L I BR A p Y
A.~‘J.‘ f; N}
University

   
 

“Ll! lllllllflzllfllfllllllLflljljllllLllflflll Ufllfllfliflfl

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A STUDY OF THE TENURE POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF
COLLEGES WHICH ARE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SMALL COLLEGES

presented by

Ralph E. Abuhl

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. . Higher Education
degree 1n

 

 

  

CLLL/ n .

M/a/Apmt‘essor

 

Date April 11, 1978

 

0-7639

 

m
We
my

”12m

 

      
     
   
  
 

‘ 3113!)? r7: ,1 ‘y
4 ant“?! E‘ t.

£303 _ -'r

A 91382813! 1%?

_ Subuirreé :9

Mchlgm Sure “(strum-Qty

fulfillment of the regainryfii‘
for the dogrcc of

‘ an 3’ “trains: and MW m‘“ I H
. i A :_ . ‘ (‘3' . up; . ‘ L

* _ " “1'97:

. «g. o; >_.-

, __ : . ‘4 4
5’9"! 1‘: “1 'r' "43.x f ‘
' .5-
A
-\
1V“ — i
-u _ -f: -
. ,-. .¢ -_
t . i a
v ~ -. _
: L‘kul. >_ *\

 

     
    
  

A STUDY OF THE TENURE POLICIES AND PRACTICES 0F
'COLLEGES WHICH ARE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SMALL COLLEGES

By
Ralph E. Abuhl

.:_.4”p \A DISSERTATION . 7

Submitted to 7

. Michigan State University - _;
Pi partial fulfillment of the requirements .14 -,- . : 5;;
for the degree of ‘ . .:.

4 '3'
.4..r..m .

 

 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY " “”i ‘"”{""' HIE} §Q5
123-415. '7. :77 . ,~ t ._ 7': 2-” -_‘ “my 9‘ » 1‘ #3133": I '
> ‘ ”Emof Administration and Higher Education ; l ,
'N z " ,1 _ 3 . -: i.‘.:;'i. 7 ~ . ' I
:LII 33?- V‘L 1978 . «J. . .. ..

7‘ V 1;»
331.215 least“: ‘ _.5;-<';'..z. my? 92.22:? 3 :1... ‘

:5 . .

, ‘ ‘

. f, x
. l v' \
~ w r- ‘ --~t
; 7 . -- - r
. ‘ V ,
r _.

 

4’75:

CN?’

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF THE TENURE POLICIES AND PRACTICES 0F
COLLEGES WHICH ARE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SMALL COLLEGES

By
Ralph E. Abuhl

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the current
tenure policies and practices of the colleges associated with
the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges. More
specifically, the study dealt with faculty ratio, procedural
due process, reasons for the dismissal of both tenured and
nontenured faculty members, alternatives to tenure, and

faculty involvement in the acquisition of tenure.

Population
The population of the study consisted of the 189 mem-

ber colleges of the Council for the Advancement of Small
Colleges in the fall of 1977. These colleges are unique
from other larger colleges and similar to one another. They
are private liberal arts colleges with membership in their

( ’regional accreditating association and no more than 2,000
full-time equivalent students. The colleges must have been

‘ in operation at least 3 years and offer a minimum of 5 major

 

 

Ralph E. Abuhl
areas of study, with 50% or more of the course work in gen-

eral education.

Procedures

The data for the study was generated by means of two
instruments: a questionnaire and an analysis of faculty
handbooks. A questionnaire was sent to each college presi-
dent seeking tenure practices for the years 1967-1977. In
particular the instrument sought to determine the number
of times the CASC colleges had denied tenure to nontenured
faculty, the due process afforded those denied tenure, the
number given tenure following due process, the number of
times tenured faculty members had been dismissed, the
reasons for dismissal, and the due process afforded the
tenured and nontenured faculty members.

In addition to the completion of the questionnaire,
the college presidents were asked to send a copy of their
current faculty handbook. The tenure policies as expressed
in these handbooks was systematically analyzed and recorded
in an instrument for content analysis. This instrument
analyzed the type of tenure that a particular institution
had adopted, determined the process and criteria for ac-
quisition of tenure, and ascertained the degree of faculty
involvement and the right of due process afforded in the
event of tenure denial. The instrument also included de-

lineation of the process for the termination, the justifiable

Ralph E. Abuhl
cause for termination, and the due process afforded to the

person whose tenure was being removed.

Findings

1. 0f the 86 colleges specifying criteria for the
termination of tenure, all 86 listed professional incompetence,
85 listed immorality or misconduct. Financial exigencies,
failure in institutional relationship, neglect of duty, and
incapacity or disability were each listed by 69% or more
of the specifying colleges.

2. The full-time faculty members by rank were:
professors, 89% tenured; associate professors, 71% tenured;
assistant professors, 27% tenured; and instructors, 2%
tenured. Forty-nine percent of the full-time faculty mem-
bers were tenured. Five years earlier, 42% of the faculty
were tenured.

3. Twenty-five CASC colleges conducted proceedings
to terminate the tenure of 56 faculty members from 1967-
1977. Nineteen faculty members resigned after a question
of tenure termination; 30 were granted a hearing and then
dismissed; 7 were granted a hearing and then retained.

4. TWenty-three CASC colleges dismissed 49 full-time
tenured faculty members from 1967-1977. Thirty-three of
these faculty members (67%) were from colleges that had
reduced the number of full-time faculty members from 1972
to 1977.

5. In 49 dismissal cases the causes for tenure

 

Ralph E. Abuhl
termination were listed as: 21 for financial exigency,
17 for professional incompetence, 6 for failure in insti-
tutional relationships, 3 for serious misconduct or im-
morality, and 2 for incapacity and disability.

6. Twelve colleges indicated that 15 dismissed
tenured faculty members took legal action against the
college. Five faculty members won in court; none were
reinstated; 10 were financially compensated.

7. During the period of 1967-1977, 71 colleges
dismissed 545 faculty members before they were granted
tenure. One hundred and sixty-seven (31%) were from
colleges that had reduced the number of full-time faculty
from 1972-1977. Eighty—four faculty members asked for a
written statement of reasons for the dismissal; 69 were
given the statement; 32 of these faculty members asked
for and received a hearing; 5 were reinstated after the
hearing.

8. Eighty-three percent of the CASC colleges indi-
cated that they have revised their tenure policies since
1972.

9. Thirty-four colleges have considered the contract
renewal system as an alternative to tenure; 10 have adopted
it with a 6% average increase in full-time faculty and a
79% increase in part-time faculty. Twenty-eight colleges
have no tenure policy and their average full-time faculty
has increased by 26% from 1972-1977, while part-time

faculty has increased by 65%. These part-time faculty

 

Ralph E. Abuhl
members make up 33% of the total faculty. Twenty-nine have
considered limiting the number of tenured faculty by a
quota system; 7 have adopted a quota system involving 50

to 75 percent of the total faculty members.

Recommendations

1. CASC colleges should maintain the tenure system,
giving of their financial resources and time to the care-
ful recruitment of qualified faculty members, the annual
evaluation of probationary faculty members, and the dis-
missal of those who are not qualified for tenure.

2. CASC colleges should grant tenure only to those
faculty members that have the potential for outstanding
contribution to the colleges in the future.

3. CASC college administrators and faculty members
should give special effort to personnel development, both
administrative and professorial. Faculty members should
be more involved in the formulation of tenure policies,
in the decision to employ new faculty, in the evaluation
of new faculty performance, and in the decision to tenure

or not to tenure probationary faculty.

