2.8 assignment declaration and revolution

Unit 8: Cold War and Decolonization, 1900 - present

Amsco Reading

• Amsco 8.2 - The Cold War

Writing Workshop

• InSPECT Examples
• Compare & Contrast Words

Other Reading

Essential vocabulary, miscellaneous links, learning objectives / ced.

• Unit 8 Objectives / CED

Video: Heimler - The Cold War - 8.2

Crash Course Videos: USA vs USSR Fight! The Cold War

Khan Academy: Communism

• << Previous: Topic 8.1 - Setting the Stage for the Cold War and Decolonization
• Next: Topic 8.3 - Effects of the Cold War >>
• Last Updated: Aug 3, 2020 4:38 PM
• URL: https://mehs.morton201.libguides.com/c.php?g=1055752

Top of page

Primary Source Set World War I

The resources in this primary source set are intended for classroom use. If your use will be beyond a single classroom, please review the copyright and fair use guidelines.

Teacher’s Guide

To help your students analyze these primary sources, get a graphic organizer and guides: Analysis Tool and Guides

World War I was a war like no other, and U.S. participation in this global conflict had a profound impact on those who fought and on the future of the nation.

The Outbreak of War in Europe and the Debate over U.S. Involvement

War broke out in Europe in the summer of 1914, after months of international tension. The spark that ignited open hostilities was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo, Bosnia. By the end of the year, the Central Powers, led by Germany and Austria-Hungary, were battling the Allies, led by Britain, France, and Russia.

The United States initially declared itself neutral, leading to years of argument over whether to join the conflict, and when. The debates surrounding isolationism and interventionism took place in popular culture and the arts as well as in the political sphere and the news.

The sinking of the British ocean liner Lusitania on May 7, 1915, killed almost 1,200 people, including more than 120 U.S. citizens. Many Americans, appalled that the German submarines, or U-boats, would sink a passenger ship, saw this as a brutal attack on freedom of movement and U.S. neutrality. The Lusitania was one of dozens of ships sunk carrying American passengers and goods.

Mobilization for War

The United States entered World War I on April 6, 1917, when the U.S. Congress agreed to a declaration of war. Faced with mobilizing a sufficient fighting force, Congress passed the Selective Service Act on May 18, 1917. By the end of the war, the SSA had conscripted over 2.8 million American men. The hundreds of thousands of men who enlisted or were conscripted early in the war still faced months of intensive training before departing for Europe. In an effort to finance the extensive military operations of the war, and to help curb inflation by removing large amounts of money from circulation, the United States government issued Liberty Bonds. Bond drives, parades, advertisements, and community pressure fueled the purchase of bonds, which played a crucial role in financing the U.S. war effort.

War on the Homefront

However distant the battlefields, World War I led to dramatic changes in the United States. American women served in a multitude of capacities including agriculture, factory and munitions work, the medical field, and non-combat roles in the Army, Navy, and Marines. The expanded role of women in the American workforce during the war was an important factor in the growing support for women’s suffrage and the eventual passing of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

The U.S. Congress passed the Espionage Act on June 15, 1917. The Act prohibited individuals from interfering with draft or military processes, expanded the punishment for insubordination in the military, and barred Americans from supporting enemies in a time of war. Supporters saw it as a necessary precaution to promote domestic and military security, while critics viewed it as an attack on freedom of speech and argued that this law unfairly targeted immigrants and ideological dissenters.

War Overseas

When U.S. troops arrived overseas, they found themselves in the midst of a war waged on the ground, in the air, and under the sea, using new weapons on an unprecedented scale. Combatants suffered casualties in quantities never before seen. Many U.S. soldiers recorded the experience of participating in such an overwhelming and sometimes disorienting conflict in diaries and letters home, as well as in poems and songs.

Often regarded as the world’s first modern war, it used military technology including tanks, airplanes, modern machine guns, and poison gas. Technological innovations extended beyond the military. The medical field also experienced a proliferation of new technologies, including blood transfusions, x-ray machines, and prosthetics. Communication systems drastically changed during the war, as the telephone was adapted to meet wartime conditions, and the wireless telegraph, a precursor to radio technology, became more widely used.

World War I saw unprecedented participation by African American troops, with over 350,000 African American soldiers serving. However, African American troops were only able to serve in segregated units, and many were excluded from combat, allowed only to provide support services. The return of African American soldiers to their home communities after the war was followed by both a series of bloody racial conflicts and a wave of civil rights activism.

Armistice and Plans for Peace

On November 11, 1918, an Armistice agreement effectively ended the fighting. The conditions of the Central Powers’ surrender were agreed upon when the Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919. The Treaty assigned responsibility for the war to the Central Powers and required that they pay reparations for war damages.

In addition to drafting the Treaty, the Paris Peace Conference also formed the League of Nations, an organization intended to prevent aggressive conflict by uniting the major military powers of the world into one body. The harsh punishments of the Treaty and the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations are widely regarded as catalysts for the outbreak of another global war two decades later. The U.S. Senate ratified neither the Versailles Treaty nor U.S. entry in the League of Nations, primarily out of opposition to mandatory U.S. military involvement in foreign conflicts.

Suggestions for Teachers

Print a selection of items from the set that depend on visual elements to convey a message. Allow students to select an item and examine it, attending closely to visual techniques. Pair students who selected the same item and allow them to compare their thinking. What techniques can they identify? Why do they think the creator of the item used those techniques? If time allows, also pair students with someone who selected a different item, to compare messages and techniques.

This set includes memoirs, poetry, and news reports. Provide time for students to analyze information from various genres, and then list or diagram similarities and differences.

Select items that represent changes in social conventions and customs of the time, such as contributions to the war effort by women or racial minorities. Before students analyze the items, ask them to jot down what they think they know. As students analyze the primary sources, encourage them to think about what they notice that surprises them, and what questions they have. Support individuals or small groups in research to find additional information.

Allow students time to study a small set of items, and then list technology featured or mentioned in the items. Assign or allow each student to research to learn more about a particular technology.

Additional Resources

A Guide to World War I Materials

World War I

World War I Sheet Music

World War I Remembered 100 Years Later

World War I: American Artists View the Great War

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Internet Cookies
• Instructional Exchange
• Educator's Toolkit
• Ayers Exclusives
• Tennessee Tools
• Education Events
• Conference Materials
• Crosswalk Charts
• Podcast Resources
• Webinar Sessions

Revolution- The Declaration of Independence

At the end of the French and Indian War (1763), victorious Great Britain was the only superpower left in North America, with France losing all her North American colonies. However, the French and Indian War left the British colonies broke. Beginning in 1763, the British government imposed a series of taxes and proclamations on their American colonies. The American colonists rebelled against these taxes through a series of boycotts, claiming that, as Englishmen, they were entitled to representation in England prior to any colonial taxation. In response to the British government’s taxes and its declaration that the colonies were in open revolt, on June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia offered a formal resolution to the Second Continental Congress calling for independence of the American colonies from Great Britain. Thomas Jefferson was tasked in writing the Declaration of Independence. On July 2, 1776, Congress approved Lee’s resolution for America’s independence from Great Britain by a 12-0 vote (New York abstained). With independence adopted, Congress spent the next two days editing Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration. On July 4, 1776, Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence and sent it to the printer for duplication and distribution.

Standards & Objectives

Students will learn how to read a timeline, examine and interpret primary sources and using critical thinking skills write an expository paragraph on the Declaration of Independence’s enduring ideas and legacy in today’s world.

Lesson Variations

Activity 1: The Declaration of Independence and Women’s Suffrage  Have students read a letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams dated March 31, 1776, now known as “Remember the Ladies.” Pass out a copy of an excerpt of the letter to each student. As the students read the letter, have each student complete a Library of Congress Primary Source Analysis Tool. When the students have completed their analysis of the letter, the teacher will randomly select students in the class to share their answers. The teacher will then project on the Smart Board/projector the following discussion question: “Why doesn’t the Declaration of Independence address women’s issues discussed in Abigail Adam’s letter?” (Standard 8.23, 8.49) Activity 2: The Declaration of Independence and Fredrick Douglass Have your students read a speech, “The Meaning of the Fourth of July for the Negro,” by Frederick Douglass to the citizens of Rochester, New York. The date of the speech is July 5, 1852. Break you students into pairs and pass out excerpts of Frederick Douglass’s speech to each student group (p. 11). Direct the student groups to read excerpts from the speech and answer the seven questions that are located underneath the speech. After the students have completed this assignment, the teacher will randomly select student groups to share their answers with the class. (Standard 8.66)

Helpful Hints

• Smart Board/Projector
• Declaration of Independence PowerPoint (optional)
• Venn Diagram
• Declaration of Independence Web guide (includes timeline)
• Declaration of Independence Organizer
• Too Late to Apologize YouTube Video
• HBO’s John Adams clip—Signing of the Declaration YouTube Video
• Index cards (for exit tickets)
• Worksheet: Rephrasing the Declaration of Independence (pp. 8-9)
• POW TREE + C graphic organizer for writing an essay

THE AMERICAN YAWP

8. the market revolution.

William James Bennett, View of South Street, from Maiden Lane, New York City , c. 1827, via  Metropolitan Museum of New York

*The American Yawp is an evolving, collaborative text. Please click  here  to improve this chapter.*

I. Introduction

Ii. early republic economic development, iii. the decline of northern slavery and the rise of the cotton kingdom, iv. changes in labor organization, v. changes in gender roles and family life, vi. the rise of industrial labor in antebellum america, vii. conclusion, viii. primary sources, ix. reference material.

In the early years of the nineteenth century, Americans’ endless commercial ambition—what one Baltimore paper in 1815 called an “almost universal ambition to get forward ”—remade the nation. 1 Between the Revolution and the Civil War, an old subsistence world died and a new more-commercial nation was born. Americans integrated the technologies of the Industrial Revolution into a new commercial economy. Steam power, the technology that moved steamboats and railroads, fueled the rise of American industry by powering mills and sparking new national transportation networks. A “market revolution” remade the nation.

The revolution reverberated across the country. More and more farmers grew crops for profit, not self-sufficiency. Vast factories and cities arose in the North. Enormous fortunes materialized. A new middle class ballooned. And as more men and women worked in the cash economy, they were freed from the bound dependence of servitude. But there were costs to this revolution. As northern textile factories boomed, the demand for southern cotton swelled, and American slavery accelerated. Northern subsistence farmers became laborers bound to the whims of markets and bosses. The market revolution sparked explosive economic growth and new personal wealth, but it also created a growing lower class of property-less workers and a series of devastating depressions, called “panics.” Many Americans labored for low wages and became trapped in endless cycles of poverty. Some workers, often immigrant women, worked thirteen hours a day, six days a week. Others labored in slavery. Massive northern textile mills turned southern cotton into cheap cloth. And although northern states washed their hands of slavery, their factories fueled the demand for slave-grown southern cotton and their banks provided the financing that ensured the profitability and continued existence of the American slave system. And so, as the economy advanced, the market revolution wrenched the United States in new directions as it became a nation of free labor and slavery, of wealth and inequality, and of endless promise and untold perils.

The growth of the American economy reshaped American life in the decades before the Civil War. Americans increasingly produced goods for sale, not for consumption. Improved transportation enabled a larger exchange network. Labor-saving technology improved efficiency and enabled the separation of the public and domestic spheres. The market revolution fulfilled the revolutionary generation’s expectations of progress but introduced troubling new trends. Class conflict, child labor, accelerated immigration, and the expansion of slavery followed. These strains required new family arrangements and transformed American cities.

American commerce had proceeded haltingly during the eighteenth century. American farmers increasingly exported foodstuffs to Europe as the French Revolutionary Wars devastated the continent between 1793 and 1815. America’s exports rose in value from $20.2 million in 1790 to $108.3 million by 1807. 2 But while exports rose, exorbitant internal transportation costs hindered substantial economic development within the United States. In 1816, for instance, $9 could move one ton of goods across the Atlantic Ocean, but only thirty miles across land. An 1816 Senate Committee Report lamented that “the price of land carriage is too great” to allow the profitable production of American manufactures. But in the wake of the War of 1812, Americans rushed to build a new national infrastructure, new networks of roads, canals, and railroads. In his 1815 annual message to Congress, President James Madison stressed “the great importance of establishing throughout our country the roads and canals which can best be executed under national authority.” 3 State governments continued to sponsor the greatest improvements in American transportation, but the federal government’s annual expenditures on internal improvements climbed to a yearly average of $1,323,000 by Andrew Jackson’s presidency. 4 .

Clyde Osmer DeLand, “The First Locomotive. Aug. 8th, 1829. Trial Trip of the “Stourbridge Lion,” 1916.  Library of Congress .

State legislatures meanwhile pumped capital into the economy by chartering banks. The number of state-chartered banks skyrocketed from 1 in 1783, 266 in 1820, and 702 in 1840 to 1,371 in 1860. 5 European capital also helped build American infrastructure. By 1844, one British traveler declared that “the prosperity of America, her railroads, canals, steam navigation, and banks, are the fruit of English capital.” 6

Economic growth, however, proceeded unevenly. Depressions devastated the economy in 1819, 1837, and 1857. Each followed rampant speculation in various commodities: land in 1819, land and enslaved laborers in 1837, and railroad bonds in 1857. Eventually the bubbles all burst. The spread of paper currency untethered the economy from the physical signifiers of wealth familiar to the colonial generation, namely land. Counterfeit bills were endemic during this early period of banking. With so many fake bills circulating, Americans were constantly on the lookout for the “confidence man” and other deceptive characters in the urban landscape. Con men and women could look like regular honest Americans. Advice literature offered young men and women strategies for avoiding hypocrisy in an attempt to restore the social fiber. Intimacy in the domestic sphere became more important as duplicity proliferated in the public sphere. Fear of the confidence man, counterfeit bills, and a pending bust created anxiety in the new capitalist economy. But Americans refused to blame the logic of their new commercial system for these depressions. Instead, they kept pushing “ to get forward .”

The so-called Transportation Revolution opened the vast lands west of the Appalachian Mountains. In 1810, before the rapid explosion of American infrastructure, Margaret Dwight left New Haven, Connecticut, in a wagon headed for Ohio Territory. Her trip was less than five hundred miles but took six weeks to complete. The journey was a terrible ordeal, she said. The roads were “so rocky & so gullied as to be almost impassable.” 7 Ten days into the journey, at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Dwight said “it appeared to me that we had come to the end of the habitable part of the globe.” She finally concluded that “the reason so few are willing to return from the Western country, is not that the country is so good, but because the journey is so bad.” 8 Nineteen years later, in 1829, English traveler Frances Trollope made the reverse journey across the Allegheny Mountains from Cincinnati to the East Coast. At Wheeling, Virginia, her coach encountered the National Road, the first federally funded interstate infrastructure project. The road was smooth and her journey across the Alleghenies was a scenic delight. “I really can hardly conceive a higher enjoyment than a botanical tour among the Alleghany Mountains,” she declared. The ninety miles of the National Road was to her “a garden.” 9

Engraving based on W.H. Bartlett, “Lockport, Erie Canal,” 1839.  Wikimedia .

If the two decades between Margaret Dwight’s and Frances Trollope’s journeys transformed the young nation, the pace of change only accelerated in the following years. If a transportation revolution began with improved road networks, it soon incorporated even greater improvements in the ways people and goods moved across the landscape.

New York State completed the Erie Canal in 1825. The 350-mile-long human-made waterway linked the Great Lakes with the Hudson River and the Atlantic Ocean. Soon crops grown in the Great Lakes region were carried by water to eastern cities, and goods from emerging eastern factories made the reverse journey to midwestern farmers. The success of New York’s “artificial river” launched a canal-building boom. By 1840 Ohio created two navigable, all-water links from Lake Erie to the Ohio River.

Robert Fulton established the first commercial steamboat service up and down the Hudson River in New York in 1807. Soon thereafter steamboats filled the waters of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. Downstream-only routes became watery two-way highways. By 1830, more than two hundred steamboats moved up and down western rivers.

The United States’ first long-distance rail line launched from Maryland in 1827. Baltimore’s city government and the state government of Maryland provided half the start-up funds for the new Baltimore & Ohio (B&O) Rail Road Company. The B&O’s founders imagined the line as a means to funnel the agricultural products of the trans-Appalachian West to an outlet on the Chesapeake Bay. Similar motivations led citizens in Philadelphia, Boston, New York City, and Charleston, South Carolina to launch their own rail lines. State and local governments provided the means for the bulk of this initial wave of railroad construction, but economic collapse following the Panic of 1837 made governments wary of such investments. Government supports continued throughout the century, but decades later the public origins of railroads were all but forgotten, and the railroad corporation became the most visible embodiment of corporate capitalism.

By 1860 Americans had laid more than thirty thousand miles of railroads. 10 The ensuing web of rail, roads, and canals meant that few farmers in the Northeast or Midwest had trouble getting goods to urban markets. Railroad development was slower in the South, but there a combination of rail lines and navigable rivers meant that few cotton planters struggled to transport their products to textile mills in the Northeast and in England.

Such internal improvements not only spread goods, they spread information. The transportation revolution was followed by a communications revolution. The telegraph redefined the limits of human communication. By 1843 Samuel Morse had persuaded Congress to fund a forty-mile telegraph line stretching from Washington, D.C., to Baltimore. Within a few short years, during the Mexican-American War, telegraph lines carried news of battlefield events to eastern newspapers within days. This contrasts starkly with the War of 1812, when the Battle of New Orleans took place nearly two full weeks after Britain and the United States had signed a peace treaty.

