A tenure is a lifetime contract, or simply a contract that has no expiration date. Therefore, a tenured faculty member does not require reappointment to proceed with their responsibilities or position. Nevertheless, the tenured faculty cannot get away with anything because of their tenure. For a continued appointment, tenure provides specific reasons why a university can terminate the employment of a member of a tenured faculty (Rosenberg, 2016). All universities have different policies, but the basic ideas of the process were first documented by the AAUP in 1940. The university has the right to fire a tenured faculty member especially due to individual performance such as negligence, incompetence, or immoral conduct.
Incompetence explains the inability of a faculty member to properly perform their main job responsibilities. To terminate a tenured contract because of incompetence, the university should evaluate and provide evidence that the individual cannot perform their primary duties. For instance, if the faculty member cannot grade students’ work or is unable to teach a class. Negligence occurs when a faculty member has the ability to perform certain functions but chooses not to perform the function. For instance, if they continuously miss classes. Most people view it as insubordination. The courts ruled that negligence goes beyond missing classes and extends to failing to perform the basic responsibilities of the position, not grading student and missing several classes (Fichtner & Simpson, 2015). However, it does not entail doing minor things such as putting the syllabus in the wrong font or size. Immoral or personal conduct is the main reason for termination of a tenured contract. It involves behaviors that are universally condemned such as criminal activity, abuse, fraud, or sexual harassment. However, if the university seeks to eliminate a department, they are forced or obligated to retain or reassign the tenured faculty members rather than laying them off. Tenure lies at the university level, and if the tenures appear inefficient, the universities should increase their salaries in compensation for giving up their tenure.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A reduction in salary for the tenured faculty is limited to a situation where the university is facing financial stringency or when the professor is on sabbatical leave. Other than individual reasons, financial stringency is the only recognized reason that can allow the termination of a tenured contract or a reduction in salary. All learning institutions may undergo some forms of financial hardship that may be caused by a change in state appropriations, enrollment, or endowment returns. Financial stringencies often threaten the survival of the learning institution as a whole. For instance, in Post Katrina New Orleans when some institutions were under water, the students had left the town, there were uncertainties whether the institution would reopen, and the financial crisis threatens the future stability of the institution (Schwartz, 2014). Financial stringency is only accepted in extreme situations and not issues such a small budget cut that may affect only one department and not the entire institution.
A post-tenure review is required in all tenured faculties after every five years. The reviews are often carried out at the dean's and department offices. The results should be submitted to faculty affairs. It is a process of periodic evaluation that is different from the traditional evaluation that is common in most universities and colleges. The traditional methods of evaluation vary in their comprehensiveness and formality. They include reviews for appointment to learned societies, university committees, professional chairs, graduate faculties, and interdisciplinary programs (Schwartz, 2014). They also include the annual reports for determining promotion and salary and the reviews for awarding sabbaticals and grants. Faculty members are also reviewed for specialized or regional certification and accreditation of graduate and undergraduate programs.
Post-tenure review only adds a formalized appearance to the traditional forms of review. The process is not redundant and may differ in various issues such as the comprehensiveness and frequency of the review, the magnitude of potential sanctions, the level of involvement of faculty members, the application of innovative principles and standards, the utilization of self-evaluation, the level of constructive feedback, and articulating performance objectives (Rosenberg, 2016). In the most extreme situations, post-tenure review attempts to reopen the issue of tenure at its beginning; it then formalizes and systematizes the common practices.
A negative review does not warrant a sanction. However, there are major and minor sanctions. Some of the sanctions include a suspension from the institution without any additional form of prejudice, oral reprimand, a salary cut or reduction for a defined period, written reprimand, a fine, a recorded reprimand, restitution, or loss of benefits for a defined period. Restitution may include payment damages that are due to the university or individuals. The loss of prospective benefits may include the suspension of promotion eligibility or suspension of merit or regular increase in their salary. However, a reduction in salary or loss of prospective benefits should never be imposed until the official hearing, and all procedures are followed such as providing a written notice of the charges, a fair hearing before the faculty committee where the university administration face the burden of evidence (Fichtner & Simpson, 2015). There should be a cross-examination of the witnesses, a right to counsel, a written decision, and a record of the hearing. Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be imposed on a tenured faculty member. Not all negative reviews demand dismissal unless they involve serious ethical misconducts such as criminal activity, abuse, fraud, or sexual harassment. Dismissal is rarely implemented because it has serious negative effects on the affected individual and their families.
References
Fichtner, J. R., & Simpson, L. A. (2015). Trimming the Deadwood: Removing Tenured Faculty for Cause. JC & UL , 41 , 25.
Rosenberg, J. (2016). Panel: Discrimination and Harassment Issues in Higher Education.
Schwartz, J. M. (2014). Resisting the exploitation of contingent faculty labor in the neoliberal university: the challenge of building solidarity between tenured and non-tenured faculty. New Political Science , 36 (4), 504-522.