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks to Dr. Van C. Johnson, my committee
chairman, for his guidance and encouragement during my
doctoral program. My appreciation to Dr. Robert L. Ebel,
Dr. Walter F. Johnson, and Dr. Lester M. Hyman for their
criticism and their time, as part of my committee.

Thanks to Dr. Gerrit Ten Brink, Vice President of
Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges, for his
interest and assistance in supporting my dissertation
project.

Thanks to Carol Bierbaum and Marlene Hess for their
editorial assistance.

A very special thank you to my children, Jan, Jeff,
and Jon for their patience and understanding during my
years of schooling and study.

But especially I want to say thanks to my wife,
Mary Jane, for her typing, her encouragement, and her

gracious patience which saw me through my doctoral studies.

ii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION

The Problem .
The Need
The Purpose .

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Historical Perspective

The Operation of Tenure .

Crises In Tenure ..

Court Rulings That Have Affected the Concept
of Tenure . . .

The Concept of Tenure Pro and Con .

Alternatives To Tenure .

Subjective Literature and Research Related to
Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY .

Population Of The Study .
Sources of The Data .
Procedures .

IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS .

Institutional Definitions of Tenure .
Acquisition of Tenure .
The Pretenure Rank . .
The Pretenure Probationary Period .
Credit For Prior Service . .
The Criteria For Acquisition of Tenure
Governing Procedures For the Granting or
Denial of Tenure . .
Appeal From the Denial .of Tenure

iii

Page

Page

Termination of Tenure . . . . 96
The Criteria For the Termination of
Tenure . . . . 96

Procedures For the Termination of Tenure 101
The Informal Adjustment and Reconcilia-

tion Procedures . . . . 102

Procedures That Anticipate a Formal
Hearing . . 103
The Formation of the Hearing Committee . 105
The Procedures of the Formal Hearing . . 109
The Final Disposition of the Case . . . 110
Analysis of the Questionnaire Replies . 114
V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 133
Summary . . . . . . . . . . 133
Findings of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 134
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

iv

 

LIST OF TABLES

Percentage of Agreement Between the Researcher
and the Three Analysts Determining the Reli-
ability of Content Analysis of the Institu-
tional Documents Relating to Tenure Policies
and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . .

The Dates, Number and Percentages of Ques-
tionnaires and Faculty Handbooks Received
From the CASC Colleges . . . . . .

A Distribution of the Number and Percentage of
Faculty Handbooks and Questionnaires That
Were Received from One Hundred and Eighty-
Nine CASC Colleges . .

Comparison of the Pre-Tenure Ranks in the
State Universities and Land— Grant Colleges
of the Shaw Study to the CASC Colleges of
This Study . . .

Comparison of the Rank at Which Tenure Is
Granted by One Hundred and Twenty-Eight Col-
leges in anister's Study During 1957-1958
and by Eighty State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges in the Shaw Study During 1969-
1970 and the One Hundred and Three CASC Col-
leges in This Study During 1977-1978 . . .

The Acceptance of a Professor's Prior Service
at Another Institution by CASC Colleges
During 1977-1978 . .

A Comparison of the Criteria For Acquisition of
Tenure and the Number of Institutions in the
Shaw Study During 1969- 1970 . . . . . . .

Governing Procedures for the Acquisition of
Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of the Right to Appeal from Denial
of Tenure in the Eighty Universities of the

Shaw Study During 1969-1970, The Seventeen In-
stitutions of the walters Study During 1969-

1970 with the One Hundred and Three CASC Col-

leges of This Study During 1977- 1978

V

73

75

79

93

84

87

89

92

95

4.8

A Comparison of the Criteria for the Termina-
tion of Tenure as Specified by the Institu—
tions in the Shaw Study During 1969-1970
with the CASC Colleges of This Study During
1977-1978 . .

p

Comparison of the Procedures to Grant a
Hearing as Specified in the Institutions in
the Shaw Study During 1969-1970 and the CASC
Colleges of This Study During 1977-1978 . .

A Comparison of the Procedures to Supply
Charges and a List of Witnesses as Specified
in the Institutions in the Shaw Study During
1969-1970 and the CASC Colleges of This
Study During 1977-1978 . .

A Comparison of the Composition of Hearing Com-
mittees in Tenure Termination Cases at the
Eighty Institutions in the Shaw Study During
1969-1970 and the Eighty—Six CASC Colleges
Included in This Study During 1977-1978 .

A Comparison of Findings Reported by Byse and
Joughin, The Findings of the Institutions
of the Shaw Study and the Findings of the
CASC Colleges of This Study Regarding Pro-
cedures Used in Hearings and in Appeals of
Faculty Termination Cases . . . .

A Comparison of the Number and Percentage of
the Institutions of the Shaw Study with the
CASC Colleges of This Study Specifically or
Not Specifically Providing Certain Proce-
dures of Hearings in Tenure Termination
Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of the Number and Percentage of
Faculty Member by Rank and Tenure in CASC
Colleges and the Institutions of the Shaw
Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of the Number and Percentage of
Full- Time Faculty Members Per Rank Found in
the Shaw Study of 1969-1970 and the CASC
Colleges During 1977-1978 . . .

Distribution of the Number and Percentage of
the Reduction of Full-Time Faculty Members
in the Thirty-Five CASC Colleges That Ex-
perienced Faculty Reduction from 1972-1977

vi

98

. 104

105

. 108

. 111

. 112

.17

.18

.19

.20

.21

.22

.23

.24

.25

Distribution of the Number of Full-Time Fac-
ulty Members, the Number of Part-Time Fac-
ulty Members and the Percentage of These
That Are Part-Time in the Fourteen CASC
Colleges That Reported Having More Part- Time
Faculty Members Than Full- Time Faculty Mem—
bers During 1977-1978 . . .

A Comparison of the Total Number of Faculty
Members From the One Hundred and Eight CASC
Colleges, With the Number and Percentage of
Them That Are on Tenure . . .

Comparison of the Distribution of Dismissals
of Tenured Faculty in Fourteen of Sixty
Institutions of the Shaw Study During 1959-
1960 Through 1968- 1969 with Twenty-Five
Colleges of This Study During 1967- 1968
Through 1977-1978 . . .

Distribution of the Causes of Dismissal of
the Thirty-One Tenured Faculty Members From
the Twenty-One CASC Colleges During 1967-1977

Number of CASC Colleges and Nontenured Faculty
Members Involved in the Dismissal Process
During 1967-1977 . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of the Alternatives to Tenure
That Have Been Considered, Are Being Con-
sidered and Have Been Adopted by CASC Col-
leges During 1977-1978 .

A Comparison of the Distribution of the Seven
CASC Colleges That Limited the Percentage of
Tenured Faculty with the Percentage That
Each College Had on Tenure in 1972 and 1977

Comparison of the Length of the First Contract,
The Probationary Period and Subsequent Con-
tracts at Ten CASC Colleges That Had a Pe-
{$Odic Contract Renewal System DuringO1977-

78 . .

A Distribution of the Dates of the Most Recent

Revision of Tenure Policies at One Hundred
and Twenty-Four CASC Colleges . . .

vii

. 120

. 121

. 123

. 124

. 125

. 126

. 128

. 131

 

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A major function of tenure is the protection of aca-
demic freedom. Academic freedom gives the professor the
right to investigate any problem of interest in his disci-
pline and to express the findings of his investigation by
publication and classroom instruction. This investigation
and expression must be guaranteed protection from fear of
job loss. Any creative endeavor, including that of the
productive college professor, needs incubating time for de-
velopment, and the creative enterprises of the college pro-
fessor will not become available to society unless the work
of the professor is free from political or ecclesiastical
authority. Administrators and members of boards of trustees
must exercise some restraining force, so that a professor
need not fear job loss based upon passing public opinion.