The consequences of the transportation and communication revolutions reshaped the lives of Americans. Farmers who previously produced crops mostly for their own family now turned to the market. They earned cash for what they had previously consumed; they purchased the goods they had previously made or gone without. Market-based farmers soon accessed credit through eastern banks, which provided them with the opportunity to expand their enterprise but left also them prone before the risk of catastrophic failure wrought by distant market forces. In the Northeast and Midwest, where farm labor was ever in short supply, ambitious farmers invested in new technologies that promised to increase the productivity of the limited labor supply. The years between 1815 and 1850 witnessed an explosion of patents on agricultural technologies. The most famous of these, perhaps, was Cyrus McCormick’s horse-drawn mechanical reaper, which partially mechanized wheat harvesting, and John Deere’s steel-bladed plow, which more easily allowed for the conversion of unbroken ground into fertile farmland.

A. Janicke & Co., “Our City, (St. Louis, Mo.),” 1859.  Library of Congress .

Most visibly, the market revolution encouraged the growth of cities and reshaped the lives of urban workers. In 1820, only New York had over one hundred thousand inhabitants. By 1850, six American cities met that threshold, including Chicago, which had been founded fewer than two decades earlier. 11 New technology and infrastructure paved the way for such growth. The Erie Canal captured the bulk of the trade emerging from the Great Lakes region, securing New York City’s position as the nation’s largest and most economically important city. The steamboat turned St. Louis and Cincinnati into centers of trade, and Chicago rose as it became the railroad hub of the western Great Lakes and Great Plains regions. The geographic center of the nation shifted westward. The development of steam power and the exploitation of Pennsylvania coalfields shifted the locus of American manufacturing. By the 1830s, for instance, New England was losing its competitive advantage to the West.

Meanwhile, the cash economy eclipsed the old, local, informal systems of barter and trade. Income became the measure of economic worth. Productivity and efficiencies paled before the measure of income. Cash facilitated new impersonal economic relationships and formalized new means of production. Young workers might simply earn wages, for instance, rather than receiving room and board and training as part of apprenticeships. Moreover, a new form of economic organization appeared: the business corporation.

States offered the privileges of incorporation to protect the fortunes and liabilities of entrepreneurs who invested in early industrial endeavors. A corporate charter allowed investors and directors to avoid personal liability for company debts. The legal status of incorporation had been designed to confer privileges to organizations embarking on expensive projects explicitly designed for the public good, such as universities, municipalities, and major public works projects. The business corporation was something new. Many Americans distrusted these new, impersonal business organizations whose officers lacked personal responsibility while nevertheless carrying legal rights. Many wanted limits. Thomas Jefferson himself wrote in 1816 that “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” 12 But in Dartmouth v. Woodward (1819) the Supreme Court upheld the rights of private corporations when it denied the attempt of the government of New Hampshire to reorganize Dartmouth College on behalf of the common good. Still, suspicions remained. A group of journeymen cordwainers in New Jersey publically declared in 1835 that they “entirely disapprov[ed] of the incorporation of Companies, for carrying on manual mechanical business, inasmuch as we believe their tendency is to eventuate and produce monopolies, thereby crippling the energies of individual enterprise.” 13

Slave labor helped fuel the market revolution. By 1832, textile companies made up 88 out of 106 American corporations valued at over $100,000. 14 These textile mills, worked by free labor, nevertheless depended on southern cotton, and the vast new market economy spurred the expansion of the plantation South.

By the early nineteenth century, states north of the Mason-Dixon Line had taken steps to abolish slavery. Vermont included abolition as a provision of its 1777 state constitution. Pennsylvania’s emancipation act of 1780 stipulated that freed children must serve an indenture term of twenty-eight years. Gradualism brought emancipation while also defending the interests of northern enslavers and controlling still another generation of Black Americans. In 1804 New Jersey became the last of the northern states to adopt gradual emancipation plans. There was no immediate moment of jubilee, as many northern states only promised to liberate future children born to enslaved mothers. Such laws also stipulated that such children remain in indentured servitude to their mother’s enslaver in order to compensate the enslaver’s loss. James Mars, a young man indentured under this system in Connecticut, risked being thrown in jail when he protested the arrangement that kept him bound to his mother’s enslaver until age twenty-five. 15

Quicker routes to freedom included escape or direct emancipation by enslavers. But escape was dangerous and voluntary manumission rare. Congress, for instance, made the harboring of a freedom-seeking enslaved person a federal crime as early as 1793. Hopes for manumission were even slimmer, as few northern enslavers emancipated their own enslaved laborers. Roughly one fifth of the white families in New York City owned enslaved laborers, and fewer than eighty enslavers in the city voluntarily manumitted their enslaved laborers between 1783 and 1800. By 1830, census data suggests that at least 3,500 people were still enslaved in the North. Elderly enslaved people in Connecticut remained in bondage as late as 1848, and in New Jersey slavery endured until after the Civil War. 16

Emancipation proceeded slowly, but proceeded nonetheless. A free Black population of fewer than 60,000 in 1790 increased to more than 186,000 by 1810. Growing free Black communities fought for their civil rights. In a number of New England locales, free African Americans could vote and send their children to public schools. Most northern states granted Black citizens property rights and trial by jury. African Americans owned land and businesses, founded mutual aid societies, established churches, promoted education, developed print culture, and voted.

Nationally, however, the enslaved population continued to grow, from less than 700,000 in 1790 to more than 1.5 million by 1820. 17 The growth of abolition in the North and the acceleration of slavery in the South created growing divisions. Cotton drove the process more than any other crop. Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, a simple hand-cranked device designed to mechanically remove sticky green seeds from short staple cotton, allowed southern planters to dramatically expand cotton production for the national and international markets. Water-powered textile factories in England and the American Northeast rapidly turned raw cotton into cloth. Technology increased both the supply of and demand for cotton. White southerners responded by expanding cultivation farther west, to the Mississippi River and beyond. Slavery had been growing less profitable in tobacco-planting regions like Virginia, but the growth of cotton farther south and west increased the demand for human bondage. Eager cotton planters invested their new profits in more enslaved laborers.

The cotton boom fueled speculation in slavery. Many enslavers leveraged potential profits into loans used to purchase ever increasing numbers of enslaved laborers. For example, one 1840 Louisiana Courier ad warned, “it is very difficult now to find persons willing to buy slaves from Mississippi or Alabama on account of the fears entertained that such property may be already mortgaged to the banks of the above named states.” 18

Sidney & Neff, Detail from Plan of the City of Lowell, Massachusetts , 1850.  Wikimedia Commons .

New national and international markets fueled the plantation boom. American cotton exports rose from 150,000 bales in 1815 to 4,541,000 bales in 1859. The Census Bureau’s 1860 Census of Manufactures stated that “the manufacture of cotton constitutes the most striking feature of the industrial history of the last fifty years.” 19 Enslavers shipped their cotton north to textile manufacturers and to northern financers for overseas shipments. Northern insurance brokers and exporters in the Northeast profited greatly.

While the United States ended its legal participation in the global slave trade in 1808, slave traders moved one million enslaved people from the tobacco-producing Upper South to cotton fields in the Lower South between 1790 and 1860. 20 This harrowing trade in human flesh supported middle-class occupations in the North and South: bankers, doctors, lawyers, insurance brokers, and shipping agents all profited. And of course it facilitated the expansion of northeastern textile mills.

While industrialization bypassed most of the American South, southern cotton production nevertheless nurtured industrialization in the Northeast and Midwest. The drive to produce cloth transformed the American system of labor. In the early republic, laborers in manufacturing might typically have been expected to work at every stage of production. But a new system, piecework, divided much of production into discrete steps performed by different workers. In this new system, merchants or investors sent or “put out” materials to individuals and families to complete at home. These independent laborers then turned over the partially finished goods to the owner to be given to another laborer to finish.

As early as the 1790s, however, merchants in New England began experimenting with machines to replace the putting-out system. To effect this transition, merchants and factory owners relied on the theft of British technological knowledge to build the machines they needed. In 1789, for instance, a textile mill in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, contracted twenty-one-year-old British immigrant Samuel Slater to build a yarn-spinning machine and then a carding machine. Slater had apprenticed in an English mill and succeeded in mimicking the English machinery. The fruits of American industrial espionage peaked in 1813 when Francis Cabot Lowell and Paul Moody re-created the powered loom used in the mills of Manchester, England. Lowell had spent two years in Britain observing and touring mills in England. He committed the design of the powered loom to memory so that, no matter how many times British customs officials searched his luggage, he could smuggle England’s industrial know-how into New England.

Lowell’s contribution to American industrialism was not only technological, it was organizational. He helped reorganize and centralize the American manufacturing process. A new approach, the Waltham-Lowell System, created the textile mill that defined antebellum New England and American industrialism before the Civil War. The modern American textile mill was fully realized in the planned mill town of Lowell in 1821, four years after Lowell himself died. Powered by the Merrimack River in northern Massachusetts and operated by local farm girls, the mills of Lowell centralized the process of textile manufacturing under one roof. The modern American factory was born. Soon ten thousand workers labored in Lowell alone. Sarah Rice, who worked at the nearby Millbury factory, found it “a noisy place” that was “more confined than I like to be.” 21 Working conditions were harsh for the many desperate “mill girls” who operated the factories relentlessly from sunup to sundown. One worker complained that “a large class of females are, and have been, destined to a state of servitude.” 22 Female workers went on strike. They lobbied for better working hours. But the lure of wages was too much. As another worker noted, “very many Ladies . . . have given up millinery, dressmaking & school keeping for work in the mill.” 23 With a large supply of eager workers, Lowell’s vision brought a rush of capital and entrepreneurs into New England. The first American manufacturing boom was under way.

Winslow Homer, “Bell-Time,” Harper’s Weekly vol. 12 (July 1868): 472.  Wikimedia .

The market revolution shook other industries as well. Craftsmen began to understand that new markets increased the demand for their products. Some shoemakers, for instance, abandoned the traditional method of producing custom-built shoes at their home workshops and instead began producing larger quantities of shoes in ready-made sizes to be shipped to urban centers. Manufacturers wanting increased production abandoned the old personal approach of relying on a single live-in apprentice for labor and instead hired unskilled wage laborers who did not have to be trained in all aspects of making shoes but could simply be assigned a single repeatable aspect of the task. Factories slowly replaced shops. The old paternalistic apprentice system, which involved long-term obligations between apprentice and master, gave way to a more impersonal and more flexible labor system in which unskilled laborers could be hired and fired as the market dictated. A writer in the New York Observer in 1826 complained, “The master no longer lives among his apprentices [and] watches over their moral as well as mechanical improvement.” 24 Masters-turned-employers now not only had fewer obligations to their workers, they had a lesser attachment. They no longer shared the bonds of their trade but were subsumed under new class-based relationships: employers and employees, bosses and workers, capitalists and laborers. On the other hand, workers were freed from the long-term, paternalistic obligations of apprenticeship or the legal subjugation of indentured servitude. They could theoretically work when and where they wanted. When men or women made an agreement with an employer to work for wages, they were “left free to apportion among themselves their respective shares, untrammeled . . . by unwise laws,” as Reverend Alonzo Potter rosily proclaimed in 1840. 25 But while the new labor system was celebrated throughout the northern United States as “free labor,” it was simultaneously lamented by a growing powerless class of laborers.

As the northern United States rushed headlong toward commercialization and an early capitalist economy, many Americans grew uneasy with the growing gap between wealthy businessmen and impoverished wage laborers. Elites like Daniel Webster might defend their wealth and privilege by insisting that all workers could achieve “a career of usefulness and enterprise” if they were “industrious and sober,” but labor activist Seth Luther countered that capitalism created “a cruel system of extraction on the bodies and minds of the producing classes . . . for no other object than to enable the ‘rich’ to ‘take care of themselves’ while the poor must work or starve.” 26

Americans embarked on their Industrial Revolution with the expectation that all men could start their careers as humble wage workers but later achieve positions of ownership and stability with hard work. Wage work had traditionally been looked down on as a state of dependence, suitable only as a temporary waypoint for young men without resources on their path toward the middle class and the economic success necessary to support a wife and children ensconced within the domestic sphere. Children’s magazines—such as Juvenile Miscellany and Parley’s Magazine —glorified the prospect of moving up the economic ladder. This “free labor ideology” provided many northerners with a keen sense of superiority over the slave economy of the southern states. 27

But the commercial economy often failed in its promise of social mobility. Depressions and downturns might destroy businesses and reduce owners to wage work. Even in times of prosperity unskilled workers might perpetually lack good wages and economic security and therefore had to forever depend on supplemental income from their wives and young children.

Wage workers—a population disproportionately composed of immigrants and poorer Americans—faced low wages, long hours, and dangerous working conditions. Class conflict developed. Instead of the formal inequality of a master-servant contract, employer and employee entered a contract presumably as equals. But hierarchy was evident: employers had financial security and political power; employees faced uncertainty and powerlessness in the workplace. Dependent on the whims of their employers, some workers turned to strikes and unions to pool their resources. In 1825 a group of journeymen in Boston formed a Carpenters’ Union to protest their inability “to maintain a family at the present time, with the wages which are now usually given.” 28 Working men organized unions to assert themselves and win both the respect and the resources due to a breadwinner and a citizen.

For the middle-class managers and civic leaders caught between workers and owners, unions enflamed a dangerous antagonism between employers and employees. They countered any claims of inherent class conflict with the ideology of social mobility. Middle-class owners and managers justified their economic privilege as the natural product of superior character traits, including decision making and hard work. One group of master carpenters denounced their striking journeymen in 1825 with the claim that workers of “industrious and temperate habits, have, in their turn, become thriving and respectable Masters, and the great body of our Mechanics have been enabled to acquire property and respectability, with a just weight and influence in society.” 29 In an 1856 speech in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Abraham Lincoln had to assure his audience that the country’s commercial transformation had not reduced American laborers to slavery. Southerners, he said, “insist that their slaves are far better off than Northern freemen. What a mistaken view do these men have of Northern labourers! They think that men are always to remain labourers here—but there is no such class. The man who laboured for another last year, this year labours for himself. And next year he will hire others to labour for him.” 30 This essential belief undergirded the northern commitment to “free labor” and won the market revolution much widespread acceptance.

In the first half of the nineteenth century, families in the northern United States increasingly participated in the cash economy created by the market revolution. The first stirrings of industrialization shifted work away from the home. These changes transformed Americans’ notions of what constituted work and therefore shifted what it meant to be an American woman and an American man. As Americans encountered more goods in stores and produced fewer at home, the ability to remove women and children from work determined a family’s class status. This ideal, of course, ignored the reality of women’s work at home and was possible for only the wealthy. The market revolution therefore not only transformed the economy, it changed the nature of the American family. As the market revolution thrust workers into new systems of production, it redefined gender roles. The market integrated families into a new cash economy. As Americans purchased more goods in stores and produced fewer at home, the purity of the domestic sphere—the idealized realm of women and children—increasingly signified a family’s class status.

Women and children worked to supplement the low wages of many male workers. Around age eleven or twelve, boys could take jobs as office runners or waiters, earning perhaps a dollar a week to support their parents’ incomes. The ideal of an innocent and protected childhood was a privilege for middle- and upper-class families, who might look down upon poor families. Joseph Tuckerman, a Unitarian minister who served poor Bostonians, lamented the lack of discipline and regularity among poor children: “At one hour they are kept at work to procure fuel, or perform some other service; in the next are allowed to go where they will, and to do what they will.” 31 Prevented from attending school, poor children served instead as economic assets for their destitute families.

Meanwhile, the education received by middle-class children provided a foundation for future economic privilege. As artisans lost control over their trades, young men had a greater incentive to invest time in education to find skilled positions later in life. Formal schooling was especially important for young men who desired apprenticeships in retail or commercial work. Enterprising instructors established schools to assist “young gentlemen preparing for mercantile and other pursuits, who may wish for an education superior to that usually obtained in the common schools, but different from a college education, and better adapted to their particular business,” such as that organized in 1820 by Warren Colburn of Boston. 32 In response to this need, the Boston School Committee created the English High School (as opposed to the Latin School) that could “give a child an education that shall fit him for active life, and shall serve as a foundation for eminence in his profession, whether Mercantile or Mechanical” beyond that “which our public schools can now furnish.” 33

“The Sphere of Woman,” Godey’s Lady’s Book vol. 40 (March 1850): 209.  University of Virginia .

