{"id":3175,"date":"2026-02-06T14:53:58","date_gmt":"2026-02-06T20:53:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/?post_type=library&p=3175"},"modified":"2026-03-16T12:35:45","modified_gmt":"2026-03-16T17:35:45","slug":"post-tenure-review","status":"publish","type":"library","link":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/library\/post-tenure-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Post-Tenure Review"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n

Rationale<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

The UWS Board of Regents adopted its Guidelines covering the review and development of tenured faculty on March 10, 2016. Each UWS institution has been directed to develop its own policy consistent with the Board\u2019s policy that includes the following elements: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Provision for a review, at least once every five years, of each tenured faculty member’s activities and performance, in accordance with the mission of the department, college, and institution. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Effective criteria against which to measure progress and accomplishments of faculty during this review and a description of the methods for conducting the evaluation. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Delineation of responsibilities for conducting reviews. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Means by which the merit process and faculty review and development process may be linked and used to facilitate, enhance and reward outstanding performance. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Procedures defining means for remedying problems in cases where deficiencies are revealed. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Provision for a written record of each faculty review; designation of the location for the written record of post-tenure review. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. Nothing in this policy is intended to alter the existing rules dealing with tenure determination. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
    \n\n\n\n
    \n
    \n

    Policy<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
    \n

    General Principles<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Given the mission of 51ÁÔÆæ and the currently codified expectations of the faculty role, three general principles are operative, namely tenured faculty review and development activities are designed (1) to develop the talents of the faculty member, (2) to enhance the academic program(s) to which the faculty member contributes, and (3) to protect the right of open and free inquiry (academic freedom).* Strong academic programs housed within equally strong departments (or equivalent units) are the sure and demonstrable measure of 51ÁÔÆæ’s accountability to the citizens of the State of Wisconsin. With the general tenets of academic freedom as its basis, the strength of academic programs depends on the right of open inquiry and maximum use of faculty talent in teaching, research, outreach and service. The 51ÁÔÆæ faculty envision the review of tenured faculty as one that focuses on collegial assessment and provides an opportunity for faculty to review past performance and develop future plans.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Appendix I contains examples of characteristics of effective departmental review procedures.  Appendix II contains recommendations for departments on guidelines they should consider adopting regarding annual and post-tenure reviews. Appendix III contains a timeline for actions and their corresponding deadlines. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    *Open and free inquire provides for the freedom to pursue novel, unpopular, or unfashionable lines of inquiry.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n
    \n
    \n

    Procedures<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
    \n
      \n
    1. In keeping with the principles stated above, all tenured faculty members will develop a written 5-year development plan1<\/a><\/sup> within the context of the overall mission of the Department and consistent with the department\u2019s criteria for post-tenure reviews. As annual reviews are conducted and appropriate modifications made, these plans may be modified while still maintaining a 5-year prospective timeline. Specifically: \n
        \n
      1. The Faculty Development Plan will include planned activities in teaching, research and service\/outreach. The Plan should not ordinarily exceed five pages. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. The Department Executive Committee will ensure that the collective Faculty Development Plans for its Department meet the overall mission of the Department and that they provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate faculty with differing responsibilities. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      3. Faculty Development Plans and any modifications resulting from regular reviews must be filed with the department’s dean.1<\/sup> These modifications resulting from regular reviews shall not ordinarily exceed two pages. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      4. Comprehensive post-tenure reviews shall occur at least once every five years.  The post-tenure review period begins in the academic year following the granting of tenure.  Deferral of the review may be requested by the faculty member scheduled to be reviewed.  Reasons for such a request include, but are not limited to, the review coinciding with approved leave, other appointments, and pending announced retirement.  A deferral request must be approved by the department executive committee(s), dean(s), and provost, except in the case of a faculty member holding a full-time administrative appointment.  For such a case, the deferral request needs only approval by the provost. If a deferral is granted, the provost will specify the new review cycle that applies to the faculty member.  The periodic post-tenure review may substitute for annual review in the year a faculty member is scheduled for such review. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      5. A review for promotion consideration may be considered as a comprehensive post-tenure review.  An individual receiving a positive recommendation for promotion consideration will be considered as having met expectations in the post-tenure review.  If the individual receives a negative recommendation for promotion consideration, the executive committee will subsequently vote on the post-tenure review determination as specified in Section III.F.5 below. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      6. The department chair will provide written notice of the post-tenure review to the faculty member at least 3 months prior to the commencement of the review.  If a post-tenure review is to be conducted during the first month of an academic year\u2019s contractual period, the faculty member should receive written notification of the post-tenure review no later than April 1 of the previous academic year.    <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      7. The department\u2019s executive committee shall form a review committee consisting of at least two tenured faculty members of the department to conduct the review. The entire executive committee, excluding the faculty member being reviewed, may serve as the review committee if the executive committee so chooses.  If there is an insufficient number of tenured faculty members in the department, the executive committee of the department may be augmented following 51ÁÔÆæ Faculty P&P 4.08. In the case of a faculty member with appointments in more than one department, the department chairs of the involved departments shall agree on procedures for the conduct of the review. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      8. Department review procedures shall include \n