Academic freedom requires that a professor should

receive effective protection of his economic security
through a tenure system which should provide at least
these safeguards: (1) A probationary period of stated
length, the maximum conforming to a national standard.
(2) A commitment by an institution of higher educa-
tion to make a decision in advance of the end of the
probationary period whether a permanent relationship
will be entered into; collaterally, national standards
of notice for such decision. (3) Appointment to a
tenure post if a person is continued beyond the limit
of the probationary period. (4) Termination of a ten-
ure appointment only because of age under an established

1

2

retirement system, financial exigency, or adequate
cause.

Freedom to express one's thoughts, and pursue know-
ledge where it leads has roots in American history. Thomas
Jefferson said that

. . truth is great and will prevail if left to her-
self, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist
to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict,
unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural
weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to
be dangeroas when it is permitted freely to contra-
dict them.

But academic freedom did not find secure expression
in this country until the American Association of University
Professors was formed in 1915. It took an additional twenty-
five years of struggle before a concise statement of the im-
portance of academic freedom was agreed upon by the AAUP and
the Association of American Colleges. This statement, known
as the 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and
Tenure brought together the concept of academic freedom and
the position of tenure as a protection of academic freedom.
See appendix A for complete text.

The 1940 Statement of Principles showed the need for
academic freedom, the need for tenure, and the relation-

ships of each to the other.

Institutions of higher education are conducted for the

 

1Louis Joughin, ed. Academic Freedom and Tenure:
A Handbook of the American Association of University Profes-
sors, (Madison. Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press,
E67). pp 4-5. .

2R. Freeman Butts and L. S. Cremin, A Histor of Edu-
cation in American Culture (New York: Holt, Rinefiart and
nston, , p.

 

 

3

common good and not to further the interest of either
the individual teacher or the institution as a whole.
The common good depends upon the free search for
truth and its free exposition. Academic freedom is
essential to these purposes and applies to both
teaching and research. Freedom in research is funda-
mental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom
in its teaching respect is fundamental for the pro-
tection of the rights of the teacher and of the stu-
dent in learning. It carries with it duties corre-
lative with rights.

Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically:
(1) Freedom of teaching and research and of extra-
mural activities and (2) a sufficient degree of econ-
omic security to make the profession attractive to
men and women of ability. Freedom and economic se-
curity, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the suc-
cess of an institution in fulfilling its obligations
to its students and to society.

I. The Problem

Policies of the employment and retention of a well
qualified faculty have become increasingly significant in the
past decade due to changes in attitudes regarding education.
This concern has surfaced in part because many colleges and
universities have experienced a steady or declining student
enrollment, placing serious financial and personnel problems
before college administrators. With the rise in student
enrollment in the late 1950s and the 19603, came a corre—
sponding need for an increase in the number of qualified pro-
fessors.2 But the increase was slow in coming because of the
years of education needed to meet basic qualifications for

professorships.

 

1"Academic Freedom and Tenure-~1940 Statement of
Principles," AAUP Bulletin (March, 1970), p. 27.

2Allen D. anister. "Promotion and Tenure Policies in
Undergraduate Colleges," North Central Association anrterly,
XXXII (January, 1958), pp. 268-275.

 

4
Because of the increased need for professors during
this time, faculty members were employed and generally
granted tenure after the prescribed minimum qualifications
were met regardless of competency or success in the class-
room. Administrators were faced with a different problem in
the 19703 with declining student enrollment caused by
l. The changing attitude of high school graduates
toward the need for college education
2. The much publicized lack of employment opportuni-
ties for the college graduate
3. The changes in the military draft law and its
impact on the college-age student.
If the percentage of the population that attended
college in the 1950s, 19603 and the 1970s were maintained,
there would be a small, but steady increase in the number
of college students through the 19703.
But by the early 1980s, due to the decline in the na-
tion's population of 18-24 year olds, the higher edu-
cation enrollment is bound to drop, unless the per-
centage of youth who then enroll reaches incredibly
high levels, above those for any other period in the
country's history.

This decline in enrollment will continue to bring budget-

ary and faculty personnel problems to administrators and

members of boards of trustees.

The director of research in the economics of higher
education at Yale University, Stephen Dresch, has devised an

elaborate method of projecting college enrollments in the

 

1Post- -Secondary Education in New York State (New York
State Education Department, May, 1973), p. .

2Richard Berendzen, "Population Changes and Higher
Education," Educational Record (Spring, 1974), p. 120.

 

5
future. He estimates that the decade of the 803 will ex-
perience a 46% decline in undergraduate enrollment in col-
leges and universities. He takes into account the ".
changes in demand for college educated people in the labor
force as well as changes in the supply of young people in
the population and in the proportion of young people going
to college."1 His theory predicts a gloomy future for ad—
ministrators and faculties.

Already the declining enrollments have led to bud-
getary cuts, tightening of faculty employment policies, and
dismissal of both tenured and nontenured faculty members. In
December of 1973, Southern Illinois University dismissed 104
faculty and academic staff members, 28 of whom held tenure
contracts. Earlier in the year, the smaller Bloomfield
College, Bloomfield, New Jersey, fired l3 professors, ll of
whom were tenured. In the same year, the University of Wis-
consin sent lay-off notices to 33 tenured faculty members.
With soaring inflation and costly litigation, tenure policies
have come under attack from many quarters. Newsweek magazine
referred to tenure as a sacred cow very tough to slaughter.2
In his doctor dissertation of 1969, William Wilkie pre-

dicted the "subsequent demise of the tenure system."3

 

1"Will Enrollments Nosedive?" Th9 Chronicle of Highs;
Education (February 10, 1975), p. 7.

 

2Newsweek, (June 10, 1974), p. 75.

3William R. Wilkie, "Faculty Academic Freedom: A
Legal Analysis," (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,
1969). p. 101

 

6

Academic freedom and job security are two major de-
terminants of faculty morale. College professors who have
to be careful what they say, or how they say it, or when or
where they say it, live under some tension and level of appre-
hension.

The conviction that every college teacher must

have the freedom to decide how and what he teaches
and researches is so strongly imbedded in the pro-
fessorial psyche that the right of independence of
action is the primary determinant of job choice.

. Academic Freedom is a minimum requirement for

all jobs.

Tenure policies have followed a long struggle for
academic freedom in American colleges and universities.
Originally it was designed as a protector of academic free-
dom because the threat of job loss would not allow the pro-
fessor to pursue his tasks of teaching and research in a
creative manner. Tenure has now added some level of job
security to college professorates, allowing freedom in teach-
ing and research without job loss. Tenure has become an in-
creasing part of the faculty employment policies since the
American Association of University Professors was begun in
1915. One of the Association's presidents, William Van
Alstyne, declared that

. . tenure is translatable principally as a system
of formal assurance that thereafter the individual's
professional security and academic freedom will not

be placed in question without the observation of full
academic due process. .2

 

1David G. Brown, The Mobile Professors (Washington,
D. 0.: American Council on ucat on, , p. 163

2William Van Alstyne, "Tenure: A Summary, Explanation,
and Defense," AAUP Bulletin, LVII, No. 3 (1971), p. 328.

