Chair in matters related to the graduate program, including funding decisions, and shall serve as the departmental contact person for the Graduate School. The DGS is responsible for managing all University requirements pertaining to graduate students such as filing degree plans and authorizing admissions. The DGS is also responsible for performing various tasks pertaining to graduate students that are not required by the University. These include supervising the annual graduate student conference, evaluating and overseeing teaching assistants, and assisting students with post-graduation applications. At the discretion of the Chair, the DGS may receive additional compensation for administrative work and/or course releases. 
      4. Director of Undergraduate Studies
        1. The Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUS) shall be appointed by the Chair. The DUS shall assist the Chair in matters related to the undergraduate program and serve as the departmental contact person for Academic Advisors. The DUS is responsible for performing various tasks pertaining to undergraduate students, such as facilitating the introduction of new courses, advertising courses, evaluating and processing course credit transfer applications, advising the Philosophy Club, and periodically reporting to the Department on enrollment trends. At the discretion of the Chair, the DUS may receive additional compensation for administrative work and/or course releases. 
    3. Committees
      1. The Philosophy Department has several standing committees including a scholarship committee, a faculty awards committee, and a graduate admissions committee. The Chair shall be an ex officio member of all standing committees.
      2. Other committees such as tenure and promotion committees and hiring committees shall be formed as needed by the Chair.
      3. All members of each committee, including the committee chair, may vote in committee deliberations.
      4. Committee assignments and individual service assignments (such as service on university committees) are determined by the Chair, ideally at the beginning of the academic year. Individual preferences, suitability for the task, internal committee makeup, and workload balance (both at that time and across time) will all be taken into account. Other things being equal, more senior and higher rank faculty are expected to devote a larger portion of their time to service.
    4. Faculty Meetings
      1. Regular faculty meetings shall be held at the beginning and end of each semester as well as approximately every month during the semester. The dates and times for regularly scheduled meetings shall be announced before the beginning of the semester. Additional meetings may be called by the Chair when needed. When rescheduling or additional meetings are necessary, faculty members shall be given reasonable notice.
      2. At least one meeting per year shall include a budget presentation by the Chair.
      3. An agenda shall be distributed in advance of each meeting. Agenda items for meetings will be solicited from the faculty.
      4. Faculty members shall take turns taking minutes. Minutes of each meeting shall be distributed to the faculty before the next meeting. All minutes shall be stored in an on-line folder, accessible only to permanent faculty members.
      5. Parliamentary procedure shall be determined by Robert’s Rules of Order (current edition).
  3. Voting Process
    1. A quorum will exist when more than 50% of the eligible voting faculty are physically or virtually present.
    2. With the exception of certain voting procedures specified by the upper administration (e.g. tenure and promotion votes), voting shall be either by raising of hands or by secret ballot (if requested). Other methods such as online voting may also be used in circumstances as necessary.
    3. Absentee voting is not permitted, although absent faculty members may ask colleagues to convey their opinions to the faculty in the meeting.
    4. The Chair shall not vote, except to break tie votes.
    5. All permanent faculty are eligible to vote on all motions. Faculty members on development leave or other kinds of leave are still eligible, though not required, to vote. On certain issues, other members of the faculty may be eligible to vote. The determination of whether they are eligible shall be made by the Chair, in consultation with the permanent faculty.
    6. Faculty members shall recuse themselves from voting on motions with respect to which they have substantial conflicts of interest.
  4. Faculty Hiring Process
    1. Full-time faculty search procedures (including the makeup of the search committee) are governed by University OP 32.16. The Chair must receive permission from the Dean to initiate a permanent faculty search. This will typically be preceded by a discussion of budget and rank considerations.
    2. Once permission is granted, the Department Chair shall convene a meeting with the permanent faculty to deliberate and vote on the rank, areas of specialization (AOS), and areas of competence (AOC) to be sought.
    3. Next, a search committee and committee Chair shall be selected by the Chair, taking into account recommendations from the Department, individual preferences, AOS/AOC suitability for dossier evaluations, and workload balance. Conflicts of interest will be handled in accordance with OP 32.16.2.a.5. Additionally, the Chair will comply with OP 32.16.2.a.1, which states:
      1. The search committee must comprise at least three faculty members representing a breadth of backgrounds, specializations, and/or position types, depending on the position being filled. Should that representation not be possible, a department chair, in consultation with the dean, may invite faculty from other related departments/colleges to participate as members of the committee.