          \n
        1. A review of the qualitative and quantitative evidence of the faculty member\u2019s performance over at least the previous five-year period. The evidence should include a current curriculum vitae, annual activity reports, teaching evaluations or summaries of evaluations, and other materials providing evidence of the faculty member\u2019s accomplishments and contributions that the department or the faculty member feel are relevant to the review. The review committee should be provided with the faculty member\u2019s Faculty Development Plan, and their review should be based on the department\u2019s post-tenure review criteria and the faculty member\u2019s performance with respect to their Plan.  The review committee shall examine materials to the degree needed to accomplish the purposes of the review.   <\/li>\n\n\n\n
        2. Discussion with the faculty member about his or her contributions to the profession, the department, and the university if either the review committee or the faculty member so desire. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
        3. Appropriate consideration of a faculty member\u2019s contributions outside the department to interdisciplinary and other programs, governance, administration, and other forms of service to the university and the community. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
        4. Other steps the review committee considers useful in making a fair and informed judgment, including but not limited to consultation with individuals who have knowledge of the faculty member\u2019s work. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
        5. The review committee will prepare a report addressing the question of whether the faculty member \u201cmeets expectations,\u201d or \u201cdoes not meet expectations.\u201d  The result of the review will be communicated to both the executive committee and the faculty member being reviewed within 10 working days of the commencement of the review.  The faculty member may provide a written response to the review to the executive committee prior to the executive committee voting on the recommendation. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
        6. Within 10 working days of receiving the recommendation, the executive committee will meet to assess the findings of the review committee. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
        7. The executive committee will vote by written ballot whether the faculty member \u201cmeets expectations\u201d.    The result of the vote shall be recorded in the minutes of the executive committee. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        8. For executive committee reviews resulting in \u201cmeets expectations\u201d \n
            \n
          1. The chair of the executive committee shall provide the faculty member with a written statement of the review within 10 working days of the determination. The faculty member shall have the right to submit a written response within 10 working days of receipt of the statement from the chair of the executive committee.  The chair of the executive committee will forward the written statement of the review and the faculty member\u2019s response, if received, within 5 working days of the deadline for receiving the faculty member\u2019s response to the dean(s), provost, and chancellor (or designee).  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
          2. The dean(s) shall conduct a sufficiency review to ensure that the executive committee\u2019s review was conducted according to the criteria and procedures established by the executive committee and that the results of the review are within reasonable expectations for a faculty member.  In the event that the dean(s) considers that the review was insufficient, he\/she shall provide the reasons to the executive committee in writing why the review was insufficient within 5 working days of receiving the report.  The executive committee may provide a response addressing the dean\u2019s concerns about the sufficiency of the review within 10 working days.  The dean(s) may conduct an independent review of the submitted materials.   As part of the independent review, the dean(s) shall request advice from the appropriate divisional executive committee which shall be provided with all submitted materials for the review. The dean(s) shall request advice from the divisional committee within 5 working days of receiving the report, and the divisional committee will provide their advice within 20 working days of receiving the request from the dean(s). The divisional committee\u2019s advice should include whether the faculty member \u201cmeets expectations\u201d or \u201cdoes not meet expectations\u201d along with rationale.  The dean will then make a recommendation to the Chancellor (or designee) on whether or not the faculty member \u201cmeets expectations\u201d or \u201cdoes not meet expectations\u201d. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          3. For executive committee reviews resulting in \u201cdoes not meet expectations\u201d  \n
              \n
            1. The executive committee shall provide the faculty member with a written summary of the review within 10 working days of the decision.  The faculty member shall have the right to prepare a written response to the summary within 10 working days after receipt of the summary. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