 

7

It was not the intent that incompetent professors
could or should not be dismissed arbitrarily or capriciously
by administrators. Nor was it intended that regents or spe-
cial interest groups could bring pressure to bear upon pro-
fessors. Although some faculty have been dismissed under such
pressures, courts have made decisions favorably to academi-
cians as characterized by the decisions made in the Roth;
and Sindermann2 cases in 1972. Bethany Fisher3 studied these
and other court cases with respect to the effect they have
had on the tenure policies of public colleges and universi-
ties. Biswanath Shaw4 and Paul Dressel5 have studied state
college and university faculty employment practices and the
various experiences of the granting and removal of tenure.
These studies have proven helpful to college administrators
in the public sector so that they can be made more aware of
current court rulings and recent experiences of similar in-

stitutions. Such information was helpful in avoiding needless

 

1U.s.s. Ct. No. 71—162, 40 U.S.L.S. 5079, June 29, 1972.
2u.s.s. Ct. No. 70-36, 40 U.S.L.W. 5087, June 29, 1972.

3Bethany Jeanne Fisher, "A Study Of the Implications
0f the Nonretention of Tenured and Nontenured Faculty For Pub-
lic Four-Year Institutions of Higher Education in the United
States," (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976).

4Biswanath Shaw, "Academic Tenure Policies and Proce—
dures in State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Which Are
Members of the National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges," (Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Mississippi, 1971).

5Paul Dressel, "A Review of the Tenure Policies of
Thirty-One Major Universities," Educational Record, XXXXIV
(July, 1963).

8
and costly litigation and more positively was helpful in the
development of those policies which demand a competent and

productive faculty.

II. The Need

The need for information regarding the tenure poli-
cies and practices of public institutions has been requested
by others. In his study of 1963, Paul Dressel compared the
tenure policies of 31 major universities concluding that
every institution has the right to

. develop its own tenure policies on the basis of

its particular philosophy, however, it is somewhat
reassuring to an institution to know that its tenure
policies are consistent with those of other ipstitu-
tions with which it must compete for faculty.

In 1970, Biswanath Shaw undertook a study of the Aca-
demic Tenure Policies and Procedures in State Universities
and Land Grant Colleges. Of the 105 colleges and universi-
ties that responded to Shaw's study, 30% of them indicated
that data were not available to provide information concern-
ing termination proceedings or dismissal of tenured faculty
members.2

In 1973, Keast presented a report to the delegates
attending the annual meeting of the Association of American
Colleges in San Francisco. He foresaw the problems of de-
clining enrollment and large numbers of tenured faculty. His
report "analyzes the current situation, makes general recom-

mendations about the mix of faculty by tenure and age, urged

institutions that have not already done so to initiate planning

 

1Dressel, p. 248. 2Shaw, p. 119.

for the future."1

The Dressel, Keast, and Shaw studies were made using
major colleges and universities as the population, and although
the results may prove helpful to the larger institutions, they
cannot be applicable to the smaller colleges. It cannot be
assumed that the smaller college has experienced a similar
drop in student enrollment. However, information regarding
tenure and collective bargaining is important to administra-
tors of smaller colleges as they must formulate policies suit-
able to their institutions. The smaller college needs to
compare its policies with those of similar institutions in
order to analyze successes and failures. Administrators in
small colleges are concerned with faculty mix with respect to
age, rank, and tenure, and they struggle with dismissing ten-
ured faculty members, both in discerning reasons for the dis-
missal and the procedures of the dismissal itself. These
studies also reflect pertinent information and answer ques-
tions regarding the effect of student enrollment on faculty,
but for the most part the studies reflect the situations and
policies of the larger institutions. The smaller colleges may
face similar situations and they need to make careful evalua-
tions of their procedures and policies so that the institutions
may forego many problems with their faculty members.

In 1975, Van Newkirk undertook a study of the tenure

 

1William R. Keast (Chairman), Commission on Academic

Tenure in Higher Education, Facult Tenure: A Re ort and Rec-
ommendations (San Francisco: Jossey-Eass Publishers, I973).

A

10
policies in private higher education. He studied 12 private
colleges and universities accredited by the Southern Associ-
ation of Secondary Schools and Colleges in the State of Vir-
ginia. He found that

. the institutions participating in the study

seemed to be oversensitive about their independence
to a point of over- protection of their internal ac-
tivities and to the preference for isolationism
rather than collective problem solv1ng.

He found the faculty members generally did not know of
the major problems currently facing higher education, that
administrators were not aware of the threats against tenure,
and that tenure policies were not being studied or revised.
None of the 12 colleges in the study had plans to abandon ten-
ure, and only 2 had modified their tenure policies in the
past 10 years.

Private higher education is a unique part Of American
education. Are professors in private colleges afforded tenure
in a manner that resembles the public institution? Are pro-
fessors who are dismissed from colleges of this type given
due process? Will the courts investigate any action within

the confines of the private college?

III. The Purpose

 

The purpose of this study is to determine the current
tenure policies and practices of the 189 colleges associated

with the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges. When

 

1Jack C. Van Newkirk, "A Review of Tenure Policies in
Private Higher Education in the Commonwealth of Virginia,
13;?)1974’ :3 gEd. .D. dissertation, College of William and Mary,
. P

 

ll

describing the current tenure practices of CASC colleges, the

purposes were to determine:

1.
2.

Faculty ratio by rank and tenure
The procedural due process afforded the tenured and non-

tenured faculty members during the past ten years

. The causes of dismissal of tenured faculty members during

the past ten years

. The number of court cases brought against the colleges by

tenured and nontenured faculty members during the past ten

years

. The various alternatives to tenure the colleges have con-

sidered or adopted.

To determine the current tenure policies of CASC

colleges, the faculty handbooks will be examined in order

to determine:

1.
2.

The definition of tenure
The pre-tenure rank, the length of the probationary period
and the number of years that service in another institution

is applied to the probationary period

. The criteria, the degree of faculty involvement in the

acquisition of tenure and the right to appeal a denial of

tenure decision

. The causes that are considered justifiable for the termina-

tion of tenure

. The stated procedural due process afforded the tenured and

nontenured faculty member

. Alternatives to tenure as described in the handbooks.

 

12

It is believed that this information will assist both
the faculty and the administration of the smaller private col-
lege to evaluate their own tenure policies and procedures, and
compare their standards to other institutions of similar size,
rather than comparing with the larger institutions.

In Chapter II, the historical context from which aca-
demic freedom and tenure has arisen will be reviewed. Sub—
jective literature and related research will be summarized.
The design of the study, including a description of the pop-
ulation, and the procedures for the collection and tabulation
of the data, will be presented in Chapter III. Chapter IV
will analyze the data and make comparisons with the related
research. Summaries and recommendations will be given in

the final chapter.

 

 

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this chapter is to put tenure into
historical perspective and to review the literature as to
the operation of tenure, crises in tenure, court cases af-
fecting tenure, the pros and cons of tenure and alternatives
to tenure. A final section of the chapter will summarize
recent subjective literature and research related to tenure

in higher education.

I. Historical Parspective
To develop an historical perspective to the rise of
tenure in this country led initially to the discussion of
academic freedom. Socrates argued

. . for freedom to continue his task of challenging
people in the a ora because of the virtually inescap-
able darkness o% the human mind. Only the gods are
wise and man is wise only in recognizing his own ig-
norance. The dialogue is eternal because man can
never seize the truth which lies beyond him in the
eternal forms. Freedom of thought is a necessary
means to prevent mere custom from hardening into a
simularcrum of truth.1

In this country, notions of academic freedom were nurtured
when in the early 18003 many American scholars began to study

in Germany. During the course of their study and travel

 

1D. O'Brien, "Licensing the Gadflies, AAUP and Tenure
Regulations," Commonweal, (October 5, 1973), p. 8

13

 

 

_ ‘h’

14

there, they became acquainted with a concept foreign to con-

temporary higher education in America. The German professor

often referred to Lernfreiheit and Lehrfreiheit.

