The University Senate passed a proposal on Wednesday that would revise the guidelines that structure the appointment, promotion and tenure process for faculty.

In addition to the overall proposal, which passed by a vote of 69-4-5, 12 amendments were also voted on and passed by the senate. Three amendments were not passed; two were rejected and one was withdrawn.

Because the tenure process is essential to university operations, there was much deliberation among senators and representatives from different campus entities on the merit of each amendment.

“The APT process is one of the building blocks of any university,” said Donald Webster, senate chairman. “We ended up with a stronger document and one that is going to be able to guide the promotion and tenure process in the future.”

There were several revisions in the proposal covering many aspects of the tenure process. They were drafted by the APT Guidelines Task Force to work interdependently and bring transparency to the process, said Bradley Hatfield, the task force chair.

Hatfield said he thinks the choosing of external reviewers who would sit on committees and evaluate faculty members’ performances was a critical component of the legislation.

A large portion of the meeting was spent discussing the validity of a series of amendments aimed at promoting diversity and inclusion throughout the tenure process.

Hatfield said he believes many components of the proposal, such as the choosing of external reviewers and requirement of a teaching portfolio, can work together to make the process more fair for all faculty, including underrepresented minority faculty who might feel detached from the tenure process.

“We’ve tried to make recommendations to provide an opportunity for people to reveal more accurately and more fully, who they are,” he said. “It should — indirectly as well as directly — affect the diversity.”

Ryan Belcher, an undergraduate representative on the Senate Executive Committee, proposed two amendments to increase undergraduate participation in the tenure process by having one undergraduate or graduate student sit on committees responsible for assessing faculty at different tiers of the review process.

The amendments, however, provided the caveat that the students selected had to be in good academic, financial and judicial standing within the university; Belcher and his supporters, including SGA President Patrick Ronk, were met with dissent.

“The tenure review system is really sacred to the professors, and there’s a well-established precedent that people on the committee have to be on the tenure level,” Belcher said. “It’s very odd that they seemed so dismissive of undergraduates given the fact that these professors, once they have tenure, will collectively educate hundreds of thousands of Maryland students.”

The vote on the first amendment proposed by Belcher came out to four in favor and 82 against. Belcher rescinded the next amendment, which was to allow the provost to appoint a student to sit on a third-tier review committee.

However, Hatfield said he does not want the defeat of these amendments to discourage students and send a message that could be misconstrued.

“There’s a great concern on the part of the committee that the students of this campus are served better by this process,” he said. “Our intention was to elevate the importance of teaching, [which is] the primary way students are affected.”

The set of recommendations and the amendments will now go to university President Wallace Loh for approval and if approved, will be carried out by the task force, the senate and the provost.