    4. The search committee is responsible for following HR-mandated faculty search procedures, writing and publishing the ad, reviewing applicants’ dossiers and narrowing the applicant pool to a short interview list, and conducting first round interviews (typically online). The committee is entrusted with representing the will of the department as a whole, especially as concerns the research and teaching expertise sought, but may decide matters of practicality internally (e.g., which documents to examine at each stage of the search). The committee may consult with the Department as a whole at any stage of its work should the need arise. After the first-round interviews, the search committee shall then bring recommendations for a campus interview list (as well as recommendations for alternates) to the Department for discussion and vote by the tenure-stream faculty.
    5. Once the campus fly-out list has been determined by the Department, the search committee’s work is done. Further decisions (especially, which candidate should be offered the job) shall be made by a vote of the tenure-stream faculty.
    6. Searches will be as transparent as possible to the rest of the voting faculty. For example, although only members of the search committee may attend search committee meetings (without invitation), any voting faculty member may have access to the applicant files. The department welcomes input from everyone in the philosophy department during the hiring process.
    7. For the purposes of voting on a ranked list of candidates, a quorum will consist of a simple majority of eligible voting members. Absentee and proxy voting will not be allowed. While a variety of tools or voting methods may be informally used in deliberations, a final vote to make an offer to a candidate must be a motion approved by a majority of voting members present.
  5. Faculty Workload Policies
    1. OP and Allocation
      1. The departmental workload policy is subordinate to the TTU workload policy (OP 32.18). All tenure-stream faculty members are expected to engage in significant amounts of research, teaching, and service. The default allocation is: 40% teaching, 40% research, 20% service. No tenure-stream faculty member’s duties shall consist solely, or even primarily, in any one of these three activities. 
    2. Teaching
      1. Each faculty member shall provide the Chair with preferences for courses, mode, days, and times of instruction before the scheduling of classes for each semester. When assigning teaching duties, the Chair will take into consideration preferences of the faculty members, subject to departmental teaching needs.
      2. Faculty members may initiate new course proposals but must do so in consultation with the Chair and the DGS or DUS. New course proposals must be approved by a vote of the Department before being submitted to the university.
      3. Faculty who must miss a class because of travel or illness shall make reasonable efforts to arrange for substitute teaching. When classes must be cancelled, faculty members shall notify their students and the Department Chair and Business Manager in advance of their absence as early as possible.
      4. Opportunities for summer teaching shall be made available to all faculty members, subject to departmental teaching needs.
      5. If a faculty member’s teaching load dips unexpectedly in one semester (e.g., because a class is cancelled), the load is to be made up during the succeeding semester, summer, or following year. Similarly, service load should be roughly equalized from year to year. 
    3. Research
      1. Research expectations will be in accordance with a faculty member’s appointment letter. Typical allocation is 40%. Research is assessed primarily by academic publications. See “Scholarly achievement evidence criteria” in VI.d below. The Department is committed to supporting its faculty in their research efforts (see item VII, “Resource Allocation” below).
    4. Service
      1. Research expectations will be in accordance with a faculty member’s appointment letter. Typical allocation is 20%. Service may include participation in departmental, college, or university committees, support for student organizations, advising, or community engagement, and professional service (e.g., refereeing for academic journals or presses, conference programs, mentoring activities, etc.). 
  6. Faculty Evaluation
    1. Annual Faculty Performance Evaluations
      1. Annual Faculty Evaluations are governed by University OP 32.32.
      2. Faculty members are required to submit an Annual Faculty Report via the Digital Measures online portal detailing their accomplishments and activities in the areas of teaching, research, and service by January 31.
      3. The Chair reviews the submitted materials and completes an evaluation form, providing a summary of the faculty member's performance, strengths, and areas for improvement, for the faculty member’s review and signature in Digital Measures. The Chair welcomes requests for a meeting to discuss the Chair's feedback.
      4. Both the Annual Report and the Chair's Evaluation are forwarded to the Dean of the College and stored in Digital Measures.
    2. Peer Teaching evaluations
      1. Peer Teaching Evaluations will adhere to the policies set forth by the College.
      2. The aim of peer teaching evaluations is to provide constructive feedback to faculty on their teaching practices and contribute to personnel decisions (e.g., reappointment, tenure, promotion).
      3. At least once each academic year, each full-time, untenured faculty member shall be evaluated by a tenured faculty member, who will write a summary evaluation. Ideally, peer observations should occur mid-semester to capture representative instruction. Ideally, such evaluations should aim to cover different levels of instruction over the years (freshman undergraduate to graduate). Tenured faculty shall be evaluated at least once every six years.
      4. The Department Chair, in consultation with the faculty member, will assign an appropriate peer evaluator, who will consult with the faculty member on the date for the class visit. The faculty member should provide a course syllabus to the evaluator. Any other course materials will be shared at the discretion of the faculty member.