By Lernfreiheit he meant the absence of administrative
coercion which freed the German student to roam from
university to university, to take what course he chose,
to live where he would, and to be free from all those
restrictions, characteristics of the English and Ameri-
can collegiate way, that were hostile to an atmosphere
of dedicated study and research. By Lehrfreiheit the
German professor meant the right of the university pro-

fessor to freedom of teaching, the right to study and
to report on his findings in an atmosphere of consent.

1

Before the 18005, the primary function of American

Colleges was to instruct the students, to maintain the na-

tion's cultural heritage. But when scholars returned home

from Germany, ". . . the function of our educational system

was expanded to increase knowledge as well as transmit it."2

These professors now felt compelled to examine all ideas, old

and new.

This concept of open inquiry did not set well with

many administrators, or with society in general,

and there-

fore did not have opportunity to be tested until some time

later. But in the early 18203, Thomas Jefferson, the founder

of the University of Virginia, set forth in a letter the at-

mosphere of freedom he coveted for the university: "This in-

stitution will be based on the illimiteable freedom of the

human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth

 

1Richard Hofstadter and Walter P. Metzger, The Develo -
ment of Academic Freedom in the United States (New YorR: Col-

umbia Ufiiversity Press, 1955), p. 412.

2D. P. Young and D. D. Gehring, "Teacher Employment

 

Rigggs and Due Process," Educational Horizong.
p. .

(Fall, 1973)

A

 

«w

15
wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error as long as
reason is left free to combat it."1

About one decade later, Thomas Cooper, president of
the University of North Carolina, took a courageous stand be-
fore his board of control and the southern people. At a
meeting in which he addressed his Board of Trustees, he con-
cluded his remarks with:

Sir, this Board is acting as the agent of the Legis-
lature in this affair and I claim from them and from
you, for myself and all other citizens of this State,
the right of entertaining in private, and professing
and defending in public, peaceably by all fair and
reasonable argument, any opinion whatever on any sub-
ject whatever without exception, within the illimit-
able extent of human inquiry, I claim it as one of the
RIGHTS OF MAN, before political constitutions were in-
vented or proposed. I claim it as a right clearly

of this State in particular. A right, that cannot be
refused or withheld without prostituting the Constitu-
tion of the Country a5 the foot of undelegated, dis-
cretionary authority.

With the guarantee of such freedom of inquiry and
speech in the university came the need for some job security
in the light of controversy. Academic tenure was introduced
in order to protect the professor at his work, and protect
his academic freedom.

Despite the efforts of Jefferson and Cooper, profes-
sors in the late 18003 were still unprotected, and were con-
ceived of as only employees of the institution.

In 1878 a Cornell trustee argued the right of the

1H. A. washington, ed., writin s of Thomas Jefferson,
vol. 7: (thhington, D.C.: Taylor and fiiury, I854), p. 196.

2Thomas Cooper, Dr. Coo er's Defense Before the Board
of Trustees (Columbia, SoutE CaroIina: Times and Gazette,

December 14, 1882), p. 17.

 

 

 

 

16
Cornell board to dismiss professors as summarily as
businessmen might dismiss factory laborers. But the
developing self consciousness of the academicians ar-
gued for greater job security, for rank and seniority
and salary schedules; it invited rules governing per-
manent and temporary appointments, expectations of
conditions conducive to scholarly work, and collect-
ive Eommitment to the principles of academic free-
dom.

Tenure was developed to protect the scholar's re-
search. He needed the time to finish his studies and publish
them without fear of losing his job as a result of pressure
brought to bear upon administrative officials by special in-
terest groups. The professor's right to free speech had to be
defended without fear of job loss; the country could not af-
ford to make its professors second rate citizens. It was im-
possible

to do creative research in a highly organized society
without adversely affecting the interests of some sec-
tor and encountering charges of heresy from defenders
of the faith. Tenure was devised to protect the ra-
tional examination of ideas, concepts and proposi-
tions from personal bias and dislike.2

To compound the intensity of the problems over
academic freedom and the university, wealthy entrepreneurs
gave large endowments to many colleges and universities, but
with these large gifts came certain unofficial expectations.
It was not difficult to see how certain independent-minded
social scientists might bring down the wrath of some of these

donors by their research and subsequent publications. The

1Frederick Rudolph, The American Colle e and Uni-
versitz (New York: Vintage BooRs, 1965), p. 41%.

2Norman Hackerman, "Uses and Abuses of Tenure,"
Journal of Medical Education, (March, 1975), p. 253.

 

 

 

 

 

l7

conclusions printed by professors often ran directly counter
to the philosophies of the contributors, and thus there arose
a continually greater number of violations of academic free-
dom reported on the campuses.1

It was during this time of academic ferment that an
elite group of faculty members from Johns Hopkins University
first conceived of and later invited faculty members from
other universities to join them in the establishment of an
Association of University Professors. The "Call for the
Meeting for Organization of National Association of University
Professors," was sent out in 1914. The purpose of the pro-
posed Association was stated as follows:

1. To facilitate a more effective cooperation among

the members of the profession in the discharge of

their special responsibilities as custodians of the

interests of higher education and research in Amer-

ica

2. To promote a more general and methodical discussion
of problems relating to education in higher insti-
tutions of learning

3. To create means for the authoritative expression
of public opinion of college and university teachers

4. To make collective action possible; and

5. To maintain and advance the standards and ideals of
the profession.

As a result of the initial meeting, Committee A was
made a standing committee of the organization for the pur—

pose of investigating various charges of the violation of

 

1Hofstadter and Metzger, pp. 420-451.

2"Call For the Meeting of Organization of a National
Association of University Professors," AAUP Bulletin, II
(1916). p. 11. ““—"“'———-

 

 

 

 

18
academic freedom of its members. Five major investigations
of alleged violations of academic freedom were made the first
year. It was during these investigations that Committee A
and its first chairman, Professor A. A. Young recommended and
received an expansion of the committee's responsibilities to
not only include the matters affecting academic freedom, but
also the matters involving academic tenure.l

Two years later Committee A reiterated its concern
about violations of academic tenure as well as academic free-
dom. One of the members of Committee A dissented, however,
and expressed his dissent in this manner:

(1) It is unwise to shift emphasis from academic free-
dom to academic tenure; (2) it should not be the aim
of the Association to secure vindication and rein-
statement of professors unjustly dismissed from their
posts; and (3) the overemphasis of tgnure will result
in the retention of incompetent men.

With the controversy overshadowing the concept of
tenure even within the ranks of the members of the American
Association of University Professors and the members of
Committee A., the idea of formal tenure developed slowly.
University faculty members generally favored the idea, but
administrators were skeptical. It took a full 10 years, from
1915 to 1925 for the Association of American Colleges, which

represented college administrators to join with the struggling

association of professors in the supporting and defining of

 

1A. A. Young, "Report of Committee A," AAUP Bulletin,
II (1916), p. 17.

28 2"Report of Committee A," AAUP Bulletin IV (1918),
p. O

A

 

 

19

the concept of tenure.1

In 1925, the Association of American Colleges called
for a conference

. . . for the purpose of discussing the principles of
academic freedom and tenure, with a view to formulat-
ing a succinct statement of these principles. Par-
ticipating in this conference were representatives of
a number of organizations of higher education. At
this conference there was formulated a statement of
principles known to the profession as the 1925 Con-
ference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure. In
the formulation of this statement, the participants
were not seeking to formulate new principles, but
rather to restate good academic custom and usage as
these had been developed in practice over a long pe-
riod of time in institutions whose administrations
were aware of the nature of the academic calling and
function of academic institutions.