Education equipped young women with the tools to live sophisticated, genteel lives. After sixteen-year-old Elizabeth Davis left home in 1816 to attend school, her father explained that the experience would “lay a foundation for your future character & respectability.” 34 After touring the United States in the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville praised the independence granted to the young American woman, who had “the great scene of the world . . . open to her” and whose education prepared her to exercise both reason and moral sense. 35 Middling young women also used their education to take positions as schoolteachers in the expanding common school system. Bristol Academy in Taunton, Massachusetts, for instance, advertised “instruction . . . in the art of teaching” for female pupils. 36 In 1825, Nancy Denison left Concord Academy with references indicating that she was “qualified to teach with success and profit” and “very cheerfully recommend[ed]” for “that very responsible employment.” 37

Middle-class youths found opportunities for respectable employment through formal education, but poor youths remained in marginalized positions. Their families’ desperate financial state kept them from enjoying the fruits of education. When pauper children did receive teaching through institutions such as the House of Refuge in New York City, they were often simultaneously indentured to successful families to serve as field hands or domestic laborers. The Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents in New York City sent its wards to places like Sylvester Lusk’s farm in Enfield, Connecticut. Lusk took boys to learn “the trade and mystery of farming” and girls to learn “the trade and mystery of housewifery.” In exchange for “sufficient Meat, Drink, Apparel, Lodging, and Washing, fitting for an Apprentice,” and a rudimentary education, the apprentices promised obedience, morality, and loyalty. 38 Poor children also found work in factories such as Samuel Slater’s textile mills in southern New England. Slater published a newspaper advertisement for “four or five active Lads, about 15 Years of Age to serve as Apprentices in the Cotton Factory.” 39

And so, during the early nineteenth century, opportunities for education and employment often depended on a given family’s class. In colonial America, nearly all children worked within their parent’s chosen profession, whether it be agricultural or artisanal. During the market revolution, however, more children were able to postpone employment. Americans aspired to provide a “Romantic Childhood”—a period in which boys and girls were sheltered within the home and nurtured through primary schooling. 40 This ideal was available to families that could survive without their children’s labor. As these children matured, their early experiences often determined whether they entered respectable, well-paying positions or became dependent workers with little prospects for social mobility.

Just as children were expected to be sheltered from the adult world of work, American culture expected men and women to assume distinct gender roles as they prepared for marriage and family life. An ideology of “separate spheres” set the public realm—the world of economic production and political life—apart as a male domain, and the world of consumers and domestic life as a female one. (Even nonworking women labored by shopping for the household, producing food and clothing, cleaning, educating children, and performing similar activities. But these were considered “domestic” because they did not bring money into the household, although they too were essential to the household’s economic viability.) While reality muddied the ideal, the divide between a private, female world of home and a public, male world of business defined American gender hierarchy.

The idea of separate spheres also displayed a distinct class bias. Middle and upper classes reinforced their status by shielding “their” women from the harsh realities of wage labor. Women were to be mothers and educators, not partners in production. But lower-class women continued to contribute directly to the household economy. The middle- and upper-class ideal was feasible only in households where women did not need to engage in paid labor. In poorer households, women engaged in wage labor as factory workers, pieceworkers producing items for market consumption, tavern- and innkeepers, and domestic servants. While many of the fundamental tasks women performed remained the same—producing clothing, cultivating vegetables, overseeing dairy production, and performing any number of other domestic labors—the key difference was whether and when they performed these tasks for cash in a market economy.

Domestic expectations constantly changed and the market revolution transformed many women’s traditional domestic tasks. Cloth production, for instance, advanced throughout the market revolution as new mechanized production increased the volume and variety of fabrics available to ordinary people. This relieved many better-off women of a traditional labor obligation. As cloth production became commercialized, women’s home-based cloth production became less important to household economies. Purchasing cloth and, later, ready-made clothes began to transform women from producers to consumers. One woman from Maine, Martha Ballard, regularly referenced spinning, weaving, and knitting in the diary she kept from 1785 to 1812. 41 Martha, her daughters, and her female neighbors spun and plied linen and woolen yarns and used them to produce a variety of fabrics to make clothing for her family. The production of cloth and clothing was a year-round, labor-intensive process, but it was for home consumption, not commercial markets.

In cities, where women could buy cheap imported cloth to turn into clothing, they became skilled consumers. They stewarded money earned by their husbands by comparing values and haggling over prices. In one typical experience, Mrs. Peter Simon, a captain’s wife, inspected twenty-six yards of Holland cloth to ensure that it was worth the £130 price. 42 Even wealthy women shopped for high-value goods. While servants or enslaved people routinely made low-value purchases, the mistress of the household trusted her discriminating eye alone for expensive or specific purchases.

Women might also parlay their skills into businesses. In addition to working as seamstresses, milliners, or laundresses, women might undertake paid work for neighbors or acquaintances or combine clothing production with management of a boardinghouse. Even enslaved laborers with particular skill at producing clothing could be hired out for a higher price or might even negotiate to work part-time for themselves. Most enslaved people, however, continued to produce domestic items, including simpler cloths and clothing, for home consumption.

Thomas Horner, “Broadway, New York,” 1836.  Smithsonian American Art Museum .

Similar domestic expectations played out in the slave states. Enslaved women labored in the fields. Whites argued that African American women were less delicate and womanly than white women and therefore perfectly suited for agricultural labor. The southern ideal meanwhile established that white plantation mistresses were shielded from manual labor because of their very whiteness. Throughout the slave states, however, aside from the minority of plantations with dozens of enslaved laborers, most white women by necessity continued to assist with planting, harvesting, and processing agricultural projects despite the cultural stigma attached to it. White southerners continued to produce large portions of their food and clothing at home. Even when they were market-oriented producers of cash crops, white southerners still insisted that their adherence to plantation slavery and racial hierarchy made them morally superior to greedy northerners and their callous, cutthroat commerce. Southerners and northerners increasingly saw their ways of life as incompatible.

While the market revolution remade many women’s economic roles, their legal status remained essentially unchanged. Upon marriage, women were rendered legally dead by the notion of coverture, the custom that counted married couples as a single unit represented by the husband. Without special precautions or interventions, women could not earn their own money, own their own property, sue, or be sued. Any money earned or spent belonged by law to their husbands. Women shopped on their husbands’ credit and at any time husbands could terminate their wives’ access to their credit. Although a handful of states made divorce available—divorce had before only been legal in Congregationalist states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut, where marriage was strictly a civil contract rather than a religious one—it remained extremely expensive, difficult, and rare. Marriage was typically a permanently binding legal contract.

Ideas of marriage, if not the legal realities, began to change. The late eighteenth and early nineteenth century marked the beginning of the shift from “institutional” to “companionate” marriage. 43 Institutional marriages were primarily labor arrangements that maximized the couple’s and their children’s chances of surviving and thriving. Men and women assessed each other’s skills as they related to household production, although looks and personality certainly entered into the equation. But in the late eighteenth century, under the influence of Enlightenment thought, young people began to privilege character and compatibility in their potential partners. Money was still essential: marriages prompted the largest redistributions of property prior to the settling of estates at death. But the means of this redistribution was changing. Especially in the North, land became a less important foundation for matchmaking as wealthy young men became not only farmers and merchants but bankers, clerks, or professionals. The increased emphasis on affection and attraction that young people embraced was facilitated by an increasingly complex economy that offered new ways to store, move, and create wealth, which liberalized the criteria by which families evaluated potential in-laws.

To be considered a success in family life, a middle-class American man typically aspired to own a comfortable home and to marry a woman of strong morals and religious conviction who would take responsibility for raising virtuous, well-behaved children. The duties of the middle-class husband and wife would be clearly delineated into separate spheres. The husband alone was responsible for creating wealth and engaging in the commerce and politics—the public sphere. The wife was responsible for the private—keeping a good home, being careful with household expenses, and raising children, inculcating them with the middle-class virtues that would ensure their future success. But for poor families, sacrificing the potential economic contributions of wives and children was an impossibility.

More than five million immigrants arrived in the United States between 1820 and 1860. Irish, German, and Jewish immigrants sought new lives and economic opportunities. By the Civil War, nearly one out of every eight Americans had been born outside the United States. A series of push and pull factors drew immigrants to the United States.

In England, an economic slump prompted Parliament to modernize British agriculture by revoking common land rights for Irish farmers. These policies generally targeted Catholics in the southern counties of Ireland and motivated many to seek greater opportunity elsewhere. The booming American economy pulled Irish immigrants toward ports along the eastern United States. Between 1820 and 1840, over 250,000 Irish immigrants arrived in the United States. 44 Without the capital and skills required to purchase and operate farms, Irish immigrants settled primarily in northeastern cities and towns and performed unskilled work. Irish men usually emigrated alone and, when possible, practiced what became known as chain migration. Chain migration allowed Irish men to send portions of their wages home, which would then be used either to support their families in Ireland or to purchase tickets for relatives to come to the United States. Irish immigration followed this pattern into the 1840s and 1850s, when the infamous Irish Famine sparked a massive exodus out of Ireland. Between 1840 and 1860, 1.7 million Irish fled starvation and the oppressive English policies that accompanied it. 45 As they entered manual, unskilled labor positions in urban America’s dirtiest and most dangerous occupations, Irish workers in northern cities were compared to African Americans, and anti-immigrant newspapers portrayed them with apelike features. Despite hostility, Irish immigrants retained their social, cultural, and religious beliefs and left an indelible mark on American culture.

While the Irish settled mostly in coastal cities, most German immigrants used American ports and cities as temporary waypoints before settling in the rural countryside. Over 1.5 million immigrants from the various German states arrived in the United States during the antebellum era. Although some southern Germans fled declining agricultural conditions and repercussions of the failed revolutions of 1848, many Germans simply sought steadier economic opportunity. German immigrants tended to travel as families and carried with them skills and capital that enabled them to enter middle-class trades. Germans migrated to the Old Northwest to farm in rural areas and practiced trades in growing communities such as St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee, three cities that formed what came to be called the German Triangle.

Catholic and Jewish Germans transformed regions of the republic. Although records are sparse, New York’s Jewish population rose from approximately five hundred in 1825 to forty thousand in 1860. 46 Similar gains were seen in other American cities. Jewish immigrants hailing from southwestern Germany and parts of occupied Poland moved to the United States through chain migration and as family units. Unlike other Germans, Jewish immigrants rarely settled in rural areas. Once established, Jewish immigrants found work in retail, commerce, and artisanal occupations such as tailoring. They quickly found their footing and established themselves as an intrinsic part of the American market economy. Just as Irish immigrants shaped the urban landscape through the construction of churches and Catholic schools, Jewish immigrants erected synagogues and made their mark on American culture.

The sudden influx of immigration triggered a backlash among many native-born Anglo-Protestant Americans. This nativist movement, especially fearful of the growing Catholic presence, sought to limit European immigration and prevent Catholics from establishing churches and other institutions. Popular in northern cities such as Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, and other cities with large Catholic populations, nativism even spawned its own political party in the 1850s. The American Party, more commonly known as the Know-Nothing Party, found success in local and state elections throughout the North. The party even nominated candidates for president in 1852 and 1856. The rapid rise of the Know-Nothings, reflecting widespread anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant sentiment, slowed European immigration. Immigration declined precipitously after 1855 as nativism, the Crimean War, and improving economic conditions in Europe discouraged potential migrants from traveling to the United States. Only after the American Civil War would immigration levels match and eventually surpass the levels seen in the 1840s and 1850s.

In industrial northern cities, Irish immigrants swelled the ranks of the working class and quickly encountered the politics of industrial labor. Many workers formed trade unions during the early republic. Organizations such as Philadelphia’s Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers or the Carpenters’ Union of Boston operated within specific industries in major American cities. These unions worked to protect the economic power of their members by creating closed shops—workplaces wherein employers could only hire union members—and striking to improve working conditions. Political leaders denounced these organizations as unlawful combinations and conspiracies to promote the narrow self-interest of workers above the rights of property holders and the interests of the common good. Unions did not become legally acceptable until 1842 when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of a union organized among Boston bootmakers, arguing that the workers were capable of acting “in such a manner as best to subserve their own interests.” 47 Even after the case, unions remained in a precarious legal position.

This anti-Catholic print depicts Catholic priests arriving by boat and then threatening Uncle Sam and a young Protestant boy who holds out a Bible in resistance. An anti-Catholic cartoon, reflecting the nativist perception of the threat posed by the Roman Church’s influence in the United States through Irish immigration and Catholic education. N. Currier, “The Propagation Society, More Free than Welcome,” 1855.  Library of Congress .

Women, a dominant labor source for factories since the early 1800s, launched some of the earliest strikes for better conditions. Textile operatives in Lowell, Massachusetts, “turned out” (walked off) their jobs in 1834 and 1836. During the Ten-Hour Movement of the 1840s, female operatives provided crucial support. Under the leadership of Sarah Bagley, the Lowell Female Labor Reform Association organized petition drives that drew thousands of signatures from “mill girls.” Like male activists, Bagley and her associates used the desire for mental improvement as a central argument for reform. An 1847 editorial in the Voice of Industry , a labor newspaper published by Bagley, asked, “who, after thirteen hours of steady application to monotonous work, can sit down and apply her mind to deep and long continued thought?” 50 Despite the widespread support for a ten-hour day, the movement achieved only partial success. President Martin Van Buren established a ten-hour-day policy for laborers on federal public works projects. New Hampshire passed a statewide law in 1847, and Pennsylvania followed a year later. Both states, however, allowed workers to voluntarily consent to work more than ten hours per day.

In 1842, child labor became a dominant issue in the American labor movement. The protection of child laborers gained more middle-class support than the protection of adult workers. A petition from parents in Fall River, a southern Massachusetts mill town that employed a high portion of child workers, asked the legislature for a law “prohibiting the employment of children in manufacturing establishments at an age and for a number of hours which must be permanently injurious to their health and inconsistent with the education which is essential to their welfare.” 51 Massachusetts quickly passed a law prohibiting children under age twelve from working more than ten hours a day. By the midnineteenth century, every state in New England had followed Massachusetts’s lead. Between the 1840s and 1860s, these statutes slowly extended the age of protection of labor and the assurance of schooling. Throughout the region, public officials agreed that young children (between ages nine and twelve) should be prevented from working in dangerous occupations, and older children (between ages twelve and fifteen) should balance their labor with education and time for leisure. 52

Male workers sought to improve their income and working conditions to create a household that kept women and children protected within the domestic sphere. But labor gains were limited, and the movement remained moderate. Despite its challenge to industrial working conditions, labor activism in antebellum America remained largely wedded to the free labor ideal. The labor movement later supported the northern free soil movement, which challenged the spread of slavery in the 1840s, simultaneously promoting the superiority of the northern system of commerce over the southern institution of slavery while trying, much less successfully, to reform capitalism.

During the early nineteenth century, southern agriculture produced by enslaved labor fueled northern industry produced by wage workers and managed by the new middle class. New transportation, new machinery, and new organizations of labor integrated the previously isolated pockets of the colonial economy into a national industrial operation. Industrialization and the cash economy tied diverse regions together at the same time that ideology drove Americans apart. By celebrating the freedom of contract that distinguished the wage worker from the indentured servant of previous generations or the enslaved laborer in the southern cotton field, political leaders claimed the American Revolution’s legacy for the North. But the rise of industrial child labor, the demands of workers to unionize, the economic vulnerability of women, and the influx of non-Anglo immigrants left many Americans questioning the meaning of liberty after the market revolution.

1. James Madison asks Congress to support internal improvements, 1815

After the War of 1812, Americans looked to strengthen their nation through government spending on infrastructure, or what were then called internal improvements. In his seventh annual address to congress, Madison called for public investment to create national roads, canals, and even a national seminary. He also called for a tariff, or tax on certain imports, designed to make foreign goods more expensive, giving American producers an advantage in domestic markets. 

2. A traveler describes life along the Erie Canal, 1829

Basil Hall, a British visitor traveled along the Erie Canal and took careful notes on what he found. In this excerpt, he described life in Rochester, New York. Rochester, and other small towns in upstate New York, grew rapidly as a result of the Erie Canal. 

3. Blacksmith apprentice contract, 1836

The factories and production of the Market Revolution eroded the wealth and power of skilled small business owners called artisans. This indenture contract illustrated the former way of doing things, where a young person would agree to serve for a number of years as an apprentice to a skilled artisan before venturing out on his own. 

4. Maria Stewart bemoans the consequences of racism, 1832

Maria Stewart electrified audiences in Boston with a number of powerful speeches. Her most common theme was the evil of slavery. However, here she attacks the soul-crushing consequences of racism in American capitalism, claiming that the lack of social and economic equality doomed Black Americans to a life of suffering and spiritual death .

5. Rebecca Burlend recalls her emigration from England to Illinois, 1848

Rebecca Burlend, her husband, and children emigrated to Illinois from England in 1831. These reflections describe her reaction to landing in New Orleans, sailing up the Mississippi to St. Louis, and finally arriving at her new home in Illinois. This was her first experience encountering American slavery, the American landscape, and the rugged living conditions of her new home. 

6. Harriet H. Robinson remembers a mill workers’ strike, 1836

The social upheavals of the Market Revolution created new tensions between rich and poor, particularly between the new class of workers and the new class of managers. Lowell, Massachusetts was the location of the first American factory. In this document, a woman reminisces about a strike that she participated in at a Lowell textile mill. 

7. Alexis de Toqueville, “How Americans Understand the Equality of the Sexes,” 1840

The French political thinker Alexis de Toqueville travelled extensively through the United States in gathering research for his book  Democracy In America . In this excerpt, he described the belief that American men and women lived in “separate spheres:” men in public, women in the home. This expectation justified the denial of rights to women. All women were denied political rights in nineteenth century America, but only a small number of wealthy families could afford to remove women from economic production, like de Toqueville claimed.

8. Abolitionist sheet music cover page, 1844

The “transportation revolution” shaped economic change in the early 1800s, but the massive construction of railroads also had a profound impact on American politics and culture. This sheet music title page shows how abolitionists used railroad imagery to advocate for the immediate emancipation of enslaved people and to promote their political platform before the 1844 presidential election.

