Resubmission of Denied Academic Advancement Case

Except in the case of promotion to Associate Professor, UCLA does not have a formal appeals mechanism for academic advancement cases that have been denied.  Rather, we rely on a process called “Resubmission.”  According to The UCLA CALL (, “Resubmission of a departmental recommendation in a case in which there was a final negative decision for advancement or promotion of an Associate or Full Professor may be made, after appropriate departmental review of the resubmitted file, in any year succeeding the year in which the original submission was made. Except in unusual cases, a final academic personnel decision will not be reconsidered in the same [academic] year the case was originally submitted, and a resubmitted proposal will not be approved unless sufficient new evidence has been added to the file.”

In determining whether to request that his or her case be resubmitted, a faculty member may wish to request copies of the materials that were added to the file after the dossier left the department--in the typical case, copies of the Dean’s commentary, the CAP ad hoc Review Committee (RC) analysis in cases where CAP used an RC, and the CAP report. These, together with the Vice Chancellor’s letter, constitute a statement of the “reasons” for disapproval of the academic advancement. It is extremely important for the faculty member to understand the basis for denied action.

If the faculty member strongly disagrees with the decision or with significant elements in the review documents, there is, as noted, no formal appeals process. Instead, resubmission is generally the appropriate recourse. The requirement that there be “sufficient new evidence” (in the judgment of the department and the campus reviewing agencies) means that the original dossier cannot simply be returned for another review. Rather, there must be a fresh departmental review in light of the new evidence, taking into account the basis for the original disapproval in the prior review.

The resubmitted dossier would normally have an effective date one or more years after the date in the original dossier. As a result, it is important that all material in the Data Summary be updated as part of the resubmission process. Once the faculty member assembles all of the materials for the resubmitted dossier, the department would discuss and vote on the case, as consistent with its bylaws. The resubmission process allows for a more prompt re-review of the faculty member’s file than would ordinarily be feasible, with specific attention being devoted to earlier perceived weaknesses that led to denial of advancement or promotion.