            2. The executive committee decision, along with any additional response from the faculty member, will be transmitted to the dean(s) within 5 working days after the faculty member\u2019s written response deadline. The dean(s) will perform their own review, including a request for advice from the appropriate divisional executive committee, which also will be provided with the executive committee decision and any additional faculty response. (See 51ÁÔÆæ P&P, Ch.3 Sec 3.20 \u201cAdvice on other Personnel Matters.\u201d) The dean(s) shall request advice from the divisional committee within 5 working days of receiving the report, and the divisional committee will provide their advice within 20 working days of receiving the request from the dean(s).  The divisional committee\u2019s advice should include whether the faculty member \u201cmeets expectations\u201d or \u201cdoes not meet expectations\u201d along with rationale.   <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            3. For dean reviews resulting in \n
                \n
              1. \u201cMeets expectations,\u201d a copy of the summary shall be placed in the department\u2019s file of post-tenure reviews. The department shall also preserve in this file all documents that played a substantive role in the review (other than documents such as publications that are readily accessible elsewhere).  The dean(s) shall make every effort to offer tangible recognition to those faculty identified as \u201cmeets expectations\u201d, including but not limited to increased monetary compensation and nomination for university, national and international awards. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
              2. \u201cDoes not meet expectations,\u201d the dean(s) must provide written reasons to the faculty member for the decision within 10 working days of receiving advice from the divisional committee.  The faculty member may provide a written response to the dean(s) within 10 working days upon notification of the decision. This statement can include new documentation on the faculty member\u2019s activities.  <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                Items J-M apply when a dean review results in \u201cdoes not meet expectations\u201d after the faculty member written response deadline.<\/em>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  \n
                1. Within 5 working days of the end of the faculty member written response deadline, the dean(s) will forward their review, which includes the advice from the divisional committee, the executive committee\u2019s review, and any written response statements from the faculty member, to the provost and the chancellor (or designee).  The chancellor (or designee) will review the case, and following the chancellor\u2019s (or designee\u2019s) review, the faculty member will be informed by the chancellor (or designee) of the final determination of the review. This result shall be provided to the faculty member in writing no later than 20 working days prior to the end of the academic year during which the post-tenure review is conducted.  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
                2. In the event that the chancellor\u2019s (or designee\u2019s) review results in a \u201cdoes not meet expectations\u201d designation, the faculty member and the department chair on behalf of the executive committee, in consultation with the dean, shall develop a written plan for mentoring and professional development to address all issues identified in the review. While the goal is for the plan to be developed collaboratively, if that is not obtainable, the dean has the responsibility to select the plan that will be implemented. This plan shall be completed no later than 20 working days after the chancellor (or designee) has informed the faculty member of decision. This plan should be the product of mutual discussion between the faculty member, the chair, and the dean(s), shall respect academic freedom and professional self-direction, and shall be flexible enough to allow for subsequent alteration.  Such a plan could include review and adjustment of the faculty member\u2019s responsibilities, development of a new research program or teaching strategy, referral to campus resources, assignment of a mentoring committee, institution of mandatory annual reviews for a specified period, written performance expectations, and\/or other elements. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
                3. A faculty member who has received a \u201cdoes not meet expectations\u201d review will have three academic semesters to fully satisfy all the elements of the remediation plan.  If the remediation plan includes performance shortfall in research, an extension of one academic semester may be granted by the chancellor (or designee).  In such a case, the chancellor (or designee) will notify the UW System Administration Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs of the extension. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
                4. The process for determination of the successful completion of the remediation is as follows. \n
                    \n
                  1. The faculty member will submit documentation of his or her activities that address issues identified in the remediation plan to the faculty member\u2019s executive committee. This documentation will include any information that the faculty member deems relevant.  This documentation can be provided at any time during the remediation period but must be provided no later than 3 weeks before the end of the remediation plan period.  If no documentation is submitted by the faculty member, the process outlined below will proceed with whatever evidence is readily available to the executive committee.  The evidence shall only involve work performed during the remediation period, and should only include materials already in the executive committee\u2019s possession.  Examples of such evidence may include, but are not limited to, summaries of teaching evaluations, listing of scholarly works produced, proposal submission and award activity, and governance committee rosters.  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
                  2. Within 10 working days, the executive committee will review the materials submitted, and will make a recommendation as to whether all elements of the remediation plan have been satisfied.  The executive committee will formulate a written explanation for their recommendation.  The executive committee will then submit the faculty member\u2019s documentation along with their recommendation to the dean(s). <\/li>\n\n\n\n
                  3. The dean(s) will review the materials submitted and the executive committee\u2019s  recommendation. If the dean(s) determines that all elements of the remediation plan have been satisfied, the faculty member\u2019s performance is to be considered to \u201cmeet expectations.\u201d <\/li>\n\n\n\n
                  4. The next post-tenure review evaluation of a faculty member who has satisfied all the elements of the remediation plan will be no later than 5 years after the previous post-tenure review.  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