9. Anti-Catholic cartoon, 1855

Irish immigration transformed American cities. Yet many Americans greeted the new arrivals with suspicion or hostility. Nathanial Currier’s anti-Catholic cartoon reflected the popular American perception that Irish Catholic immigrants posed a threat to the United States. 

This chapter was edited by Jane Fiegen Green, with content contributions by Kelly Arehart, Myles Beaurpre, Kristin Condotta, Jane Fiegen Green, Nathan Jeremie-Brink, Lindsay Keiter, Brenden Kennedy, William Kerrigan, Christopher Sawula, David Schley, and Evgenia Shayder Shoop.

Recommended citation: Kelly Arehart et al., “Market Revolution,” Jane Fiegen Green, ed., in The American Yawp , eds. Joseph Locke and Ben Wright (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2018).

Recommended Reading

• Balleisen, Edward J. Navigating Failure: Bankruptcy and Commercial Society in Antebellum America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001.
• Blewett, Mary H. Men, Women, and Work: Class, Gender, and Protest in the New England Shoe Industry, 1780–1910. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988.
• Boydston, Jeanne. Home and Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
• Dublin, Thomas. Transforming Women’s Work: New England Lives in the Industrial Revolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994.
• Faler, Paul G. Mechanics and Manufacturers in the Early Industrial Revolution: Lynn, Massachusetts, 1760–1860. Albany: SUNY Press, 1981.
• Foner, Eric. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.
• Greenberg, Joshua R. Advocating the Man: Masculinity, Organized Labor, and the Household in New York, 1800–1840. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.
• Halttunen, Karen. Confidence Men and Painted Women: A Study of Middle-Class Culture in America, 1830–1870. Yale University Press, 1982.
• Hartigan-O’Connor, Ellen. The Ties That Buy: Women and Commerce in Revolutionary America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.
• Howe, Daniel Walker. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
• Innes, Stephen, ed. Work and Labor in Early America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988.
• Jabour, Anya. Marriage in the Early Republic: Elizabeth and William Wirt and the Companionate Ideal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.
• Larson, John Lauritz. The Market Revolution in America: Liberty, Ambition, and the Eclipse of the Common Good. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• Levy, Jonathan. Freaks of Fortune: The Emerging World of Capitalism and Risk in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012.
• Luskey, Brian P. On the Make: Clerks and the Quest for Capital in Nineteenth-Century America. New York: New York University Press, 2010.
• Matson, Cathy, and Wendy A. Woloson. Risky Business: Winning and Losing in the Early American Economy, 1780–1850. Philadelphia: Library Company of Philadelphia, 2003.
• McNeur, Catherine. Taming Manhattan: Environmental Battles in the Antebellum City. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.
• Melish, Joanne Pope. Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and “Race” in New England, 1780–1860 . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.
• Mihm, Stephen. A Nation of Counterfeiters: Capitalists, Con Men, and the Making of the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
• Murphy, Teresa Anne. Ten Hours’ Labor: Religion, Reform, and Gender in Early New England. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992.
• Rice, Stephen P. Minding the Machine: Languages of Class in Early Industrial America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.
• Rothenberg, Winifred Barr. From Market-Places to a Market Economy: The Transformation of Rural Massachusetts, 1750–1850. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
• Ryan, Mary P. Cradle of the Middle Class: The Family in Oneida County, New York, 1790–1865. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
• Sellers, Charles Grier. The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815–1846. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
• Tucker, Barbara M. Samuel Slater and the Origins of the American Textile Industry, 1790–1860. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984.
• Niles’ Weekly Register (December 2, 1815), 238. [ ↩ ]
• Douglass C. North, Economic Growth in the United States , 1790–1860 (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1961), 25. [ ↩ ]
• James Madison, Annual Message to Congress, December 5, 1815. [ ↩ ]
• William L. Garrison and David M. Levinson, The Transportation Experience: Policy, Planning, and Deployment (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 51. [ ↩ ]
• Warren E. Weber, “Early State Banks in the United States: How Many Were There and When Did They Exist?” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Quarterly Review 30, no. 1 (September 2006): 28–40. [ ↩ ]
• John Robert Godley, Letters from America (London: Murray, 1844), 267. [ ↩ ]
• Margaret Van Horn Dwight, A Journey to Ohio in 1810 , ed. Max Farrand (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1912), 13. [ ↩ ]
• Ibid., 37. [ ↩ ]
• Frances Trollope, Domestic Manners of the Americans, Vol. 1 (London: Whittaker, Treacher, 1832), 274. [ ↩ ]
• Cathy Matson and Wendy A. Woloson, Risky Business: Winning and Losing in the Early American Economy, 1780–1850 (Philadelphia: Library Company of Philadelphia: 2003), 29. [ ↩ ]
• Leonard P. Curry, The Corporate City: The American City as a Political Entity, 1800–1850 (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1997), 46. [ ↩ ]
• Jefferson to George Logan, November 12, 1816, in Works of Thomas Jefferson , ed. Paul Leicester Ford, Federal Edition, Vol. 12 (New York: 1904), 12–43 [ ↩ ]
• Quoted in Michael Zakim and Gary John Kornblith, eds., Capitalism Takes Command: The Social Transformation of Nineteenth-Century America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), 158. [ ↩ ]
• Philip Scranton, Proprietary Capitalism: The Textile Manufacture at Philadelphia, 1800–1885 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 12. [ ↩ ]
• Robert J. Cottrol, ed., From African to Yankee: Narratives of Slavery and Freedom in Antebellum New England (Armonk, NY: Sharpe, 1998), 62. [ ↩ ]
• The 1830 census enumerates 3,568 enslaved people in the northern states (Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont). 1830 U.S. Census data taken from Minnesota Population Center, National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2011), http://www.nhgis.org ; David Menschel, “Abolition Without Deliverance: The Law of Connecticut Slavery 1784–1848,” Yale Law Journal 111, no. 1 (October 2001): 191; James J. Gigantino II, The Ragged Road to Abolition: Slavery and Freedom in New Jersey 1775–1865 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), 248. [ ↩ ]
• Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0 . [ ↩ ]
• Louisiana Courier , February 12, 1840. [ ↩ ]
• U.S. Census Office 8th Census 1860 and James Madison Edmunds, Manufactures of the United States in 1860: Compiled from the Original Returns of the Eighth Census, Under the Direction of the Secretary of the Interior (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1865). [ ↩ ]
• Ira Berlin, Generations of Captivity: A History of African-American Slaves (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2003), 168–169. [ ↩ ]
• Sarah “Sally” Rice to her father, February 23, 1845, published in The New England Mill Village, 1790–1860 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982), 390. [ ↩ ]
• Factory Tracts: Factory Life as It Is , no. 1 (Lowell, MA: Female Labor Reform Association 1845), 4]. [ ↩ ]
• Malenda M. Edwards to Sabrina Bennett, April 4, 1839, quoted in Thomas Dublin, ed., Farm to Factory Women’s Letters, 1830–1860 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 74. [ ↩ ]
• “Apprentices No. 2,” New York Observer , October 14, 1826. [ ↩ ]
• Reverend Alonzo Potter, Political Economy: Its Objects, Uses, and Principles (New York: Potter, 1840), 92. [ ↩ ]
• Daniel Webster, “Lecture Before the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge,” in The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster: Writings and Speeches Hitherto Uncollected, vol. 1. Addresses on Various Occasions , ed. Edward Everett (Boston: Little, Brown, 1903); Carl Siracusa, A Mechanical People: Perceptions of the Industrial Order in Massachusetts, 1815–1880 (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1979), 157. [ ↩ ]
• Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men : The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970). [ ↩ ]
• “Notice to House Carpenters in the Country,” Columbian Centinel , April 23, 1825. [ ↩ ]
• John R. Commons, ed., A Documentary History of American Industrial Society (New York: Russell and Russell, 1958), Vol. 6: 79. [ ↩ ]
• Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan, Aug. 27, 1856, in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln , Vol. 2 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 364. [ ↩ ]
• Joseph Tuckerman, Mr. Tuckerman’s Eight Semiannual Report in His Service as a Minister at Large in Boston (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1831), 21c. [ ↩ ]
• Warren Colburn, “Advertisement for Colburn’s school for young gentlemen preparing for mercantile and other pursuits, 19 Sep 1820,” Massachusetts Historical Society. [ ↩ ]
• Proceedings of the School Committee, of the Town of Boston, respecting an English Classical School (Boston: The Committee, 1820). [ ↩ ]
• William Davis to Elizabeth Davis, March 21, 1816; June 23, 1816; November 17, 1816; Davis Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society. [ ↩ ]
• Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America , Vol. II., ed. Phillips Bradley (New York: Knopf, 1945), 196. [ ↩ ]
• A Catalogue of the Officers, Teachers, and Pupils in Bristol Academy (Taunton, MA: Bradford and Amsbury, 1837). [ ↩ ]
• Nancy Denison recommendation, May 1825, Titus Orcott Brown Papers, Maine Historical Society. [ ↩ ]
• Indentures and Other Documents Binding Minor Wards of the Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents of the City of New York as apprentices to Sylvester Lusk of Enfield, 1828–1838, Sylvester Lusk Papers, Connecticut Historical Society. [ ↩ ]
• Advertisement in Providence Gazette , October 1794. [ ↩ ]
• Steven Mintz, Huck’s Raft: A History of American Childhood (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2004). [ ↩ ]
• Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, A Midwife’s Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785–1812 (New York: Knopf, 1990). [ ↩ ]
• Ellen Hartigan-O’Connor, The Ties That Buy: Women and Commerce in Revolutionary America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 138. [ ↩ ]
• Anya Jabour, Marriage in the Early Republic: Elizabeth and William Wirt and the Companionate Ideal (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998). [ ↩ ]
• Bill Ong Hing, Defining America Through Immigration Policy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004), 278–284. [ ↩ ]
• John Powell, Encyclopedia of North American Immigration (New York: Facts on File, 2005), 154. [ ↩ ]
• H. B. Grinstein, The Rise of the Jewish Community in New York, 1654–1860 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1945), 469. [ ↩ ]
• Commonwealth v. Hunt , 45 Mass. 111 (1842). [ ↩ ]
• New England Artisan and Laboring Man’s Repository (Pawtucket, Providence, and Boston), March 8, 1832. [ ↩ ]
• Teresa Anne Murphy, Ten Hours’ Labor: Religion, Reform, and Gender in Early New England (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992). [ ↩ ]
• [Sarah Bagley], “The Blindness of the Age,” Voice of Industry , April 23, 1847. [ ↩ ]
• Legislative Documents, 1842, House, No. 4, p. 3, in Elizabeth Dabney Langhorne Lewis Otey, The Beginnings of Child Labor Legislation in Certain States: A Comparative Study (New York: Arno Press, 1974), 78). [ ↩ ]
• Miriam E. Loughran, “The Historical Development of Child-Labor Legislation in the United States,” PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1921, p. 67. [ ↩ ]

Chapter 2: Appointments, Reappointments and Promotions in the Professoriate

Main navigation.

Handbook last updated: January 17, 2024

Chapter 2 sets forth the faculty lines, appointment ranks, terms of appointment, and operational policies and procedures for appointments, reappointments and promotions in the Stanford University Professoriate, as defined in Section 1.2.5 of this handbook to include the Tenure Line, the Non-Tenure Line, Senior Fellows and Center Fellows at designated policy centers and institutes, and the University Medical Line (formerly the Medical Center Line).  The Statement on Appointment and Tenure, which provides the historical foundations for many of these provisions, is located in Chapter 4 (“Core Policy Statements”) of this handbook.

The criteria for professorial appointments, reappointments and promotions are found in Appendix B to this handbook, along with other guidelines relevant to these processes.  Note that various schools may have school-designated policies and practices that must be followed, and those carrying out search and review processes are urged to consult their Dean’s offices for the pertinent information.

Jump to: 2.1 Academic Council Professoriate: The Tenure Line 2.2 Academic Council Professoriate: The Non-Tenure Line 2.3 Senior Fellows and Center Fellows in Designated Policy Centers and Institutes 2.4 University Medical Line Professoriate 2.5 Extending Term Appointments 2.6 Special Appointment Designations and Considerations 2.7 Appointment, Reappointment and Promotion Procedures 2.8 Additional Policies

2.1 Academic Council Professoriate: The Tenure Line

2.1.1 general information.

All members of the Tenure Line faculty are members of the Academic Council of the University.  (See Section 1.2.6)

2.1.2 Titles and Ranks in the Tenure Line

The Tenure Line ranks are:

Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor

Persons appointed to any of the above-designated ranks, at either full or part-time, are in the Tenure Line, unless specified to the contrary in the appointment papers and in writing to the individual.  Individuals may also be appointed in the Tenure Line as an Assistant Professor with a “Subject to Ph.D.” contingency.  (See Section 2.6.1)

2.1.3 Duration of Appointments

Tenure Line appointments are made either for a term of years or “without limit of time” (which is commonly referred to as “with tenure”).  The total length of time spent in untenured term appointments in the Tenure Line at any rank may not exceed seven years, except in specified circumstances described in the guidelines below.  The usual duration of an appointment (subject to relatively rare exceptions granted by the Provost for good cause and on a case-by-case basis) for each rank is:

Although term appointments are frequently made with the clear possibility of reappointment or promotion, there is no entitlement to such action at the end of the term and it is by no means automatic.  Instead, decisions on reappointment and promotion, like decisions on initial appointment, are subject to the exercise of professional and scholarly judgment and discretion by the University’s departmental faculty and its academic leadership.  Some Tenure Line appointments are also contingent on support from designated policy centers and institutes or departments.  See Section 2.6.2 regarding Coterminous Appointments.

2.1.3.1 Tenure Clock Considerations

For tenure line faculty, university policies regarding the tenure clock are set forth in section 2.1.4 below.

2.1.3.2 Early Promotion to Tenure

Assistant Professors and untenured Associate Professors with truly exceptional records may be proposed by the department chair or dean (for schools without departments) for promotion to tenure prior to the seventh year of their appointment. An early promotion process can be initiated only with the written consent of the candidate. Consultation (such as between the chair and the dean) is essential prior to initiating a review process leading toward early promotion. Since the University is being asked to make the tenure commitment to a person who may have a shorter track record in scholarship and teaching, the record must present unequivocal evidence that the candidate has achieved true distinction in scholarship and meets the standards for teaching and other relevant criteria.

Unsuccessful candidates for early promotion may be proposed again at the normal time if that remains desirable to the candidate and the department. In order to avoid the potential awkwardness following a negative tenure decision, it is prudent to initiate early promotion cases only in rare instances.

2.1.4 Tenure

According to the Statement on Appointment and Tenure (see Chapter 4 of this handbook), tenure is defined as security of appointment which continues to the date of academic retirement.  Tenure Line appointments (including reappointments and promotions) that are “without limit of time” carry tenure.  Tenure may also be acquired by length of service.

2.1.4.1 Appointment, Reappointment, or Promotion Without Limit of Time

Appointments (including reappointments and promotions) without limit of time automatically carry tenure.  The papers recommending the appointment, reappointment, or promotion of a Tenure Line faculty member must state whether the recommended position is without limit of time.

2.1.4.2 Tenure By Length of Service

Tenure may also be acquired by length of service.

Full time service in the Tenure Line faculty at Stanford at the ranks of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor (or a combination thereof) beyond seven years confers tenure by length of service.  In rare and exceptional circumstances, the Provost can approve a non-tenure accruing appointment at the rank of Professor in the UTL for one or more terms of years, not to exceed ten years total.  Individuals holding appointments “Subject to Ph.D.” do not accrue time toward tenure by length of service.  As described herein, various circumstances may extend the seven year tenure clock deadline (and thus the date on which tenure by length of service would be conferred).

For appointments beginning after August 31, 1996, however, untenured service in a Tenure Line rank may not normally exceed ten years, irrespective of the circumstances that might extend the seven year tenure clock deadline described below in Section 2.1.4.2.c.  Accordingly, untenured service in a Tenure Line rank beyond ten years confers tenure by length of service.  The ten year appointment clock deadline can only be extended by a Provostially-granted exception for extraordinary personal or institutional circumstances.

In determining tenure by length of service, both the seven year tenure clock deadline and the ten year appointment clock deadline must be calculated.  Departments and schools are expected to accurately track and calculate both deadlines.  Faculty members with questions about the seven year tenure clock and ten year appointment clock deadlines and clock policies and exceptions should contact their Dean’s Office or the Provost’s Faculty Affairs Office.

2.1.4.2.a Principles Relevant To Calculating The Seven Year Tenure Clock And Ten Year Appointment Clock Deadline

• Service in the Tenure Line:   Only periods of service in the Tenure Line as an Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor (or a combination thereof) count toward tenure by length of service.  Persons holding acting or visiting appointments or “Subject to Ph.D.” appointments do not accrue time toward tenure by length of service.
• Breaks In Tenure Line Service:   Periods of service in the Tenure Line at Stanford University need not be continuous to count toward acquisition of tenure by length of service.  For a faculty member who departs Stanford University and is subsequently rehired, all service at Stanford in the Tenure line counts toward the seven year tenure clock and the ten year appointment clock deadlines.
• Service At Other Institutions:   Academic service at other institutions does not count toward acquisition of tenure by length of service at Stanford University.
• Initiation of Tenure Review:   Periods of service after the initiation of the tenure review process do not count toward tenure by length of service.