      5. An important part of the evaluation is an observation of a class meeting (or online learning platform if the course is taught remotely and asynchronously). The evaluation shall contain the following items:
        1. A brief description of the class (e.g., course number, name, and level; how many students were present; what was the topic; what was the nature of the lecture/discussion).
        2. Observations about the ways in which the teaching went well.
        3. Observations about the ways in which the teaching went badly.
        4. When possible, concrete suggestions for improvement. The relevant parameters might include clarity and organization of the lesson, engagement with students, pedagogical techniques and use of instructional materials, classroom environment and interaction, inclusivity and responsiveness to diverse student needs.
      6. After the class observation, the evaluator and the evaluated faculty member should meet for a follow-up conversation. In this conversation, the evaluator might offer feedback, ask questions, and discuss any teaching challenges.
      7. Completed evaluations shall be provided to the Chair and to the evaluated faculty member. They will be retained in the faculty member’s file. 
    3. Third Year Review
      1. Third year review of tenure track faculty shall be governed by the procedures specified in the “College of Arts and Science Procedures for the Third-Year Review of Faculty in Tenure-Track Positions.” Faculty will be evaluated on their research, teaching, and service
      2. Third year review of instructors and professors of practice shall also be governed by the procedures specified in the “College of Arts and Science Procedures for the Third-Year Review of Faculty in Tenure-Track Positions” except that if research and service are not part of the expectation for the candidate as specified in their appointment letter, then the candidate’s dossier need not contain statements on research and service, and need not contain materials documenting research and service activities. These statements and materials may be included if the candidate so wishes.
      3. A Third-Year Review Committee of at least three tenured faculty members will be appointed by the Department Chair at the start of the spring semester of the candidate’s third year. The committee will review the file and provide a written evaluation.
      4. The Department Chair will review the candidate’s file and the committee report, prepare an independent evaluation, and meet with the candidate to discuss the outcome of the review.
      5. The candidate will receive a written summary of the review, including committee and Chair evaluations. Faculty may submit a written response for the file. Appeals follow the procedures outlined in the Texas Tech Faculty Handbook and relevant college policies.
      6. To gain a positive recommendation, the candidate must show evidence of good teaching. Good teaching may be accomplished through a very wide variety of teaching techniques. It requires fairness in grading and classroom management, sensitivity to the different abilities and needs of the students, and appropriate availability and helpfulness outside of the classroom. Beyond this, we shall not specify particular methods.
      7. Good teaching results in significant student acquisition of philosophic skills and/or additions to students’ fund of knowledge about matters within the discipline of philosophy. Beyond this, we shall not specify particular outcomes.
      8. Evidence of good teaching may be obtained in many ways. It is not limited to, but might include some or all of the following: peer review and observations, discussions with colleagues, documentation of innovative methods in and out of the classroom, syllabi, exam questions and other assignments, handouts, videos, student course evaluations, written or oral testimony of students and faculty members, pre- and post-tests and other measures of progress toward learning outcomes, and documentation of extra-curricular teaching (e.g. advising students on writing samples, presentations in a speaker series, and even corridor conversations with students).
      9. If research is part of the expectation for the candidate, then the candidate must show evidence of sufficient quantity and quality of research, relative to their career stage. If the candidate is on the tenure track, research is sufficient if the candidate is on a trajectory that will lead to meeting the standards for tenure in the candidate’s sixth year at TTU. See section (d), “Tenure and Promotion,” below. For other positions, research expectations will be in accordance with the candidate’s appointment letter.
      10. If service is part of the expectation for the candidate, then the candidate must show evidence of sufficient quantity and quality of service, relative to their career stage. Departmental service expectations for faculty on the tenure track are low, with the understanding that their efforts will be concentrated on developing their teaching and research. For other positions, service expectations will be in accordance with the candidate’s appointment letter.
    4. Tenure and Promotion
      1. The tenure and promotion process for tenure-track faculty members will adhere to the policies set forth by the College and the University (OP 32.01).
      2. The continuing appointment and promotion process for faculty members will adhere to the policies set forth by the College and the University (OP 32.34). 
      3. Any person given a positive recommendation for tenure must show an adequate level of achievement in each of the three major performance areas of teaching, research activity and administrative service. In addition, the candidate must demonstrate excellence in at least one of those areas. The criteria for adequacy are:
        1. Possession of the Ph.D. in Philosophy or its scholarly equivalent;
        2. Evidence that the candidate is dedicated to continued self-improvement in his or her overall performance;
        3. Evidence of scholarly achievement as described in “Scholarly achievement evidence criteria” below;
        4. Evidence of teaching ability based on such things as collections of student course evaluations, the designing of new courses and curricula, and the testimony of individual students who have studied extensively with the candidate;
        5. Evidence of administrative service within the department, university and discipline through contributions in program development, committee work, or organizational functions on the local through international levels; and
        6. Evidence of consistently high ethical standards in the performance of teaching, research and administrative functions.