                  5. If the dean(s) determines that the faculty member has not satisfied all elements of the remediation plan, then within 10 working days the dean\u2019s decision and written reasons for this decision are provided to the faculty member, the provost and the chancellor, or designee. Within 5 working days of receiving the notification from the dean(s), the faculty member can submit to the chancellor (or designee) an additional written statement addressing the decisions made by the executive committee and the dean(s).   <\/li>\n\n\n\n
                  6. If the dean(s) determines that the faculty member has failed to meet the expectations set forth in the remediation plan, discipline may be imposed as listed in 51ÁÔÆæ P&P 5.43.  The chancellor will notify the University Committee of the intention to pursue disciplinary action of a faculty member prior to the initiation of the process.  If discipline other than dismissal for cause is to be pursued, the procedures outlined in 51ÁÔÆæ P&P 5.41-5.47 will be followed.  If dismissal for cause is to be pursued, the procedures outlined in 51ÁÔÆæ P&P 5.23-5.29 will be followed.   <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                    Accountability<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
                      \n
                    1. Copies of the departmental criteria and procedures for reviews of tenured faculty shall be filed with the appropriate dean, the provost, and the secretary of the university. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
                    2. At the beginning of each academic year, the chair shall identify faculty to be reviewed during the academic year, and the executive committee shall establish a calendar for reviews. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
                    3. Departments shall maintain a record of review completed, including the names of all reviewers. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
                    4. At the end of each academic year, department chairs shall send a report to the appropriate deans listing the names of faculty members reviewed during that academic year and summarizing the outcomes of those reviews.  The dean(s) will submit these reports to the provost. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
                    5. If a department fails to conduct requisite reviews by the end of the academic year, the dean shall appoint reviewers to conduct reviews based on the department\u2019s specified criteria. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                      Footnotes<\/h3>\n\n\n
                      1. Development plans are subject to the routine review by respective school or college deans. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1287,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"[{\"id\":\"e74abc0e-6586-4d86-931f-22ef6d74a01e\",\"content\":\"Development plans are subject to the routine review by respective school or college deans.\"}]","uwm_wg_additional_authors":[]},"categories":[17,42],"topic":[29],"class_list":["post-3175","library","type-library","status-publish","hentry","category-faculty","category-faculty-personnel","topic-personnel"],"yoast_head":"\nPost-Tenure Review - Policy Library<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/library\/post-tenure-review\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Post-Tenure Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/library\/post-tenure-review\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Policy Library\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-16T17:35:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/library\\\/post-tenure-review\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/library\\\/post-tenure-review\\\/\",\"name\":\"Post-Tenure Review - Policy Library\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-06T20:53:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-16T17:35:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/library\\\/post-tenure-review\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/library\\\/post-tenure-review\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/library\\\/post-tenure-review\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Post-Tenure Review\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/\",\"name\":\"Policy Library\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/0template-webid2\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/541\\\/2020\\\/11\\\/uwm-seo-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/0template-webid2\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/541\\\/2020\\\/11\\\/uwm-seo-logo.jpg\",\"width\":225,\"height\":224,\"caption\":\"University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/uwm.edu\\\/policy\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Post-Tenure Review - Policy Library","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/library\/post-tenure-review\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Post-Tenure Review","og_url":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/library\/post-tenure-review\/","og_site_name":"Policy Library","article_modified_time":"2026-03-16T17:35:45+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/library\/post-tenure-review\/","url":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/library\/post-tenure-review\/","name":"Post-Tenure Review - Policy Library","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-02-06T20:53:58+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-16T17:35:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/library\/post-tenure-review\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/library\/post-tenure-review\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/library\/post-tenure-review\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Post-Tenure Review"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/#website","url":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/","name":"Policy Library","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/#organization","name":"University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee","url":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/0template-webid2\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/541\/2020\/11\/uwm-seo-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/0template-webid2\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/541\/2020\/11\/uwm-seo-logo.jpg","width":225,"height":224,"caption":"University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library\/3175","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/library"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1287"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library\/3175\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5371,"href":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library\/3175\/revisions\/5371"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3175"},{"taxonomy":"topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic?post=3175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}