2.1.4.2.b Circumstances That DO Extend The Seven Year Tenure Clock Deadline

• Part Time Appointments:  

Part time appointments are prorated on the basis of the fraction of service compared to a full-time appointment, and thus do extend the seven year tenure clock deadline.  However, a total number of untenured years of service in a Tenure Line rank greater than ten years confers tenure by length of service, regardless of the percentage of time served.

• Administrative Appointments:  

Academic appointments made specifically to coincide with an administrative appointment or a specific project do not accrue time toward tenure (under the seven year tenure clock) and thus do extend the seven year tenure clock deadline.  This must be stated in the appointment papers and confirmed in writing by the Provost at the time of the appointment.  Similarly, individuals serving under regular academic appointments accruing time toward tenure who subsequently accept full or part-time administrative appointments may, under certain circumstances, have the period of time (either full or prorated, as appropriate) deducted in computing length of service toward tenure under the seven year tenure clock; this must also be confirmed in writing by the Provost in advance of the period to be deducted.  Although academic appointments made specifically to coincide with an administrative appointment or a designated project do not accrue time toward tenure under the seven year tenure clock (and thus do extend the seven year tenure clock deadline), they do accrue time toward tenure under the ten year appointment clock.

• Leave Without Salary: 

Any period of leave from service (including childcare leave and Family Medical Care Leave) that is completely without salary paid by or through Stanford University does not count toward tenure by length of service under the seven year tenure clock.  Such periods extend the seven year tenure clock deadline for the duration of the authorized leave unless there is advance written agreement by the Provost to the contrary.  Periods of partial leave without salary stop the seven year tenure clock on a proportional basis.  Periods of leave without salary do not extend the ten year appointment clock deadline.

• Childcare Leave:  

Childcare leave is leave without salary that may be taken by any faculty member, male or female, who becomes a parent by birth or adoption.  See Section 3.5.3.  As leave without salary, it does extend the seven year tenure clock deadline (but not the ten year appointment clock deadline).

• New Parent Tenure Clock Extension:  

A faculty member who becomes a parent, by birth or adoption, while holding a tenure-accruing appointment is entitled to a one-year extension of the date (under the seven year tenure clock) on which tenure would be conferred due to length of service for each birth or adoption event.  This extension will normally have the effect of postponing for a year the initiation of the tenure review process.  The New Parent Tenure Clock Extension, though it extends the seven year tenure clock deadline, does not extend the ten year appointment clock deadline.

This extension of the seven year tenure clock deadline is not tied to the number of weeks the faculty member is on pregnancy disability leave, whether they requested a reduced teaching or clinical load (see Section 3.5.2), or whether they subsequently take a leave without salary for childcare purposes.  The extension applies even if a faculty member becomes a parent during an off-duty quarter (such as summer quarter) and returns immediately to their regular work load. To initiate the extension process, the faculty member needs to submit the Application for New Parent Tenure Clock Extension for Tenure-Line Academic Council Faculty & New Parent Appointment form (Appendix F) to their Department Chair or to the School Dean’s Office for Schools without departments.  Requests must be submitted prior to the commencement of the faculty member’s tenure review.  The tenure review commences when the department chair or dean informs the candidate in writing that the review process has commenced.  The School will then advise the Provost’s Office through the submission of an online FASA (Faculty and Academic Staff Application) transaction and provide revised tenure clock and appointment clock calculations for the faculty member.

• Other Personal Circumstances:  

In cases of extended leaves without service, such as long-term disability or other similar personal circumstances that significantly disrupt teaching and scholarly activities for an extended period, untenured Tenure Line faculty should contact their Dean’s Office to explore a potential extension of their seven year tenure clock deadline.  Long term disability is generally considered to be a leave without service, and thus is non-tenure accruing.  An extension for such personal circumstances requires a Provostially-granted exception in writing.

2.1.4.2.c Circumstances That DO NOT Extend The Seven Year Tenure Clock Deadline

• Sabbatical Leave:  The sabbatical leave program is provided to free faculty members from their normal University duties, enabling them to pursue their scholarly interests full time and maintain their professional standing so that they may return to their posts with renewed vigor, perspective, and insight.  Periods of sabbatical leave count towards tenure and do not stop the seven year tenure clock, regardless of the percentage of sabbatical pay during the leave.
• Leave For Periods of Pure Research:  A pure research period is defined as a designated leave from teaching and certain other institutional responsibilities during which the faculty member receives full or partial salary through Stanford, normally from sponsored research.  Such periods when a faculty member is receiving salary, whether from sponsored research or a combination of sponsored research and regular sabbatical or other pay, count toward tenure and do not extend the seven year tenure clock deadline.  Periods of pure research do not constitute leave without salary or leave without service, and the tenure clock does not stop.
• Short Term Disability Leave:   Short term disability leave does not extend the seven year tenure clock deadline as the faculty member is relieved of duties for a relatively short period of time.  Short term disability leave can only extend the seven year tenure clock deadline if the Provost has granted an exception in writing.  See above regarding “Other Personal Circumstances.”
• Pregnancy Disability Leave:   Pregnancy Disability Leave is short term disability leave for the period of time before and after childbirth during which a faculty member is relieved of all normal University responsibilities.  This period of time does not normally extend the seven year tenure clock deadline as the faculty member is relieved of duties for a relatively short period of time.  See Section 3.5 for more information about pregnancy disability leave and childcare leave; see Section 2.1.4.2.b above for the New Parent Tenure Clock Deadline Extension.

2.1.4.2.d Circumstances That DO Extend The Ten Year Appointment Clock Deadline

The ten year appointment clock deadline can only be extended by a Provostially-granted exception in writing for extraordinary personal or institutional circumstances.

2.1.4.2.e University Emergencies

In the event of emergency circumstances that severely disrupt the regular operation of the University (such as an earthquake, pandemic, etc.), the Provost in their discretion may declare that the operation of the seven year tenure clock and the ten year appointment clock are stopped (and the deadlines correspondingly extended), until a further declaration by the Provost following the resumption of University operations.

2.1.5 Process For Extending Appointments

The circumstances described above (that extend a seven year tenure clock or a ten year appointment clock deadline) do not automatically extend the individual’s appointment term.  This must be accomplished through the normal processes, with the submission of a online FASA (Faculty and Academic Staff Application) transaction by the department and/or school.  Such extensions of appointment terms under these circumstances will ordinarily be granted.

Faculty members with questions about the seven year tenure clock and ten year appointment clock policies and exceptions, and about the extension of appointment terms, should contact their Dean’s Office or the Provost’s Faculty Affairs Office.

SUMMARY OF TENURE AND APPOINTMENT CLOCK POLICIES

• Seven year tenure clock applies to all Tenure Line faculty
• Ten year appointment clock applies to Tenure Line faculty appointed after 8/31/96
• Only service at Stanford University counts toward either clock
• Periods of service in an untenured Tenure Line position as an Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and/or Professor count; however, periods of service in appointments designated as “Acting,” “Visiting,” “Subject to Ph.D.” or “Szegö” do not count
• Service does not have to be continuous to count
• Service after the start of the tenure review process does not count

2.2 Academic Council Professoriate: The Non-Tenure Line

2.2.1 general information.

All members of the Non-Tenure Line faculty are members of the Academic Council of the University. (See Section 1.2.6).  Because they are not in the Tenure Line, they do not accrue time toward tenure by length of service.

2.2.2 Titles and Ranks in the Non-Tenure Line

The Non-Tenure Line ranks are:

Assistant Professor (Research) Associate Professor (Research) Professor (Research)

Assistant Professor (Teaching) Associate Professor (Teaching) Professor (Teaching)

In everyday usage, the parenthetical designation may be removed from the titles of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors holding Non-Tenure Line appointments, but it must remain in the titles in personnel files, CVs, appointment and promotion papers, administrative records and other similar documents.

2.2.3 Duration of Appointments

Appointments to Academic Council ranks in the Non-Tenure Line are for a term of years or for a continuing term.  The usual duration of an appointment (subject to some variation by school, and to relatively rare exceptions granted by the Provost for good cause and on a case-by-case basis) for each rank is:

2.2.3.1 Term of Years Appointments

Although term appointments are frequently made with the clear possibility of reappointment or promotion, there is no entitlement to such action at the end of the term and it is by no means automatic.  Instead, decisions on reappointment and promotion, like decisions on initial appointment, are subject to the exercise of professional and scholarly judgment and discretion by the University’s departmental faculty and academic leadership.

Appointments to the Non-Tenure Line (Research) ranks, even if stated as for a term of years, are normally coterminous with continued salary and other research support from sponsored projects, or the continuation of contract support.  Should such funding cease, the appointment normally would end at that same time.  Although University funding beyond the point at which the faculty member’s funding support terminates may be possible in certain instances, it is not an entitlement.  Such situations are handled on a case-by-case basis.  See Section 2.6.3 regarding coterminous appointments.

2.2.3.2 Continuing Term Appointments

A continuing term appointment does not confer tenure.  It provides security of appointment without requiring further formal reappointment.  Continuing term appointments may be terminated for just cause or (upon proper notice) when satisfactory performance ceases or for programmatic reasons (including funding considerations).

Individual schools may adopt a schedule of periodic reviews of individuals holding continuing term appointments to evaluate performance and/or programmatic need.  Although a department or school may expect a continuing programmatic need at the time of an appointment, reappointment, or promotion to a continuing term appointment, that need may change.  For example, a department or school may decide to phase out a particular area altogether, or an area may simply be scaled down, decreasing the required number of faculty.  Alternatively, a department or school may decide to develop or treat an existing program in ways that may require either the reassignment of duties to Tenure Line faculty, or the appointment of faculty in the Tenure Line rather than in the Non-Tenure Line.

If an Academic Council member holding a continuing term appointment is to be terminated for programmatic reasons (including funding considerations) or when satisfactory performance ceases (short of termination for those reasons stated in Article II, Section 4.4.2(1) of the Statement of Policy on Appointment and Tenure found in Chapter 4), they are entitled to fourteen months notice.  (But see Section 2.8.3.1 below for special rules involving faculty members whose appointments are conterminous.)

2.3 Senior Fellows and Center Fellows in Designated Policy Centers and Institutes

2.3.1 general information.

The ranks of Senior Fellow and Center Fellow were approved by the Senate of the Academic Council in 1990.  Senior Fellows at designated policy centers and institutes are members of the Professoriate and the Academic Council.  (See Section 1.2.6).  As of June 2020, following the recommendation of the Senate of the Academic Council in response to the Report of the Third Committee on the Professoriate at Stanford, Center Fellows at designated policy centers and institutes are members of the Professoriate and the Academic Council.  While reaffirming the value of coupling academic appointments in designated policy centers and institutes to faculty appointments in existing academic departments, it was recognized that interdisciplinary policy centers and institutes may have needs not met by regular professorial appointments in existing departments.

The designation of policy centers and institutes authorized to appoint Senior Fellows and Center Fellows is made by the Provost, with advice from the Advisory Board of the Academic Council.  In making the determination, the Provost will normally take into account such factors as the size and scope of the designated policy center or institute, the stability of its financial support, the number of faculty currently appointed to it, and its prospects for long-term intellectual vitality.  The authority of any designated policy center or institute to appoint Senior Fellows and Center Fellows will be subject to review every ten years or at such time deemed appropriate by the Provost.  The following are designated policy centers and institutes: the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, the Precourt Institute for Energy at Stanford, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, the Woods Institute for the Environment, and the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.

The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace also appoints Senior Fellows following its own procedures, though it is not a designated policy center or institute.  Unless the individual also holds a primary appointment as a member of the Stanford University Tenure Line or Non-Tenure Line faculty, or is also a Senior Fellow or Center Fellow at a designated policy center or institute, they are not a member of the Professoriate or the Academic Council.

2.3.2 Senior Fellows

2.3.2.1 joint appointment as senior fellow.

Many Senior Fellows are also members of the Tenure Line or Non-Tenure Line faculty who have major roles in designated policy centers or institutes.  Those roles are recognized by a primary appointment in an academic department or school and a joint appointment as Senior Fellow in the designated policy center or institute, just as a faculty member may be jointly appointed in two or more departments or schools.  Standards for a joint appointment in a designated policy center or institute are consistent with those used for a joint appointment in a secondary academic department or school: the faculty member’s involvement with the designated policy center or institute in terms of time, effort, and programmatic need justifies a joint appointment.  The process for making a joint appointment is described in Section 2.6.2 of this chapter (“Joint and Multidisciplinary Appointments”).  A member of the Stanford Professoriate at any rank who holds a joint appointment as Senior Fellow holds the title Senior Fellow at [Center or Institute] in addition to their primary appointment title (e.g., Professor of [Subject]).  The Senior Fellow appointment may be made for the duration of the faculty member’s primary appointment or for a lesser period of time.

2.3.2.2 Senior Fellows Appointed Entirely in Designated Policy Centers or Institutes

Senior Fellows whose full appointments reside in a designated policy center or institute are members of the Professoriate and of the Academic Council.  They are not, however, members of the Tenure Line faculty, and therefore do not accrue time toward tenure by length of service.  As members of the Academic Council, Senior Fellows are eligible to serve as principal investigators.  As with all Academic Council appointments, billet control is exercised by the Provost.  Appointments and reappointments at the rank of Senior Fellow are for either a fixed term (generally with the possibility of renewal) or for a continuing term.

In general, the procedures for appointment and reappointment for Senior Fellows who do not have a primary appointment in an academic department or school are consistent with the procedures for tenure of Associate or full Professors, including review by the Provost and the Advisory Board (but they do not confer tenure).  An individual appointed entirely in a designated policy center or institute (that is, without a concurrent primary appointment in an academic department or school) holds the title Senior Fellow at [Center or Institute].  A Senior Fellow may also be appointed to a courtesy position in an academic department or school, but this is not mandatory.

2.3.2.2.a Term of Years Appointments

Although term appointments are frequently made with the clear possibility of reappointment, there is no entitlement to such action at the end of the term and it is by no means automatic.  Instead, decisions on reappointment, like decisions on initial appointment, are subject to the exercise of professional and scholarly judgment and discretion by the center or institute faculty and the University’s academic leadership.

2.3.2.2.b Continuing Term Appointments

A continuing term appointment does not confer tenure.  It provides security of appointment without requiring further formal reappointment.  Individual designated policy centers or institutes may adopt a schedule of periodic reviews of individuals holding continuing term appointments to evaluate performance and/or programmatic need.  Continuing term appointments may be terminated for just cause or when satisfactory performance ceases or for programmatic reasons (including financial considerations).  Although a designated policy center or institute may expect a continuing programmatic need at the time of an appointment or reappointment to a continuing term appointment, that need may change.  For example, a designated policy center or institute may decide to phase out a particular area altogether, or an area may simply be scaled down, decreasing the required number of Senior Fellows.

If an Academic Council member holding a continuing term appointment is to be terminated for programmatic reasons or when satisfactory performance ceases (short of termination for those reasons stated in Article II, Section 4.4.2(1) of the Statement of Policy on Appointment and Tenure found in Chapter 4), they are entitled to fourteen months notice.

2.3.3 Center Fellows

The programmatic definition for a Center Fellow appointment is developed by the designated policy center or institute director (in consultation with the Senior Fellows), and is subject to review by the cognizant dean.  Most Center Fellow appointments are driven by the need for specific expertise relevant to the mission of the designated policy center or institute.  These appointments are generally specific to a scholarly program and are generally conditioned on an evaluation of project proposals, as well as by the qualifications of the candidate.

As Center Fellows are members of the Academic Council, recommendations for the appointment of individuals to the rank of Center Fellow are made by the director of the designated policy center or institute in consultation with the unit's Senior Fellows, and are reviewed by the Provost and the Advisory Board.  Billet control and prior search authorization are managed by the  by the Provost.  Appointments to the rank of Center Fellow are typically for a fixed term of years and may have the possibility of renewal; reappointments are contingent on excellent performance, continued programmatic need and availability of funding.  Center Fellows are not appointed to continuing term appointments.

2.3.3.1 Joint Appointment as Center Fellow

Many Center Fellows are also members of the Tenure Line or Non-Tenure Line faculty who have major roles in designated policy centers or institutes.  Those roles are recognized by a primary appointment in an academic department or school and a joint appointment as Center Fellow in the designated policy center or institute, just as a faculty member may be jointly appointed in two or more departments or schools.  Standards for a joint appointment in a designated policy center or institute are consistent with those used for a joint appointment in a secondary academic department or school: the faculty member’s involvement with the designated policy center or institute in terms of time, effort, and programmatic need justifies a joint appointment.  The process for making a joint appointment is described in Section 2.6.2 of this chapter (“Joint and Multidisciplinary Appointments”).  A member of the Stanford Professoriate at any rank who holds a joint appointment as Center Fellow holds the title Center Fellow at [Center or Institute] in addition to their primary appointment title (e.g., Assistant Professor of [Subject]).  The Center Fellow appointment may be made for the duration of the faculty member’s primary appointment or for a lesser period of time.

2.3.3.2 Center Fellows Appointed Entirely in a Designated Policy Center or Institute

A Center Fellow may be appointed entirely in a designated policy center or institute without a concurrent primary appointment in an academic department or school.  As of June 2020, following the recommendation of the Senate of the Academic Council in response to the Report of the Third Committee on the Professoriate at Stanford, an appointment of this type confers membership in the Academic Council. Therefore, the individual is eligible to serve as principal investigator.