But the AAUP and the Association of American Colleges
still hosted many vocal critics. In 1930, L. L. Thurstone
wrote:

In the past we have relied on the moral effects of the
reports of the American Association of University Pro-
fessors. These reports are frankly limited to fact
finding in the hope that the publications of facts
will gradually have some effect in changing the poli-
cies of colleges. It is a matter of general observa-
tion that the reports of the AAUP have no teeth. Fre-
quently the moral effect is insignificant, especially
in those situations where the trusteeg defy the pro-
fessors or simply ignore the reports.

L. L. Thurstone continued to call for more stringent action

 

1Allan D. anister, ed., University Fagulty in Crisis:
Collective Bargaining, Tenure, Faculty Developmgnt, Occasional
apers n g er ucat (Denver: ERIC Document Reproduction

on
Serv1ce, ED , 75 , p. 51.

 

2Louis Joughin ed., Academic Freedom and Tenure (Madi-
son, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), p. 157.

3L. L. Thurstone, "Academic Freedom," AAUP Bulletin,
XVI (1930), p. 454.

 

A

 

 

20
by the AAUP and in 1931, the AAUP added a new weapon to its
arsenal in creating what it called its "non-recommended list,"
made up of various colleges and universities which were con-
sistently found in violation of the stated principles of aca-
demic freedom and tenure.1

But the AAUP did not really want to get into an ag-
gressive crusade against particular cases in which the
principles of academic freedom and tenure were violated; in-
stead the AAUP preferred to set a standard and hoped that var-
ious substandard institutions would seek to meet its stand-
ard. The 1922 committee reports reflect this sentiment.

Our work will have a more effective influence if we
concern ourselves primarily with the establishment
of proper standards and only secondarily with the
question of remedizing individual cases of justice.
It rarely happens that anything the association can
do can be of much direct service to the injured par-
ties. It will achieve most if it tries to bend its
forces toward making repetitions of the kind of of-
fenses that occurred in the past impossible.

The 1925 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom
and Tenure did not really accomplish its goal of establish-
ing standards, but remained apart from individual cases of
violation of academic freedom and tenure.3 By 1936 several

conferences were begun to create a more workable and more

widely acceptable Statement of Principles. The preliminary

 

1L. L. Thurstone, "The Thurstone Plan For Enforcing
the Principles of Freedom and Tenure," AAUP Bulletin, XXIII
(May, 1932), pp. 361-363.

2"Extracts From Committee Reports and Official
Addresses," AAUP Bulletin, VIII (December, 1922), p. 46.

3Henry N. wriston, "Academic Freedom and Tenure,"
AAUP Bulletin, XXIV (1939), pp. 328-329.

A

 

 

21
work was done by 1938. After some modification and further
development, the American Association of University Professors
and the Association of American Colleges presented their final
document, known as the 1940 Statement of Principles on Aca-
demic Freedom and Tenure.1
These associations defined tenure as
. . . a means to certain ends; specifically: (1)
Freedom of teaching and research and of extramural
activities and (2) a sufficient degree of economic
security to make the profession attractive to men
and women of ability. Freedom and economic security,
hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an
institution in fulfil§ing its obligations to its stu-
dents and to society.
The World wars brought special problems to college
and university faculties in the areas of job security and
academic freedom. The job security aspect of tenure emerged
during the Depression; academic freedom was the major concern
during the wars. Tenure had finally found its place in the
American colleges and universities as major protector of aca-
demic freedom coupled with a reasonable degree of job security.
After 25 years of experience, the American Associ-
ation of University Professors had earned the respect of
faculties, administrators, and trustees in institutions of
higher learning across the United States. Committee A,
through patience and careful evaluation had, without legal

authority, wielded great power and influence in the enlisting

and maintaining of college faculties. Edward C. Kirkland

 

1See appendix A for the complete text of the 1940
Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

2"Statement of Principles, 1940," AAUP Bulletin,
xxvn (1941). p. 40.

 

 

 

 

22

attested to this effectiveness in the Annual Report of
Committee A, 1946. The figures in the report
. reflect the growing appreciation on the part of
professors and scholars that in the Association they
have an effective instrument to redress of injustice.
The response to violations of generally accepted prin-
ciples of academic freedom and tenure is no longer
apathy or resignation; it is an appeal to Committee A.1
At the end of World War II, the AAUP could look back
over its nearly thirty-five years of service to higher educa-
tion with a certain amount of accomplishment and pride. It
had survived two world wars and the Great Depression, and
had given careful, precise language to its standards of aca-
demic freedom tested during the wars, and academic tenure,
tested during the Depression. But academic freedom was to be
given its greatest test in the decade that followed.
Communism threatened to infiltrate the American col-
leges and universities. Would it seek to become a part of
the faculties of various institutions of higher education?
Would the AAUP give special consent to seating of well-
qualified professors on college faculties who were in all
areas well suited for the job but were members of the Com-
munist party? Some voices said Communists should not be al-
lowed on American college faculties. Because of the develop-
ing character of youth, professors must use some discretion

in how they present scientific or political views, and Com-

munist professors may not be as sympathetic as needed.

 

1Edward C. Kirkland, "Annual Report of Committee A,"
AAUP Bulletin, XXXI (1946), pp. 7-8.

 

 

 

23

Fritz Machlup took exception to this concept and declared:
To maintain a healthy state of thought and opinion in
the country, it is desirable for adherents of Commu-
nism, like those of other forms of revolutionary
thoughts, to present their views, especially in col-
leges and universities so that they may be checked by
open discu331on.

During these controversies, the AAUP did not desire
to make academic freedom a matter for the courts; it preferred
that matters be settled through the procedures outlined by
Committee A. During the McCarthy era, Committee A was reluct-
ant to investigate violations of academic freedom, making the
courts the only effective alternative open to the accused
faculty members.

The 19603 proved to be the years of campus unrest,
with some impetus supplied by the controversial Viet Nam War.
The 1970 Report of the President's Commission on Campus Un-
rest (The Scranton Commission) reported that tenure may have
been one of the underlying causes of student unrest. It
". . supported the need for 'Academic Freedom' for teachers
but did not relate tenure to this ideal. Rather, the report
concluded that to improve teaching, tenure should be 'recon-
sidered.'"2

In 1971 the Haven Report on Higher Education reported

that ". . . to achieve change in teaching in higher education,

it is necessary to 'revise standard tenure policies--1eading

 

1Fritz Machlup, "On Some Misconceptions Concerning
Academic Freedom," AAUP Bulletin, XXXXI (1955), p. 753.

2Charles F. Wilson, The Case For and A ainst Tenure
(Dallas: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, EU 106 944, 19

p. 8

 

 

 

24
toward short-term contracts for at least some categories of
faculty positions.”1

To answer the charges against tenure made by the
Scranton and Haven reports, the Commission on Academic Ten-
ure in Higher Education was established in 1971. It was
created by the Association of American Colleges and the
American Association of University Professors. It was funded
by a grant from the Ford Foundation. The task of the commis-
sion was to

consider the operation of the tenure system in
higher education, to evaluate the criticisms of aca-
demic tenure made during recent years, to consider
alternatives to tenure in effect or proposed for
adoption, and to recommend needed modifications or
improvements in the tenure system if it is to be re-
tained.

The remainder of this chapter deals with tenure and
academic freedom in greater detail. Specifically, discussion
relates to the operation of the tenure system in American
higher education: the crises that have occurred at universi-
ties in the early 19703; the courts and what affect court de-
cisions have had on the direction of tenure; the concept of
tenure pro and con; and alternatives to tenure and the re-
sponse of the academic community to these proposed alterna-
tives. A final section of the chapter summarizes recent
subjective literature and research related to tenure in

higher education.

