You must do this examination on your own. You may use your books and cases, and additional written material as you deem necessary,. You must include a cover sheet and a reference page.; you simply need to answer the question to the best of your ability, making sure it is comprehensive and thorough (but do not do a brain dump hoping that somewhere I can find the answer
The Dean of the arts and sciences college at a public university has recommended that a professor in the college be denied tenure. The tenured faculty in the professor’s department, the Department of Social Sciences, has voted 4‑1 to deny tenure. Before voting, they reviewed the professor’s qualifications and performance at the university and met together with the department chairman to discuss the case. After the vote, they met with the professor at his request for an exchange of views about his candidacy for tenure, but after this meeting they declined to reconsider their earlier vote. The department chairman forwarded the tenured faculty’s vote, and his own recommendation that the professor be denied tenure, to the Dean of the college. The chairman explained that the faculty had decided, and he agreed, that the professor did not fit into the “multi‑disciplinary approach” followed by the department and “was better suited to a single discipline department such as economics.” The Dean added her own recommendation to deny tenure.
The professor whose case is under consideration joined the faculty two years ago. Previously, he had been a tenured professor of economics at another university. He came to the university without tenure on the understanding he would be reviewed for tenure in his second year. The professor has been very critical of the curriculum prescribed by his department. To further his views, he ran for and was elected to his department’s “Advisory Committee.” Animosity developed between the professor and several “old” committee members who had not been re‑elected. One of these replaced committee members accused the professor of leading a “conspiracy of new faculty members against those of us who have been here” and called it “a rotten or stinking fish.” As this controversy brewed, the professor submitted his tenure application.
The case is now before the President. He may either: (1) affirm the recommendation to deny tenure and submit it to the Board of Trustees, (2) disagree with the recommendation and submit his own recommendation to grant tenure to the Board, or (3) return the case to the department with instructions for reconsideration. The professor has written the President requesting that he reject the department’s and Dean’s negative recommendations. The professor argues that “I am being ostracized because of my views,” that “I have been denied every semblance of due process,” and that “I will take every legal avenue open to me to right this egregious wrong.”
Do not simply answer these questions in a bullet-point format. Use these to frame and guide your interpretation, analysis, and write-up. Make sure your answer synthesizes all relevant information, and is cohesive.
What steps should the President take next and why? What are the most major legal and policy considerations that should guide the ultimate decision in this case? Does the law constrain the President in his decision making on this tenure application? If yes, how so? What legal cases are most relevant for the President to consider, and why? How might the institution have found itself in this situation, and what policy or process implications to prevent/minimize such issues in the future (if any)? If the faculty is ultimately denied tenure, would he have a legal case against the university, and if so, under what grounds?
0 comments