An individual appointed entirely in the designated policy center or institute holds the title Center Fellow at [Center or Institute].  They are not, however, members of the Tenure Line faculty, and therefore do not accrue time toward tenure by length of service.  Appointment criteria and procedures are generally consistent with those used for appointment to the regular faculty.  However, since Center Fellows are appointed on the basis of specified programs of research, exact comparability is neither possible nor desirable.

2.4 University Medical Line Professoriate (formerly Medical Center Line Professoriate)

2.4.1 general information.

University Medical Line faculty (often referred to as “UML faculty”) are members of the Professoriate and are subject to and covered by applicable faculty policies and procedures, including, but not limited to: the Statement on Academic Freedom, the Statement on Faculty Appeal Procedures, the Statement on Faculty Discipline; the general spirit of the Statement on Appointment and Tenure; and certain policies found in the Research Policy Handbook , including, but not limited to, eligibility for principal investigatorship, intellectual property, and conflicts of commitment and interest.

University Medical Line faculty are not members of the Academic Council.  Because they are not in the Tenure Line, they do not accrue time toward tenure by length of service.  They are voting members of the Faculty Council of the School of Medicine.  They are eligible to vote on departmental and school matters according to departmental and school policies, and they may serve on faculty committees, except for those that require Academic Council membership.

Additional information relevant to members of the University Medical Line is available from the Office of Academic Affairs in the School of Medicine.

Effective June 14, 2021, following actions of the Faculty Senate and the Board of Trustees, the University Medical Line (UML) replaces the former Medical Center Line (MCL).  This is a change in name only and does not affect the rights or privileges of the faculty.  The change in name is intended to help recruit and retain world-class medical faculty members and clarify that medical line faculty are employed by Stanford University and not its medical centers.  Policies pertaining to this faculty line remain unchanged, with the exception that official faculty titles are no longer required to include the specific medical center affiliation(s) of the faculty member.

2.4.2 Titles and Ranks in the University Medical Line

The University Medical Line ranks are:

Assistant Professor (UML) Associate Professor (UML) Professor (UML)

2.4.3 Duration of Appointments

Appointments to University Medical Line faculty ranks are for a term of years or for a continuing term.  The usual duration of an appointment (subject to relatively rare exceptions granted by the Provost for good cause and on a case-by-case basis) for each rank is:

2.4.3.1 Term of Years Appointments

Although term appointments are frequently made with the clear possibility of reappointment or promotion, there is no entitlement to such action at the end of the term and it is by no means automatic.  Instead, decisions on reappointment and promotion, like decisions on initial appointment, are subject to the exercise of professional and scholarly judgment and discretion by the University’s departmental faculty and its academic leadership.

2.4.3.2 Continuing Term Appointments

A continuing term appointment does not confer tenure.  It provides security of appointment without requiring further formal reappointment.  Continuing term appointments may be terminated when satisfactory performance ceases or for programmatic reasons (including funding considerations).  Funding considerations may be evaluated in the context of the clinical program as a whole and/or of the individual’s contribution.

Individual departments or the school may adopt a schedule of periodic reviews of individuals holding continuing term appointments to evaluate performance and/or programmatic need.  Although a department or the school may expect a continuing programmatic need at the time of an appointment, reappointment, or promotion to a continuing term appointment, that need may change.  For example, a department or the school may decide to phase out a particular area altogether, or an area may simply be scaled down, decreasing the required number of faculty.  Alternatively, a department or the school may decide to develop an existing program in ways that may require either the reassignment of duties to Tenure Line or Non-Tenure Line faculty, or the appointment of faculty in the Tenure Line or Non-Tenure Line rather than in the University Medical Line.

If a University Medical Line faculty member holding a continuing term appointment is to be terminated for reasons of programmatic need or when satisfactory performance ceases (short of termination for those reasons stated in Article II, Section 4.4.2(1) of the Statement of Policy on Appointment and Tenure found in Chapter 4), they are entitled to fourteen months notice.

2.5 Extending Term Appointments

2.5.1 circumstances that may extend term appointments in the tenure line.

See Sections 2.1.4.2 and 2.1.5 for circumstances that may extend the seven year tenure clock deadline and the ten year appointment clock deadline for Tenure Line appointments, and the process for extending appointments in those circumstances.

2.5.2 Circumstances that DO NOT Extend Term Appointments in the Non-Tenure Line, the University Medical Line, and for Senior Fellows and Center Fellows in Designated Policy Centers or Institutes

• Pregnancy Disability Leave:   Pregnancy Disability leave is short-term pregnancy disability leave for the period of time before and after childbirth during which a faculty member is relieved of all normal University responsibilities.  Pregnancy disability leave does not extend the appointment.  See Chapter 3, Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.3 for more information about pregnancy disability leave and childcare leave.
• Short Term Disability Leave:  Short term disability leave does not extend the appointment.
• Sabbatical Leave:  The sabbatical leave program is provided to free faculty members from their normal University duties, enabling them to pursue their scholarly interests full time and maintain their professional standing so that they may return to their posts with renewed vigor, perspective, and insight.  Periods of sabbatical leave do not extend the appointment regardless of the percentage of sabbatical pay during the leave.
• Leave For Periods Of Pure Research:  A pure research period is defined as a designated leave from teaching and other institutional responsibilities during which the faculty member receives full or partial salary through Stanford, normally from sponsored research.  Such periods when a faculty member is receiving full salary, whether from sponsored research or a combination of sponsored research and regular sabbatical or other pay, do not extend the appointment.
• Administrative Appointments:   Administrative appointments do not extend the academic appointment.

2.5.3 Circumstances that MAY Extend Term Appointments in the Non-Tenure Line, the University Medical Line, and for Senior Fellows and Center Fellows in Designated Policy Centers or Institutes

• Part -Time Appointments: 

In the event a full time appointment is converted to a part-time appointment, the part-time appointment may be extended on a prorated basis.

• Leave Without Salary:  

Any period of leave from service (including childcare leave and Family Medical Care Leave) that is completely without salary extends the appointment for the duration of the authorized leave unless there is advance written agreement by the Provost to the contrary.  Periods of partial leave without salary extend the appointment on a proportional basis.

• New Parent Extension:  

A faculty member who becomes a parent, by birth or adoption, is entitled to a one-year extension of their appointment.  The extension of the appointment is not tied to the number of weeks the faculty member is on pregnancy disability leave, whether they requested a reduced teaching or clinical load (see Section 3.5.2), or whether they subsequently take a leave without salary for childcare purposes.  The extension applies even if a faculty member becomes a parent during an off-duty quarter (such as summer quarter) and returns immediately to their regular work load.

To initiate the extension process, the faculty member must submit the form found at http://facultyhandbook.stanford.edu/ to their Department Chair or to the School Dean’s Office for Schools without departments.  If a request is submitted during the final year of the faculty member’s appointment, the request must be submitted prior to the commencement of the faculty member’s reappointment or promotion review.  The reappointment or promotion review commences when the department chair or dean informs the candidate in writing that the review process has commenced.  The School will then advise the Provost’s Office through the submission of an online FASA (Faculty and Academic Staff Application) transaction and provide revised appointment clock calculation for the faculty member.

• Childcare Leave: 

Childcare leave is leave without salary that may be taken by any faculty members, male or female, who becomes a parent by birth or adoption, and it does extend the appointment.

• Other Personal or Institutional Circumstances:  

Short term disability and pregnancy disability do not extend the appointment, as the faculty member is relieved from duties for a relatively short period of time.  However, in cases of extended leaves without service, such as long-term disability or other similar personal or institutional circumstances that significantly disrupt teaching and scholarly activities for an extended period, faculty should contact their Dean’s Office to explore potential extensions of their appointments through an exception granted at the discretion of the Provost.

2.5.4 Process For Extending Appointments

The existence of the circumstances described above that may extend an appointment does not automatically extend the individual’s appointment.  This must be accomplished through the normal processes, with the submission of an online FASA (Faculty and Academic Staff Application) transaction by the department and/or school.  Recommendations to extend appointment terms under these circumstances will ordinarily be granted.  Faculty members with questions about extensions to term appointments should contact their Dean’s Office or the Provost Office’s Faculty Affairs group.

2.6 Special Appointment Designations and Considerations

2.6.1 “subject to ph.d.” appointments.

Individuals may be appointed to the Tenure Line rank of Assistant Professor with a “Subject to Ph.D.” contingency.  Appointment with this designation provides notice that the offer of appointment as a Tenure Line Assistant Professor is made as a result of the standard search and review process and depends upon the candidate’s successful completion of the terminal degree requirements.  Although the individual may carry out many of the responsibilities and duties of a regular Assistant Professor, the individual is not a member of the Academic Council while this contingency exists; therefore they are eligible to serve as principal investigator only by exception.  Individuals holding appointments “Subject to Ph.D.” do not accrue time toward tenure by length of service.

If an individual is being recommended for an Assistant Professorship in the Tenure Line with the contingency “Subject to Ph.D.,” that qualification must be included in the title designation on the professorial recommendation form.  The “Subject to Ph.D.” designation may be removed upon receipt of official confirmation from the dean or registrar at the individual’s university stating that all requirements for the Ph.D. have been completed and the degree has been granted.  The school in which the individual is appointed must prepare an online FASA (Faculty and Academic Staff Application) transaction, and supply the confirming documentation.  Upon approval by the Provost, the Assistant Professor’s appointment begins.

2.6.2 Joint and Multidisciplinary Appointments

2.6.2.1 joint and multidisciplinary appointments.

As a general principle, all professorial appointments are made in departments (or in schools without departments) or may be held in two or more departments, schools or specified policy centers or institutes (“Multidisciplinary Appointments”).  A multidisciplinary appointment may be made when a faculty member makes a major contribution of time and effort directly supporting the programmatic need of the academic programs of two or more departments, schools or institutes.  This contribution should be on a continuing basis and judged to be sufficiently significant for the appointee to have voting privileges in both (or all) of the units in which the appointment resides.  In the event the appointment will not require a major, continuing contribution of time and effort, a courtesy appointment would be more appropriate.  The units affiliated with multidisciplinary appointments frequently share salary or other support and may share in the tenure commitment, if applicable.  In all multidisciplinary appointments, even those that are divided evenly between two units, one unit is designated as “primary” and the other(s) as “secondary.”  The primary and secondary designations are made at the time the multidisciplinary appointment is initiated and may be changed after a department vote and with the unanimous consent of the faculty member, the relevant department Chairs, institute directors, and school Deans.

Faculty holding multidisciplinary appointments are expected to carry a normal load of teaching, administrative, and leadership responsibilities.  The precise nature of those responsibilities will depend on the roles the faculty are expected to play in the academic units to which they are appointed.  The Chairs (or Deans or directors, as applicable) of the relevant academic units should consult on these matters in advance of initially recommending a multidisciplinary appointment.

For existing multidisciplinary appointments, the Chairs (or Deans or directors, as applicable) should consult regarding annual counseling, counseling after reappointment, salary setting and prior to assigning additional significant duties, including the assignment of administrative or leadership responsibilities.

Academic Council status, for University Medical Line members of the Professoriate, is not granted by virtue of having a joint or secondary appointment. 

2.6.2.2 Searches for Multidisciplinary Appointments

Although searches may be conducted by a single department or school, they can also be conducted more broadly across several departments or schools, or by one or more departments using a joint billet, which may be held between a specified policy center or institute and a department or school.

Faculty searches are generally conducted (or overseen, in the case of broad-based searches) by the primary academic unit requesting the search.  The search committee should be composed of faculty from each academic unit.  The academic units should confer in advance regarding the terms of employment that may be offered to a candidate, subject to final approval of the appointment by the University.

For initial appointments that are between an institute and a department, the votes of the institute and department should occur separately and both the institute and department must vote positively.  Each academic unit will have access to the complete file.

2.6.2.3 Initiating Multidisciplinary Appointments

The appointment files for multidisciplinary appointments should include a description of the candidate’s anticipated role in the academic units and appointment forms are signed by all department Chairs and Deans.

Occasionally, a faculty member’s involvement with an additional academic unit will increase over time to the point that a multidisciplinary appointment seems appropriate.  In such a case, the multidisciplinary appointment is recommended through an online FASA (Faculty and Academic Staff Application) transaction, submitted by all department Chairs and Deans (or their designates).  The recommendation should include a description of the basis for the change, relevant billet arrangements and evidence of the vote by the academic units approving the appointment.

Multidisciplinary appointments for untenured Tenure Line and Non-Tenure Line faculty on term appointments are normally for the duration of the appointment.  For faculty holding tenured or continuing term appointments, the appointment may be without limit of time or for a term of years, depending on programmatic need and/or the policy of the academic unit.

2.6.2.4 Multidisciplinary Reappointments, Promotions and Tenure Reviews

2.6.2.4.a in academic departments and/or schools.

For reappointments, promotions, and tenure reviews of faculty holding multidisciplinary appointments, the following process is to be used.  Its purpose includes addressing the situation in which one department votes positively and the other negatively on a reappointment, promotion, or tenure review.

The primary department or school carries out the full reappointment, promotion or tenure review, although it is expected that the departmental review committee will include faculty from the secondary department.  A joint meeting of the two departments to discuss the candidate is permissible but not required.  Each academic unit will have access to the complete file.

The two academic units should vote separately.  The primary department votes on the reappointment, promotion or granting of tenure and, if the vote is positive, forwards the recommendation to the primary school Dean.  If the primary school Dean recommends the reappointment or promotion, then the secondary department or school votes on the recommendation.  If the secondary department or school recommends continuing the joint appointment, the file is forwarded to the Provost as a multidisciplinary appointment.  If the secondary department or school decides against continuing the multidisciplinary appointment, the recommendation is forwarded to the Provost as a full-time appointment in the primary department or school.

Except in the case of the promotion of a previously tenured associate professor to the rank of professor, if the primary department recommends negatively, it is expected that the individual’s professorial appointment will end.  However, the secondary academic unit, at its discretion and if billet, salary and other necessary resources are available, may undertake a full evaluation process.  If the result of this evaluation is positive, and if the reappointment, promotion or granting of tenure subsequently receives final University approval, the appointment becomes full-time in the formerly secondary academic unit.

2.6.2.4.b In Designated Policy Centers or Institutes

For tenure reviews (as well as reappointment and promotion reviews) of faculty appointed to both a department (or school) and to a designated policy center or institute, as defined in Section 2.3.1 of this Chapter, there should be a single review committee with membership from both academic units.  The committee is expected to solicit feedback from colleagues around the University with relevant expertise, including faculty affiliated with the designated policy center or institute.  It is expected that the director of the designated policy center or institute will be invited to write for the file.  When the case is sent to the department for consideration, the department may invite colleagues from the designated policy center or institute to the departmental discussion of the case.

The department votes on the file.  Since the designated policy center or institute does not have the authority to confer tenure, it must vote after the department/school vote.  The designated policy center or institute’s vote determines whether or not to continue its portion of the appointment.  If a designated policy center or institute vote is negative following a positive departmental vote, the individual becomes fully billeted within the department, which then has up to five years to return the designated policy center or institute’s portion of the billet and salary line to the designated policy center or institute.

Except in the case of the promotion of a previously tenured Associate Professor to the rank of Professor, if the primary department recommends negatively, it is expected that the individual’s professorial appointment will end.  However, the designated policy center or institute, at its discretion and if billet, salary and other necessary resources are available, may undertake a full evaluation process for a reappointment as Senior Fellow or Center Fellow.  If the result of this evaluation is positive, and if the reappointment subsequently receives final University approval, the appointment becomes full-time in the designated policy center or institute.  Such Senior Fellow appointments may be for a term of years or for continuing term, at the discretion of the designated policy center or institute.

If a designated policy center or institute and a department each vote positively on a tenured appointment, then both share the responsibility for the tenure guarantee; neither the designated policy center or institute nor the department can unilaterally elect to discontinue its share of a tenured appointment.  In the event that the designated policy center or institute ceases to exist, the billet will go to the department for the duration of the appointment.  When the billet is no longer filled, it will be returned to the Provost. Designated policy centers or institutes do not need to participate in a departmental recommendation to promote a previously tenured Associate Professor to the rank of Professor, but the department should inform the designated policy center or institute of recommendation.

2.6.3 Coterminous Appointments

Appointments can be made coterminous with specified circumstances, such as continued salary or other support from sponsored projects, an assignment at or support from an affiliated institution, or an administrative appointment at Stanford or an affiliated institution.

When an individual is being recommended for such an appointment, department Chairs and Deans are to note the coterminous nature of the appointment in the recommendation.  Examples of such appointments include, but are not limited to:

• Non-Tenure Line (Research) appointments;
• Certain School of Medicine appointments (including Tenure Line) with assignments at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, the Northern California Cancer Center, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation;
• School of Medicine appointments (including Tenure Line and University Medical Line) with clinical duties and responsibilities that require obtaining and maintaining relevant medical licensure and medical staff privileges;
• Tenure Line appointments for the Director of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute;
• SLAC appointments which are contingent on continued programmatic funding; and
• Appointments with an administrative assignment at Stanford or an affiliated institution.

Individuals with appointments that are coterminous with such support or assignment are not subject to the same provisions for notice of non-renewal as appointees whose appointments are not coterminous.  As a general rule, the appointment (even if for a term of years or for a continuing term) ends at the same time the funding and/or other support or assignment ceases.  Although University funding beyond the point at which the faculty member’s support or assignment terminates may be possible in certain instances, it is not an entitlement.  Such situations are handled on a case-by-case basis, as are cases when a reduction (as opposed to a complete cessation) of the faculty member’s support or assignment will result in the immediate termination of the appointment.