 

1Ibid., p. 5.
2Keast, p. xi.

 

 

 

25
II. The Operation of Tenure
In the early 19703, tenure was a high-priority issue
in higher education with a great amount of published material
supporting and criticizing its operation. Specialized jour-
nals such as Science1 and Physical Educator2 printed arti-
cles that related the problems of the teaching faculty of
the particular discipline to the turmoil of tenure.
As complicated and open to philosophical rumination
as the issues were, it seems hardly possible that
any relevant topic, theory, prediction, or solution
failed to be mentioned during this period. If the
publications of recent months are a good indicator,
it now appears that the excitement is tapering off,
and it becomes more clear that we have been witness
to a slight case of overreaction.3
The "overreaction" which intensified job security
issues in higher education was largely caused by "declining
enrollments, rising unemployment, excess teacher supply,
pressure to employ more teachers from racial and ethnic mi-
norities, rising school costs, and increased insistence upon
managerial accountability. ."4
This recent attention surrounding the practice of

tenure has not been unique to teachers. The developments of

 

1Dael Wolfe and Charles V. Kidd, "The Future Market
for Ph.D.'3," Science, (August, 1973), pp. 784-793.

2Darrel Crase, "The Tenure Crisis: Implications For
Higgfr Education Faculty," Physical Educator, (October, 1975),
p. 5.

3Wilam A. Simpson, "Tenure: A Perspective of Past,
Present, and Future," Educational Record, (Winter, 1974), p. 48.

4Myron Lieberman, "Tenure: A New High-Priority Issue,"
Phi Delta Xappan, (March, 1975), p. 450.

 

 

26
teacher tenure have paralleled

. . similar trends in federal, state, and local pub-
lic employment and in private industry. Employment
security in other public employment covered by stat-
utes, and in private employment covered by collective
bargaining agreements, is substantially the same as
the tenure protection accorded to teachers. Specif-
ically, there must be just cause for dismissal, the
burden of proof is on the employer, and the proce-
dure followed must meet tEe requirements of 'due pro-
cess' and fair treatment.

It is well known today, and popularized by Abraham
Maslow, that mankind has certain lower order needs, sometimes
referred to as survival needs. Among these basic survival
needs are safety and security, and they must first be sat-
isfied before the higher level needs of belonging, social ac-
ceptance, and personal esteem can be realized. Without some
sense of belonging or personal worth, employees cannot func-
tion efficiently in their jobs. A faculty member cannot per-
form well in the classroom without a certain level of satis-
faction of the higher level needs. Therefore, it is in the
best interest of the pupils, the public, and the administra-
tion that attention be given to tenure, a lower order need,
so that higher level needs may be experienced.

In summary, an administration which provides num-
erous leadership positions, involves its faculty in
decision making, and encourages innovative techniques,
will find it has fewer teachers suffering from the
'tenure teacher syndrome.‘ This type of administra-
tion-staff organization will promote an atmosphere of

flexibility in which administration and faculty can

work together for new and better educational programs.2

 

1Theodore H. Lang, "Teacher Tenure As a Management
Problem," Phi Delta Kappen, (March, 1975), p. 459.

2S. J. Stone and B. Pegas, "Stimulating the Tenure
Teacher," Journal of Secondary Education, (April, 1969), p. 168.

 

 

27

Just how does the faculty committee on tenure proceed
to evaluate those faculty members who are eligible for tenure?
To begin with, the criterion must be consistent with the
stated purposes of the institutions, suiting its particular
history.

It matters little whether the institution sees itself
as educating in the scholarly sense--transmitting
knowledge to the community at large through published
research--or in the equally valid but narrower sense
of educating its students. Where an institution
chooses to place itself between these two poles is
purely a matter of emphasis. In fact, the possibilities
for staffing to reflect different emphases are prac-
tically limitless. Each institution is distinctive
insofar as staffing definitions fend to focus at a
single point along the spectrum.

R. D. Bauer studied the tenuring process at one cam-
pus of the University of California and one campus of the
California State University system. His evaluating committee
considered each candidate's contribution to the university un-
der three general headings; teaching, research, and committee
activities. Twenty faculty members from each university were
chosen for an interview. Each had received tenure from his
respective institution within one year. Each agreed unani-
mously that committee activities were a minor concern in the
tenure granting process, but teaching and research were of
different concern at the two universities. At the University
of California, two of the faculty members

. felt teaching should carry the greatest weight,

eleven thought that the demonstration of research
abilities should be of greatest importance and seven

 

1J. A. Soules and L. C. Buhl, "Reviving Promotion and
Tenure: A Systematic Approach," Educational Record, (Winter,
1972), p. 74.

 

 

28

thought nearly equal weight would be given to each
aspect of faculty commitment. Eighteen of this group
believed that their creative activities were in prac-
tice as important as their teaching, if not of con-
siderable greater importance, in the tenure decision.1

However, at the California State university

. every individual responded that the teaching
activities carried the heaviest weight in the tenure
decision process. No respondent felt that research
activities were of greater influence in making this
decision at what was frequently characterized as
principally a 'teaching institution.‘ It is inter-
esting to note that eight persons did feel rather
strongly that research and professional activities
should play a significant part in making the tenure
decision and some commented that these aspects would
be given additional weight as the state university
continued to develop and build a professional repu-
tation. Some state university faculty members ex-
pressed the idea that research and creative activi-
ties were, in general, reasonable indicators of pro-
fessional growth and that success in these areas very
frequently carried over to augment success in
teaching.

In spite of the emphasis upon research in the major
universities, it must be remembered that

. it is only about 10 percent of the faculty who
produce 90 percent of this kind of output. The 90
percent who don' t produce are nonetheless 'intellec-
tually creative,‘ to varying extents and with differ-
ing degrees of success, of course. Writing a sylla-
bus, reorganizing existing offerings, inventing new
courses, reading and synthesizing others' ideas—-
many products are more directly connected to teach-
ing t an i3 scholarship in the creative and produc-
tive arts.

If an institution is primarily a teaching institution,

 

1Roger D. Bauer, "Security Versus Freedom: Some
Faculty Views On The Tenure Process," Phi Delta Kappan,
(December, 1972), p. 279.

21bid., pp. 279-280.
3Robert T. Blackburn, Tenure: Aspects of Job Secur-

it On the Chan in Ca us (Atlanta: Southern Regional Educa-
t ona Boar , , p.

 

 

 

29
the faculty committee has problems evaluating instruction
because stated criteria are not clear. The evaluation of in-
struction tends to be informal and based upon the opinions of
other faculty members, but most faculty members desire more
objectivity in the evaluative process.

When reviewing persons eligible for tenure, many fac-
ulty committees receive supporting documents from appropriate
sources. These documents include personal vita, student eval-
uations, peer evaluations, and statements of recommendations.1
At the time the person eligible for tenure is interviewed by
the faculty committee on tenure, he should be prepared to
discuss with the committee the characteristics of his stu-
dents as he sees them, the content of his classes, his teach-
ing methodology, resource materials that he uses in the class-
room, and the methods he uses for student evaluation and
grading.2

Student evaluation of instruction is widely used, es-
pecially where the college considers itself primarily a
teaching institution, but there is great variance in opinions
regarding the

. use, selection, evaluation, and application of

student evaluation. A major objection revolves
around the qualification of students to judge the ef-
fectiveness of a given professor in terms of the uni-

versity' 3 overall objectives. There was general agree-
ment that some student input regarding teaching

1JeDon A. Emenhiser, Implementing a Tenure ggota: The
Col ate Case 19Ne¥ York: ERIC ocument epro uct on erv1ce
ED 597 847,174 p.37.

