Faculty Search Committee Manual
DOWNLOAD FORMS LISTED BELOW BEFORE YOU START YOUR FACULTY SEARCH
This handbook is designed to ensure that all faculty members, as participants of a search committee involved in the selection of personnel, are knowledgeable about the employment procedure that must be followed to comply with the laws, regulations, and guidelines that govern the process.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits all forms of discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, protects persons over 40 from discrimination on the basis of age in any terms or conditions of employment. In addition, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) extends federal civil rights protection in several areas to disabled individuals. Veterans may be entitled to employment preferences established in the Veteran's Employment Preference Action (Senate Bill 646/Chapter 657, Government Code).
The University of Texas at Arlington, an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, or veteran's status in employment or the provision of services.
Note: This Manual can be used as a guide in non-tenure tracking searches.
HR Leaders and Faculty: Friends or Foes?
December 13, 2010, 2:13 pm
At a recent meeting for academic leaders, the No. 1 piece of advice for running faculty searches was, “Get the human-resources folks involved as quickly as possible and have them stay involved.” The legal experts said this (to avoid liability issues related to interview questions and other factors), the presidents said this (to ensure that the searches went smoothly and quickly), and the chief academic officers said this (to make certain that credentials and references were actually checked).
There seems to be, however, a resistance from many academic-search committees to any involvement in the process by the human-resources office. Many academics view this as an inappropriate encroachment on the process by the administration. More than one faculty member has claimed that his or her particular discipline’s traditions for searches trumps the institution’s posted policies about how searches should be conducted (an attitude, I might point out, that can create huge legal liabilities). On the other hand, I’ve heard HR leaders say that they should be able to run the entirety of faculty searches, giving the search committee a short list of acceptable candidates and letting them choose from that abbreviated list.
What is the best way to harness the strengths of HR offices and academic-search committees? How can we help both groups know where to defer to the expertise of the other?
Updated 2015/2016 Forms:
- Search Committee Identification Form.doc
- Faculty Authorization Form.doc
- Applicant Summary Form
- Recruitment Summary Report
- Faculty Credential Form
- Offer Approval Request Form
- On-Campus Interview Request.doc
- Interview Regret Letter
- UTA Search Committee Confidentiality Agreement
- Faculty Search Step-by-Step Guide.doc
- Faculty Search Manual.doc
- Faculty Search Manual.pdf
- Faculty Search Confidentiality Agreement
- Closed Position Letter
- Expedited Faculty Search Guide
- Request to Initiate H1B
- Veterans Preference Form
- Search Committee Standardized Forms
- Candidate Interview Evaluation Form
- Candidate Rating Form
- Interview Question Do's & Don'ts
- Applicant Screening Matrix
- Standardized Letters
- Offer Letter - Faculty Sample 2015
- Sample Application Acknowledgement Letter