Questions concerning the applicability of the coterminous designation should be directed to the Provost’s Faculty Affairs Office.

2.6.4 Part-time Appointments

University policy allows appointment of faculty members at any rank on a part-time basis, although such appointments are in general discouraged because a large number of part-time appointments within any one department could weaken its academic program.  The University does look favorably, however, upon family-related needs as a possible justification for granting temporary reductions from full-time to part-time status, such as when the part-time status is expected to exceed the limit of permitted leave.

As a general proposition, faculty members are not permitted to take on part time employment with another employer, except as authorized by the University’s Consulting and Conflict of Commitment and Interest policies as found in the Research Policy Handbook.

2.6.4.1 Criteria for Appointments

The criteria relating to full-time appointments, reappointments and promotions likewise apply to part-time appointments, reappointments and promotions.

2.6.4.2 Tenure Clock

Individuals appointed at part-time to a Tenure Line untenured appointment in general accrue time toward the acquisition of tenure on a prorated basis as set out in Section 2.1.4.2.c of this chapter.

2.6.4.3 Responsibilities

Those holding part-time appointments are expected, consistent with any policies established in individual schools, to participate as full colleagues making proportional contributions to the life of the department or school, including service on committees and advising of students.  An appointment of fifty percent time or more is usually necessary if the faculty member is to contribute to the academic program in the manner described above.  Although this is an operational guideline rather than an absolute limit, recommendations for appointment at less than fifty percent time are to indicate the circumstances requiring an exception to this guideline, the expected duration of such an exception, and whether the faculty member has been informed of the impact on benefits eligibility, the tenure clock, and sabbatical accrual.

2.6.4.4 Increasing Percentage of Time

The security of an appointment or tenure for part-time service applies only to the specific fraction stated in the most recently approved appointment action.  If the appointment is for less than full-time, increasing the fraction of time to which the security of appointment applies requires the submission of a recommendation for reappointment at the newly proposed level of service.  It is possible, of course, to increase the percentage of time actually served for short periods of time above the level specified on the appointment form, in which case supplementary pay would support the additional level of service (just as full-time appointees receive supplementary pay for fourth-quarter service).

2.6.4.5 Accrual of Sabbatical Eligibility

Sabbatical eligibility is accrued by those holding a part-time appointment on a prorated basis as set out in Section 3.2.4 of Chapter 3.

2.6.5 Courtesy Appointments

2.6.5.1 general principles.

Faculty members often make substantial contributions to departments other than their own, but in ways less formal than would justify a joint appointment.  These contributions are sometimes recognized by means of courtesy appointments.  There is usually no commitment of funds, space or other support involved in a courtesy appointment, and the faculty member has no voting privileges in the courtesy department.  Courses taught by faculty members holding courtesy appointments are often cross-listed in both the primary and courtesy departments, if the course topic warrants it.

2.6.5.2 Appointment Process

If a candidate for a new appointment is also being recommended for a courtesy appointment, the courtesy title should be included in the professorial title.  The dates of the courtesy appointment must be indicated on the appointment form.  The Chair of the courtesy department and the school Dean should submit the form recommending initial appointment at the University.

A recommendation to appoint an existing member of Stanford’s professoriate to a courtesy appointment is initiated by the department or school wishing to offer it; the primary department or school may not initiate a courtesy appointment in another department or school.  Recommendations should include background that justifies the courtesy appointment.  The recommendation is submitted to the Provost through an online FASA (Faculty and Academic Staff Application) transaction.  The appointment form must be signed by the Chairs and Deans of both the primary department and school and the courtesy department and school.

2.6.5.3 Duration of Courtesy Appointment

A courtesy appointment may be for the duration of the current professorial appointment or for a shorter period of time.  Departments and schools are encouraged to make courtesy appointments for the longest reasonable period.  For tenured faculty, a minimum of three years is a reasonable guideline.  For faculty members holding a term appointment, the typical length of time would be for the duration of the individual’s current appointment; the courtesy appointment may not extend beyond the end date of the faculty member’s primary appointment.

2.6.5.4 Courtesy Rank and Title

A courtesy appointment is made at the same rank as the faculty member’s primary appointment.  The title of a faculty member who has been appointed to a courtesy appointment should read [Primary rank] of [Subject] and, by courtesy, of [Subject].  When an individual who holds a courtesy appointment is promoted to higher rank or granted tenure, the courtesy appointment must be renewed by means of a recommendation originating from the courtesy department by submitting an online FASA (Faculty and Academic Staff Application) transaction.

2.6.6 Appointments to Endowed Professorships

An endowed professorship (also referred to as an endowed chair) is one of the highest honors bestowed on a member of the faculty.  This prestigious appointment recognizes the faculty member’s many outstanding accomplishments and contributions.  When a gift is made to the University for the endowment of a professorship, the donor frequently stipulates the school, department, and/or general interest area.  The donor may not, however, stipulate a specific faculty member to hold the endowed professorship.  The process for designating a faculty member for an endowed professorship begins with a recommendation from the school Dean to the Provost, who evaluates and approves the recommendation.  The recommendation may be for a term of years, tied to a particular administrative appointment, in a manner consistent with the needs of the School and the donor’s intentions, or for an unspecified period of time.  The endowed chair holder holds their endowed professorship at the pleasure of the Provost.  The President reports the appointment of endowed chair holders to the Board of Trustees.

Junior faculty members may not hold named endowed chairs. In certain circumstances, endowed funds may be used to support junior faculty, but the endowed chair title may not be used prior to tenure and without explicit authorization by the Provost.

2.6.7 Recall of Emeriti Faculty to Active Duty

2.6.7.1 emeritus status.

Tenured faculty members and senior faculty members at the Associate Professor or Professor ranks in the Non-Tenure Lines or the University Medical Line who become official University retirees receive the emeritus or emerita title authorized by the Board of Trustees if they are in good standing at the time of their retirement.  Emeriti Academic Council members become Senior Members of the Academic Council with privileges of the floor and of service on committees, but without the right to vote or hold office (see Chapter 5 of this Handbook for a more complete description of retirement and the emeritus/emerita designation ).

Retirement of faculty facilitates change and creates opportunities for new faculty.  At the same time, emeriti faculty members often have much to contribute to their departments and academic disciplines.  Departments (and schools without departments) must weigh these factors when considering recalling an emeritus faculty member to active duty for the purpose of teaching or research.  The decision as to whether to recall a member of the emeriti faculty is subject to the exercise of professional and scholarly judgment and discretion by the department, school and academic leadership. 

2.6.7.2 Duration of Emeritus Recall to Active Duty

An emeritus faculty member may be recalled to active University service on a part-time or full-time appointment for a period up to one year, subject to renewal.  Although renewal may be an option, there is no entitlement to such action at the end of the term and it is by no means automatic.  Instead, decisions on renewal are subject to the exercise of professional and scholarly judgment and discretion by the department, school and academic leadership.

Recall appointment recommendations should be initiated by the faculty member’s primary department and should be based on departmental needs that cannot otherwise be met by regular faculty, and consideration must be given to an individual’s ability to carry out the proposed duties and the availability of existing space and other resources within the department or school.  Individual schools and departments may have their own policies and practices with regard to available space and other resources.  Faculty members in good standing at the time of retirement and retiring under the Faculty Retirement Incentive Plan may be recalled under the specific terms set forth in that plan.  See https://facultyaffairs.stanford.edu/frip-faculty-retirement-incentive-program-information .

A faculty member may be recalled to serve in a unit other than their primary department; however, the primary department must approve the recall appointment.  The primary department and the unit recalling the faculty member are responsible for ensuring the faculty member meets their obligations during the recall appointment, including their compliance with Stanford policies and procedures generally applicable to departmental, school and University employees.

2.6.7.3 Appointment Process

The anticipated role, funding source and duration of the recall is described on the online FASA (Faculty and Academic Staff Application) transaction prepared by the department, which is then reviewed and approved by the Dean and submitted to the Provost.  During the term of the recall appointment, the duties and responsibilities of the recalled individual can be modified by the department or school.  The recall appointment can be terminated before the end of the term appointment (or otherwise modified in regard to FTE) if the recalled individual does not perform their duties and responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. 

2.6.7.4 Intended Role

2.6.7.4.a privileges.

The department is responsible for determining the extent of the individual’s participation in departmental affairs, which will vary from department to department.  By its nature, however, an emeritus recall appointment does not permit the same status within departments as does a regular faculty appointment.  For example, retired faculty, whether recalled or not, are not asked to vote on appointments, reappointments or promotions.  If it is in the department’s interest to have them participate in such a decision, it should be in an advisory role.

2.6.7.4.b Research Responsibilities

If the recall is for research purposes, the recommendation should describe how the appointment will support or enrich the research and graduate education goals of the department.  Emeriti faculty recalled to active duty are eligible to act as principal investigators on sponsored projects, provided such activities are within the department’s intended role for the individual.  The project must not exceed the duration of the recall period and the department must be willing to accept responsibility for meeting obligations to students and staff associated with the research, as well as the contractual obligations, in the event of the principal investigator’s inability to do so.

2.6.7.4.c Teaching Responsibilities

If the intended role is teaching, the recommendation should include an assessment of the individual’s current teaching effectiveness, as well as an explanation of the circumstances warranting the appointment.  Emeriti faculty may serve on doctoral dissertation reading committees without being recalled to active duty; they may also serve as the principal dissertation adviser with a regular member of the Academic Council as a co-adviser (see Stanford Bulletin “Doctoral Dissertation Reading Committee”).

2.6.7.4.d Administrative Responsibilities

Under special circumstances, the President or Provost may recall an emeritus faculty member for a period in excess of one year to perform specific administrative duties.

2.7 Appointment, Reappointment and Promotion Procedures

2.7.1 general appointment procedures.

Appendix B of this handbook contains the form used throughout the University for faculty appointments, reappointments and promotions.  The current version of the form is available on-line at http://facultyhandbook.stanford.edu/appendix-b-appointment-forms.html . This form includes detailed descriptions of the evidence required and evaluative criteria employed for each action, and deserves study by all faculty.  This form may be modified from time to time; users are encouraged to obtain the currently applicable version of the relevant form on-line.

Although term appointments are frequently made with the clear possibility of reappointment or promotion, there is no entitlement to such action at the end of the term and it is by no means automatic.  Instead, decisions on reappointment and promotion, like decisions on initial appointment, are subject to the exercise of professional and scholarly judgment and discretion by the University’s departmental faculty and academic leadership.

Additionally, deans and department chairs are reminded that consideration of appointment, reappointment and promotion cases should include a thoughtful assessment of the future of the department and/or school, and may take into consideration programmatic need in addition to the merit of the candidate.

The appointment, reappointment or promotion process is initiated after an appropriate assessment of the candidate.  In relatively rare cases and after appropriate consultation in the Dean’s office, this assessment may result in a determination that the formal evaluation process need not be undertaken.  This decision will be forwarded to the Provost, with appropriate documentation to explain the negative decision.

Under normal circumstances, reappointment and promotion reviews are initiated approximately one year in advance of the appointment end date.  However, the timing of the initiation of the evaluation process is at the discretion of the department chair (or the Dean in schools without departments), taking into account factors including the end date of a current appointment, the possible start date for the reappointment or promotion if the outcome of the School and University process is favorable, and considerations relating to notice of non-renewal and possible terminal year requirements if a reappointment outcome is negative. University policies regarding negative reappointment and promotion decisions and notice of non-renewal are found in 2.8.3. and 4.4.5 of this handbook.

The determination on whether to forward the appointment, reappointment or promotion with a positive or negative recommendation or decision is made by the department chair (or the Dean in schools without departments) in their judgment and discretion.

2.7.2 Additional Policies and Procedures

There are additional policies and procedures applicable to specific departments and schools, including school-specific supplementary criteria for appointments, reappointments, and promotions that have been approved by the Provost’s Office as consistent with overall University policy.  These may be obtained from the school faculty handbook, from the department Chair or school Dean, or from the school’s website.

There is variation in the particular procedures used in the departments and schools across the University in regard to matters such as faculty meetings, voting, etc.  Meetings are ordinarily held in person, but circumstances may make it appropriate for participation in such meetings to also be by audio conference or by video conference, or by some combination of in person and electronic attendance.

2.7.3 Searches and Search Waivers

Stanford’s appointment procedures are designed so that each prospective member of the faculty will be suitable for appointment at Stanford and the best available person for the proposed appointment in a broadly defined field.

2.7.3.1 Searches

A rigorous and comprehensive search is required for new appointments to the Stanford Professoriate.  When a department or school receives authorization to appoint a new faculty member, the department Chair or Dean should appoint a search committee to carry out the search in a broadly defined field.

The search committee should advertise the position using one or more venues that are publicly available and designed to reach a broad and diverse audience, in addition to using other appropriate methods of candidate solicitation.  Letters describing the position should be sent to institutions of higher education and other institutions that are likely to provide a suitable candidate.

All searches should engage in active recruitment practices to ensure a broad and inclusive pool of qualified applicants; professional colleagues should be contacted to solicit names of female and minority candidates (as well as others who would bring diversity to the professoriate) and such candidates should be encouraged to apply.  Contacts should be made with resources such as female and minority professional organizations and journals so that such groups are alerted to the search.

Advertisements and letters announcing vacancies must include the following required affirmative action language:

“Stanford is an equal employment opportunity and affirmative action employer.  All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by law.  Stanford welcomes applications from all who would bring additional dimensions to the University's research, teaching and clinical missions.”

The Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty Development, Diversity, and Engagement provides availability pool data for various disciplines.  Search committees are encouraged to obtain this information and seek the assistance of that office at http://facultydevelopment.stanford.edu/ to gain further insights about the diversity of the applicant pool and best practices for equitable and inclusive faculty searches.

Departments must retain complete records of each search, including vitae of applicants, for at least three years.

2.7.3.2 Affirmative Action

Stanford University is an institution dedicated to the pursuit of excellence.  Central to that premise is the institutional commitment to the principles of diversity and affirmative action, as well as to equal opportunity.  In that spirit, Stanford prohibits discrimination and harassment and seeks to provide equal opportunity for all employees and applicants for employment regardless of race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, marital status, age, disability, or any other trait or status protected by applicable law.

A simple policy of equal employment opportunity may, however, not suffice to attract a diverse applicant pool to our campus.  Some barriers unfortunately persist in our society and require the more active responses characteristic of affirmative action for locating and recruiting applicants.  Hiring decisions that appear to have been reached neutrally may, in fact, be discriminatory if the applicant process is not equally accessible to (for example) women and minority group members.

The University does not sacrifice job-related standards when it engages in affirmative action.  The best-qualified person for a given position must always be hired; that is the essence of equal opportunity.  Affirmative action simply asks us to cast our net more widely to broaden the competition, so as to include in the applicant pool groups that have historically been underrepresented in certain roles in our society.

Stanford University is particularly committed to enhancing the diversity of its faculty.  This commitment is based, first and foremost, on the belief that a more diverse faculty enhances the breadth, depth, and quality of research and teaching by increasing the variety of experiences, perspectives, and scholarly interests among the faculty.  A diverse faculty also provides a variety of role models and mentors for the increasingly diverse student population, which helps to attract, retain and graduate such populations more successfully.

The President and Provost have emphasized Stanford’s continuing interest in and commitment to increasing the diversity of the faculty.  See for example: Building for Excellence: Inclusive Practices for Faculty Recruitment and Searches (2019).  (See: https://facultydevelopment.stanford.edu/recruitment/recruitment-overview )  The primary mechanisms for accomplishing this are through vigorous outreach and recruiting at the time of initial hiring, as well as developing and maintaining an agreed upon set of evaluation criteria to be used for selection decisions at each stage of the search.  Affirmative Action at Stanford does not include applying separate standards at the time of review for reappointment or promotion.

Faculty searches are obligated to make particular efforts to seek out qualified candidates who would bring diversity to the professoriate, including women and ethnic minority candidates, and to evaluate such candidates equitably.  It is the obligation of the search committee to demonstrate that a search has made a determined effort to locate and consider such candidates.  Department Chairs and Deans have the responsibility to make sure that these obligations have been fulfilled.  Search committees are encouraged to seek the assistance of the Office of Faculty Development, Diversity, and Engagement.

2.7.3.3 Candidates with Disabilities

Qualified individuals will not be excluded from consideration by reason of disability, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991 and Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  Applicants may request an accommodation during the application and interview process.  The Diversity & Access Office ( [email protected] ) can assist with these types of requests.  Following offer and acceptance of a position, the school and the Provost’s Office will upon request by the candidate discuss such reasonable accommodations as may be required by and appropriate for a candidate who is disabled.  (See University Administrative Guide Memo 2.2.7 Requesting Workplace Accommodations for Employees with Disabilities)  In addition and at any time during a faculty member’s appointment, a faculty member who requires reasonable accommodation for a disability is urged to contact their chair or departmental or school Faculty Affairs Office or the University’s Diversity & Access Office.  See https://diversityandaccess.stanford.edu/disability-access .

2.7.3.4 International Candidates

Before undertaking the appointment of a faculty member who is a citizen of another country, immigration regulations and procedures should be reviewed.  The Bechtel International Center provides expertise on visa matters for foreign nationals, advises in matters regarding immigration laws and regulations, and issues visa authorizations and other visa documents for the University.  Information about the Bechtel International Center and its services may be found on-line at https://bechtel.stanford.edu .

