This paper examines the appropriate course of action for a university president responding to a tenure denial case in the Department of Social Sciences. It considers two central concerns: whether all actions taken during the tenure review process were legally sound, and whether the decision was free from personal bias or impropriety. Drawing on analogous cases involving First Amendment claims, the paper concludes that while the stated reasons for denial appear facially valid, the president must investigate whether personal animosity influenced the outcome. It recommends conditional affirmation or remand for reconsideration, depending on the findings of that inquiry.
Two issues must be kept in consideration by the President. First and foremost, he must ensure that all actions taken over the course of the tenure review process were legal. Secondly, he must also work to avoid any appearance of impropriety in order to uphold the reputation of the university.
Regarding the legal aspects of tenure, the Department of Social Sciences was within its rights not to grant the professor tenure for the stated reasons. The professor's concentration is in economics, and he has been critical of the approach taken by the department, which advocates a more interdisciplinary model. His previous position was that of a tenured economics professor.
When professors appeal a failure to be granted tenure, they most commonly do so by alleging that their freedom of speech was the true reason they were denied their position. One of the central rationales for academic tenure is that professors are able to express their views freely, without fear of losing their jobs due to censorship or political retaliation.
For example, at Ithaca College, sociology Professor Margo Ramlal-Nankoe initiated legal action against the university, alleging that her critical views of Israel were the reason for her denial of tenure — a denial she argued violated her First Amendment rights. Professor Norman G. Finkelstein also retained a lawyer for similar reasons after being denied tenure at DePaul University (Wilson 2008). These cases illustrate how disputes over academic freedom can quickly become legal battles when faculty members believe their protected speech was the basis for an adverse employment decision.
However, in this case, personal and departmental infighting appears to be at the heart of the conflict, rather than questions of politics or protected expression. There seems to be a high level of personal animosity between the professor and members of his department, but not because of his political views on economics. This suggests the decision not to grant tenure may have been biased for personal rather than political reasons.
Legally, this is not a question of First Amendment rights. On the surface, the stated reasons for denying the professor tenure appear valid: his specialty is in a single discipline and does not reflect the multidisciplinary approach of the department, and he has expressed dissatisfaction with the department's pedagogical philosophy. In fact, he appears to have done all he could upon entering the department to reshape it to fit his own vision. While freedom of expression is valid, the department also has the right to advocate a particular approach to education and to select new faculty members who fit within that approach.
"Conditional affirmation or remand based on investigation"
If the professor's candidacy must be reconsidered, new faculty members must be solicited to review his case — individuals who are sufficiently well-versed in the social sciences but who do not have a personal history of animosity with the professor. Only such an impartial review can adequately protect both the professor's interests and the university's integrity.
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.