      4. Scholarly achievement evidence criteria
        1. In philosophy, articles in peer-reviewed journals are the primary way in which scholarship and research are disseminated. Moreover, quality rather than quantity is the central criterion for assessing scholarship in our Department. Ordinarily, 5-7 good articles constitute strong evidence of scholarly achievement. However, in some cases a smaller number (e.g., 3-4) of especially significant articles would constitute such evidence. Book chapters may count as the equivalent of articles. In still other instances, though less typically, publication of a substantial book would be grounds for establishing scholarly ability. (In all cases, there should be evidence of continued research—including publications—beyond the dissertation).
        2. In all cases the work will be evaluated on the basis of assessment from outside referees, the quality and selectivity of the venue in which the work has been published, (if there has been sufficient time) the reception of the work by the philosophical community (this can be in the form of scholarly responses to the work, critical notices, and citations), and the independent judgment of voting members of the tenured faculty. In the case of books and book chapters, the reputation of the press, the review process, and the nature of the book (e.g., its intended audience) will be also relevant to judging the worth of the research or scholarship.
        3. Jointly authored articles will be treated as important parts of the candidate’s research program and publishing record. Whether a jointly authored article should be treated as equivalent to a singly-authored article can only be determined case-by-case through consultation with the author(s).
        4. Candidates for tenure and promotion may have unpublished manuscripts (in the form of papers or book manuscripts) which they would like to have considered. Generally, the requirements for tenure will be satisfied only by books or articles that have been published or accepted for publication, but in exceptional cases unpublished scholarship may be considered.
        5. Scholarship in Philosophy is also often disseminated by the presentation of papers at conferences. In some cases, this will duplicate work that has been published in a journal and will contribute relatively little to tenure case. In other cases, however, where the ideas have not been published, yet the paper is of unusual significance, it may be the equivalent of a journal article.
        6. Scholarship in Philosophy may be published in a wide range of other formats (e.g., encyclopedia articles, on-line publications, book reviews, non-academic publications, and dictionary entries). In each case, the tenured faculty will decide the significance of the work in question.
        7. While work done prior to time on tenure clock will count as evidence of the scholarly ability of the candidate, the main focus of the tenured faculty will be on work done on the tenure track.
    5. Comprehensive Performance Evaluations
      1. The Comprehensive Performance Evaluation process for tenured faculty members will adhere to the policies set forth by the College and the University (OP 32.31). CPEs occur every six years, and annual performance reviews “will comprise the primary element in the comprehensive review process. The faculty member may submit such additional supporting documentation as he or she deems is relevant for the comprehensive performance evaluation.” A committee of three tenured faculty members at the same or above level of the faculty being evaluated will be appointed by the Chair.
  7. Scholarship and Endowment Management
    1. The scholarship application and administration processes from funds endowed to the Department will adhere to University policies and guidelines (OP 30.02).
    2. The Scholarship Committee will oversee the process of awarding scholarships to students.
  8. Mentoring
    1. Every new tenure-track faculty member will be assigned a faculty mentor. Mentors strive to help mentees become productive and effective contributors to the Philosophy Department, TTU, and the profession of philosophy. Mentors are expected to meet regularly with mentees, provide information on procedures and processes pertaining to the department, college, and university, especially tenure, promotion, and service expectations. They should offer guidance on teaching resources and problem solving, research development, publication, grant writing, interactions with graduate students, professional and recreational networking, adjustment to community life, etc.
    2. The Chair will be the ultimate conveyor of information regarding requirements for tenure and promotion, and for progress towards those goals. The mentor shall not be held responsible for any shortcomings or negative evaluations of the mentee.
  9. Amendments
    1. Amendments to the bylaws may be proposed by any faculty member. Notice of proposed amendments to the bylaws must be given to the voting faculty members at least one week in advance.
    2. Amendments to the bylaws must be approved by a majority vote of the permanent faculty.
    3. The bylaws shall be reviewed every five years by an ad hoc committee. The committee shall propose amendments to the permanent faculty, indicate the need for amendments, recommend further study, or report that no amendments are needed.
Quick Links

College of Arts & Sciences

© 2026  Texas Tech University May 28, 2026 10:14 AM