For candidates who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents, departments and schools should contact the International Center early to begin arrangements for visa authorizations for foreign nationals residing abroad or in the United States.  (It should be noted that some candidates currently in the United States completing graduate programs may have a visa status that precludes direct conversion to a visa status appropriate for faculty appointments.)

2.7.3.5 Search Waivers

On occasion, the Provost may approve a search waiver for a professorial position when an exceptionally talented person (usually an eminent scholar who is clearly a leader in their field) is unexpectedly available.  The existence of such a target of opportunity may become known in the course of a regular search, through communication via professional channels, or even by the individual making it known that they are available.

Other potentially appropriate uses of a search waiver for a professorial position may include: for a scholar who would bring diversity (broadly defined) to the school or department; for a transition between faculty lines where there is evidence that the individual’s activities and stature have evolved; or for a spousal appointment.  Search waivers for junior faculty appointments are granted only in extraordinary circumstances.  There may be rare programmatic reasons that warrant a search waiver; inquiries should be addressed to the Provost’s Office.

A request to waive the search requirement for a professorial appointment must present to the Provost convincing evidence that the candidate would have emerged as the leading candidate if there had been a search in the candidate’s field.  To the extent possible, the request should be substantiated by comparative evaluations (from external and/or internal referees) and evidence of the candidate’s significant accomplishments.  In addition, a rigorous review of the candidate’s qualifications is expected in the subsequent preparation of the appointment recommendation.

2.7.4 Transitions Between Faculty Lines

Recommendations resulting in transitions between faculty lines are considered new appointments and occur infrequently.  If a full search is not conducted, a search waiver is required.  The appointment file should contain information that distinguishes the faculty member’s current and future roles and responsibilities; in particular, it should explain the necessity for the proposed appointment.  Assertions that the candidate deserves the recommended appointment for meritorious service or time in rank are not sufficient justifications, since they do not show that the person is the best available candidate for the new position.

Persons who hold or have held acting or visiting titles at Stanford or who have been at the University in other capacities occasionally become candidates for regular professorial appointments.  The search committee is obliged to assemble evidence concerning candidates having prior association with the University in the same manner as for external candidates; this obligation should be made clear to candidates who hold or have held Stanford appointments.

2.7.5 Review of Recommendations for Appointment, Reappointment or Promotion

2.7.5.1 review by the provost.

Recommendations in general are made by the Dean and then forwarded to the Provost for their review.  Recommendations are reviewed by the Provost in consultation with University officers and members of the Provost’s staff.  This step in the review process in general is intended to evaluate and confirm the school’s judgment: that the recommended action is a suitable one; that there has been (where appropriate) a satisfactory comparative search; that the documentation is complete; and that prescribed procedures have been followed.  The Provost can obtain additional information to help assess the action.  They can then make a favorable recommendation, a negative recommendation, or remand the case to the department or school for further information or consideration.

2.7.5.2 Review by the Advisory Board

If the Provost’s view is favorable, the next step in the process (in general) is for the Provost to submit the case to the Advisory Board of the Academic Council for its review.  The powers and functions of the Advisory Board are described in the Articles of Organization of the Academic Council.  The Advisory Board normally assigns at least two, and sometimes more, of its members to read each file.  The case is reviewed for adherence to procedural requirements, completeness of documentation, conformance with academic standards, and suitability.  Occasionally, the Advisory Board may request additional information before voting on a recommendation or may table the matter for review by each member of the Board.  After considering any issues raised by the assigned readers, the Advisory Board votes on the proposed action.

The Provost may also ask the Advisory Board for informal advice on a file, in which case no vote is taken until the case is submitted formally by the Provost to the Advisory Board.

At the end of each Advisory Board meeting, the members report to the Provost and request additional follow-up, as necessary.  Because the Advisory Board advises the President, the list of recommendations approved by the Advisory Board is forwarded by the Advisory Board Chair to the President for their final review and approval.  Any recommendation not approved by the Advisory Board is forwarded by the Chair to the President for their further consideration.

2.7.5.3 Review by the President

The President, who makes the final decision, can choose to accept or not accept the recommendation by the Advisory Board.  The President can obtain additional information on the file.  The President can make a favorable decision, a negative decision, or remand the case to the department or school for further information or consideration.  Approved actions are incorporated into the President’s Report to the Board of Trustees.

2.7.5.4 Announcement

Official notification of a successful appointment, reappointment, or promotion is contained in a letter from the Provost to the candidate.  Deans, department chairs, and faculty members are often under pressure to offer assurances before the President renders his final decision, but this pressure should be resisted.  Candidates should be generally informed of the University’s procedures and schedule for consideration of recommendations.  Deans and department chairs, however, may report to the candidate in general terms on progress of the recommendation through the various stages and may indicate when final action may be expected.

2.7.5.5 Effective Date

The normal term of appointment commences on September 1 and, unless without limit of time or for a continuing term, ends August 31.  However, appointments may be made effective on other dates (generally the first of the month) following final approval by the President.  The Provost is unlikely to consider retroactive appointments.

2.7.6 Confidentiality

The entire appointment, reappointment, or promotion process during which specific candidates are evaluated and discussed is to be held in strict confidence by all participants.  In this regard, it is Stanford’s policy to protect vigorously the sources of information and evaluations used in these proceedings.  The opinions expressed by the school or department faculty or by internal or external referees or reviewers shall not be discussed with the candidate or with other parties, except when necessary for University review of the process.  The Dean or the Chair of the department (or their designee) shall convey whatever information needs to be transmitted to the candidate.  A breach of confidence by a participant in an appointment, reappointment, or promotion case is a serious breach of professional ethics and may subject the individual to discipline, among other consequences.

The University takes extensive measures to protect the privacy of the candidate by preserving the confidentiality of the information it receives regarding the candidate.  The University also expects that candidates will similarly respect the confidentiality of the process.  Candidates should not request or seek to discover confidential information from individuals within or outside the University who may be involved in the review process, either while the process is underway or after it has concluded.  Any questions regarding the process, its timing, or its eventual outcome, should be discussed with the department Chair or Dean.

2.7.7 Appointments at Other Institutions

A faculty member, regardless of their percentage of appointment, is normally not permitted to accept or hold a regular faculty or administrative position at another educational institution.  This is true regardless of whether the faculty member is on regular duty at Stanford, on sabbatical, or on leave without salary.  (While on sabbatical or leave without salary, a faculty member may accept a visiting professor appointment at another educational institution.)  If a member of Stanford’s professoriate wishes to accept a regular faculty or administrative position at another educational institution, the faculty member will normally be required to resign from the Stanford faculty; a leave of absence for such a purpose will normally not be granted.  Upon recommendation from the department Chair and Dean of the faculty member’s school, the Provost may (at their discretion) approve an exception to this policy under special circumstances. Such exceptions are rare and based upon compelling reasons.

2.7.8 Close Relatives of the Faculty

It is the policy of Stanford University to seek for its faculty the best possible teachers and scholars who are judged to be so in a national or international search preceding each appointment.  There are no bars to the appointment of close relatives or domestic partners to the faculty (or staff) in the same or different department, so long as each meets the relevant standard for appointment.  (See University Administrative Guide Memo 22.1.2.c, on-line at http://adminguide.stanford.edu/22_1.pdf .)

No faculty member, department chair, dean, or other administrative officer shall vote, make recommendations, or in any other way participate in the decision of any matter which may directly affect the appointment, reappointment, tenure, promotion, salary, or other status or interest of a close relative or domestic partner, nor shall they supervise a close relative or domestic partner.

2.8 Additional Policies

2.8.1 junior faculty counseling and mentoring.

Providing support, guidance, advice and feedback to junior faculty is a high priority for Stanford University.  There is variation across the university in how this support and guidance is provided, and the university does not mandate a particular methodology.  However, it is expected that counseling and mentoring will occur on a regular basis.  These guidelines outline the general expectations for the kinds of support, advice and feedback junior faculty should receive.  Faculty members with questions in this area should consult their department chair or dean.

2.8.1.1 Counseling

Counseling, which is the first aspect of guiding junior faculty, entails providing feedback on performance relative to the standards for reappointment and promotion.  Department Chairs, Deans or their delegates for schools without departments, should confer annually with each junior faculty member in their department or school to review their performance in light of the criteria for reappointment or promotion.

Appropriate areas to discuss may include: scholarship quality and productivity to date; general expectations of the discipline with respect to quantity; form or scholarly venue of publications; expectations, if applicable, about other indicators of recognition such as grant funding; suggestions for the scholarship that may be helpful; teaching quality, quantity, and type to date (including acknowledgment of special efforts in teaching); quality of performance in other academic activities (such as creative works or clinical practice), if applicable; general expectations as to levels of service appropriate for junior faculty (and acknowledgment of special service efforts); and any professional, behavioral or institutional citizenship issues.

These counseling sessions should include direct reference to - and discussion of - the university’s and the school’s criteria for reappointment and promotion, as set forth in Appendix B to the Faculty Handbook (available online at http://facultyhandbook.stanford.edu ) and as supplemented by the school’s handbook.  The comparative and predictive aspects of the tenure/promotion decision should be stressed, as should be the fact that tenure/promotion judgments generally cannot be made until the referee letters are received as part of the evaluation process.  For this reason, counseling the junior faculty member that they are “on track” to gaining tenure or promotion is inappropriate.

Schools vary in viewpoint and practice as to whether there should be a written record of these annual discussions.  The university leaves this matter to each school’s discretion.  However, the university does require a written record - the counseling letter - at the time of reappointment, and at the time of promotion to some (but not all) ranks.

The counseling letter provides an opportunity to give candid feedback to a junior faculty member on their academic performance and progress to date based on the results of this reappointment or promotion review.  The counseling letter provides a vehicle for this feedback, which should be constructive, realistic, and specifically tailored to the candidate and to the standards and criteria they will face in a future review or promotion.

The counseling letter is submitted with the recommendation papers.  It is expected that the counseling letter submitted with the file will be in draft form.  Only after completion of the review process should the counseling letter be finalized and then given to the faculty member.  After receiving the counseling letter, the faculty member is encouraged to meet with their department chair to discuss in more detail the feedback contained in the letter.  Department chairs are in turn encouraged to offer such a meeting, if one is not requested.

Finally, although the purpose of the counseling letter is to offer practical guidance to the junior faculty member in regard to their future efforts (such as by pointing out areas for potential attention or improvement), the candidate should understand that the strategic advice offered is not a prescription for achieving tenure or promotion, but rather the letter writer’s best judgment based on the results of this review.  As noted more generally below, the ultimate responsibility for career trajectory and success rests with each individual faculty member.

2.8.1.2 Mentoring

The second aspect of the guidance to be offered to junior faculty is mentoring, that is, the ongoing advice and support regarding the junior faculty member’s scholarship, teaching and (where applicable) clinical performance.  Schools are expected to have policies and practices for providing mentoring to junior faculty; these vary across the university.  In general, it is recommended that junior faculty be assigned mentors who are senior faculty members but not department chairs.  The mentor should be available to provide guidance on an ongoing basis and should meet at least annually with the junior faculty member.  In situations in which the initial mentor assignment is not successful, department chairs or deans should work with the junior faculty member to identify a suitable mentor.

Junior faculty should also be encouraged to seek informal mentors from inside or outside their department who may share interests and provide additional perspectives.

2.8.1.3 Information Sessions

Central University offices such as the Vice Provost for Faculty Development, Diversity, and Engagement and the Center on Teaching and Learning under the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education provide some general orientation and information sessions for new and junior faculty.  However, topics for which practices vary significantly among schools or departments should be discussed with junior faculty locally, by the school and/or department, through information sessions and/or mentoring.  These topics might include teaching and grading strategies and practices, graduate student advising, expectations regarding publications in the specific field, expectations for and sources of grant funding, and management of research budgets and personnel.

2.8.1.4 The Junior Faculty Member’s Responsibility

The core purpose of counseling and mentoring is to provide candid and helpful feedback and guidance to the individual.  The goal is to provide a supportive atmosphere to assist the junior faculty in succeeding in their academic career.  However, it should also be recognized and communicated to the junior faculty member (and it is here reiterated) that the ultimate responsibility for career trajectory and success lies with each individual faculty member.  Thus it is up to the junior faculty: to respond to invitations to meet with their mentors, department chairs, or deans; to request counseling and mentoring sessions if such sessions are not otherwise scheduled for them; to attend information sessions offered to them; and to be familiar with the policies and procedures concerning reappointment, tenure and promotion, in particular those in the Faculty Handbook (including the criteria in the form found in Appendix B ) and in school faculty handbooks.  Similarly the junior faculty member should understand that a faculty mentor’s strategic advice (like the advice contained in the counseling letter written at the time of reappointment) is not a prescription for achieving tenure or promotion, but rather a senior colleague’s best judgment, to be accepted or rejected as the junior faculty member chooses.  Accordingly, inadequate counseling and mentoring is generally not considered sufficient grounds for appealing a negative tenure or promotion decision.

Stanford University hires the best and brightest junior faculty and is committed to providing opportunities, resources, and support, including counseling and mentoring, to help them develop into outstanding scholars, teachers, and clinicians.  The policies and practices described in these guidelines are intended to assist each faculty member in launching a successful academic career.

2.8.2 Access to Personnel Files

Stanford’s policy has for many years been that an individual should be able to learn the general substance of the information contained in their personnel file.  However, material supplied to the University by a third party (whether inside or outside the University), or supplied by a member of the University to a third party, is presumed to be confidential unless otherwise stated and should not be shown to the individual.  Because the quality of the University’s appointment, reappointment and promotion process depends on the candor of the participants in that process, Stanford's policy is to protect vigorously the confidentiality of the process, including (but not limited to) the sources of information.  Accordingly, peer evaluations from outside and inside sources, letters from students, departmental or higher-level communications or documents regarding the review process, and documents containing statements based on personal knowledge, judgments or opinions, are regarded as confidential.  Such material should therefore, upon request, be summarized by a responsible University officer in a manner that preserves the confidentiality of the source of the information.

2.8.3 Negative Reappointment or Promotion Decisions

2.8.3.1 general information.

A member of the Tenure Line, Non-Tenure Line, or University Medical Line faculty whose appointment has no coterminous condition and who holds a renewable appointment for one year shall be notified by March 15 if the appointment is not to be renewed.  (For faculty whose appointments have a coterminous condition, see paragraph below.)  Failure to give timely notice of non-renewal will entitle the individual to a special reappointment for an additional terminal year.  This additional appointment for a terminal year, if granted, does not count toward acquisition of tenure by length of service. (See Section 2.1.4.2 above.)

When a faculty member holding a renewable appointment for more than one year is not given notice of termination or of non-renewal before July 1 of the penultimate year of the contract, the appointee is entitled to a special reappointment for an additional terminal year.  This additional appointment for a terminal year, if granted, does not count toward acquisition of tenure by length of service. (See Section 2.1.4.2 above.)

The date specified above by which faculty are to be notified of non-renewal assumes that all appointments expire on August 31 of the academic year.  For appointments ending on other dates, an equivalent length of notice should be given.  That is, a faculty member holding a one-year renewable appointment should be notified at least five and one-half months prior to the ending date of the appointment if it is not to be renewed.  Faculty holding a renewable appointment for more than one year should be notified at least fourteen months prior to the ending date of the appointment.  Faculty holding continuing term appointments (i.e., no end date specified) should be notified at least fourteen months prior to the anticipated termination date if the faculty member is to be terminated for programmatic reasons (including funding considerations) or when satisfactory performance ceases (short of termination for those reasons stated in Section 4.4.2(1) of the Statement of Policy on Appointment and Tenure).  Failure to give adequate notice entitles the faculty member to an additional one-year reappointment that does not count toward acquisition of tenure by length of service.

Individuals with coterminous appointments such as those that are “coterminous with continued salary and other research support from sponsored projects” or coterminous with continued support from an affiliated institution (e.g., “coterminous with continuation of relevant programmatic funding at SLAC”) are not subject to the same provisions for notice of non-renewal.  As a general rule, the appointment (even if for a term of years or for a continuing term) ends at the same time the funding or other support ceases.  Although University funding beyond the point at which the faculty member’s support terminates may be possible in certain instances, it is not an entitlement.  Such situations are handled on a case-by-case basis, as are cases when a reduction (as opposed to a complete cessation) of the faculty member’s support will result in the immediate termination of the appointment.

2.8.3.2 Communication Concerning Non-Renewal

After a formal decision to terminate a continuing appointment, or not to renew a term appointment, or not to promote a non-tenured member of the Professoriate, at whatever level, the candidate shall be promptly informed in writing.

In addition, the decision-maker shall set out the grounds for that negative decision in a dated memorandum in enough detail to explain it to one not personally familiar with the case.  This memorandum shall be transmitted to all University officers to whom a positive recommendation would have been transmitted, including the Provost.  This memorandum is confidential and shall not be shown to the individual.  However, at the written request of the candidate submitted to the Provost no later than sixty days after the candidate has been informed of the decision, the substance of the memorandum will be summarized orally or in writing to the candidate by the Provost or a delegate.

Deans and department Chairs should work closely with unsuccessful candidates for reappointment and promotion to address the potentially difficult personal and professional consequences that may accompany the negative decision, as well as to assist in facilitating their successful transition to other academic institutions or opportunities.