2Richard C. Williams, "Tenure Practices--Redefined,"
Junior College Journal, (May, 1969), p. 29

 

 

 

 

30

effectiveness was desirable if only for the self-
improvement of the instructor, but it was less certain
what weight should be assigned to it in a significant
tenure decision. These apprehensions may be resolved
when a distinction is made, if it can be, between
participation in the process and the final decision-
making responsibility as exercised by some authority
whoseldecisions are considered legitimate by the fac-
u ty.

The difficulties of establishing criteria for tenure
and determining the procedures for granting tenure are multi-
faceted. An examination of the tenure problems at some spe-
cific institutions of higher education could result in clearer

understanding and proper application of principles.

III. Crises In Tenure

 

There are many influences outside higher education
which are forcing changes in institutions. In 1973, Robert
Nisbeth listed seven such influences that he predicted would
"destroy the present system of tenure." He saw a continuing
change of national priorities from education to health, en-
vironment, and social security. He saw in the public eye a
degraded position given to colleges and universities. He
identified a blurring of the academic and the non-academic,
resulting in the rise of new and competing institutions which
have been here-to-fore conceived of as entities outside higher
education. He also anticipated a revolt of the young and am-
bitious against higher education, the rise of collective bar-

gaining on campus and a rage to litigation.2

 

1Bauer, p. 280.

2Robert Nisbeth, "The Future of Tenure," Change,
(April, 1973). Pp. 32-33.

A

 

 

31
Hodgkinson knew that the troubles on campus in the
19703 were inevitable. With the mushrooming student enroll-
ments, there had to follow a parallel mushrooming in size of
the university faculties. In 1970 he predicted that "the

seventies will be different—-there are more teachers than

jobs, and this will continue for most of the decade."1

Some of the consequences of the sixties, he went on
to say, could be seen in that

. . tenure was awarded more often and to younger
scholars. On many campuses, the instructor rank
nearly died out completely--the initial appointment
was at the assistant professor level; and in the
university context, the work of the instructor was
carried by a new group, the teaching assistagts, who
often exchanged servitude for the doctorate.

Of course, with the earlier tenuring of new faculty
members, and declining enrollments, there came a dramatic
slowing of the hiring and tenuring process of many universi-
ties. Some universities had to "lay-off" many tenured fac—
ulty members while others entered into what has been called
steady-state staffing.

From the evidence then, the best inference is that
the collective faculty will age; that is the average
age of faculty in institutions of higher education
will increase markedly from the current figure of ap-
proximately 41 years. Furthermore, the proportion

in each higher rank will increase to an appreciable
degree. Therefore, assuming no change in current
practices, the pgrcentage of tenured faculty will in-
crease markedly.

Not only has the average age of faculty members been

 

1Harold L. Hodgkinson, Institutions In Transition
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1970), p. 15.

2Ibid. 3Blackburn, p. 6.

 

 

 

32
increasing, but with continued inflationary pressures it has
become even more difficult to spend the money to bring the
young and creative into faculty ranks. "State appropriations
for higher education have increased 29 percent in the past two
years, but an estimated two-thirds of that increase already
has been gobbled up by inflation."1

But steady-state staffing has not proven to be all
that easy. Some have interpreted steady-state staffing to
imply some sort of a quota system. The Keast Study alluded
to such, generating considerable discussion and controversy
and in its twentieth recommendation, the commission suggested

. that each institution develop policies relating

to the proportion of tenured and nontenured faculty
that will be compatible with the composition of its
present staff, its resources and projected enrollment,
and its future objectives. In the commission's nearly
unanimous judgment, it will probably be dangerous for
most institutions if tenured faculty constitute more
than one-half to two-thirds of t e total full-time
faculty during the decade ahead.

But there is a finite number of fixed positions on
the faculties of the colleges and universities in the United
States. If each position were filled with a tenured faculty
member, there would be no place for recently graduated per-
sons to join a faculty without the resignation, retirement,
or death of tenured members. Such a situation would not en-

courage creative talent to prepare for the professorate. So

the question remains, what percentage of faculty may become

 

1Jack Magarrell, "State Support. Up Twenty- -Nine Per-

cent in Two Years," Chronicle of Higher Education (Oct. 21,
1974), p. 1.

2Keast, p. 50.

 

 

 

33
tenured before tenure adversely affects the university?

Is there benefit to a university to have non-tenured
members of the faculty on staff? Is it a benefit to engage
the services of more probationary faculty than it can possi-
bly tenure?

To a degree it does, if the institution wishes to sel-
ect as its tenured faculty the best of those it has
observed in action on its own campus, and not simply
to award tenure to all it hires. But the controlling
variable is the number of vacancies the institution
can expect in its tenured staff.

W. Todd Furniss has suggested the following devices
for alleviating the problems of unbalanced faculties. He
suggests: First, that no institution hire any person who has
not yet completed his terminal credentials, and second, make
no tenure commitments, written or verbal, but rather, adhere
to the institution's regulations on the length of probationary
periods. He proposes the establishment of a nontenure class-
ification for certain classes of faculty and that appointments
with immediate tenure be used sparingly. And finally, he pur-
ported that more temporary appointments be made on most col-
lege and university campuses.

Steady-state staffing may be a concern of colleges
and universities for most of the 19703.

Although female enrollments as a percentage of the
college-age population have remained essentially
steady, approximately 37.6 percent of the nation's

18 to 19 year old men were enrolled in colleges and
universities in the fall of 1972, compared with 44

 

1W. Todd Furniss, "Steady-State Staffing: Issues For
1974," Educational Record, (Spring, 1974), p. 91.

 

 

 

34
percent in the fall of 1969.1

In the state of New York, the percentage of high

school graduates who planned to attend college dropped from

41% in 1964 to under 39% in 1972.2 Berendzen concluded that

if

the

. . . the average rate of enrollment between 1950 and
1970 were maintained, higher education would continue
to be an expanding enterprise until the late 19708.
That is, the number of young people required to main-
tain such growth is adequate if a substantial percent-
age of them will continue to go to higher education
institutions. But by the early 19805, due to the de-
cline in the nation‘s population of 18-24 year olds,
the higher education enrollment is bound to drop, un-
less the percentage of youth who then enroll reaches
incredibly high levels, above those for any other
period in the country's history. If the rate of in-
crease in enrollment remains at approximately the 1970
level, the enrollment of 18-24 year olds in higher
education institutions will unquestionably decline.

Parker made about the same projections, saying that
potential number of full-time equivalent students

. . . is ample to support increasing enrollments
throughout the 19708. On the assumptions that
continuing and part-time education will experience
considerable growth, that the decline in the college-
age attendance rate will level off and perhaps reverse
itself, and that all higher post-secondary institu-
tions will engage in strenuous efforts to revise cur-
ricula and attract students, this writer projects a
continuing, but decelerating, enrollment increase
through the 19703 that may see the collegiate level
total rise by 10-15 percent over 1972-1973 . . . but
collegiate level enrollments conceivably could decline

 

1Larry L. Leslie and Howard F. Miller, Higher Educa-

tion and Stead State (washington, D.C.: ERIC Higher Educa-
tion esearc eport Number 5, 1974), p. 6.

2Office of Planning in Higher Education, "Projected

Full-Time Undergraduate Enrollments for New York State Through
1990," (Albany: State Education Department, October, 1973).

3Berendzen, p. 120.

 

35
25-30 percent in the 19808.1

Student enrollment, of course, is directly related to
the number of faculty that an institution can employ. The
number of teaching jobs available to the graduate student has
greatly diminished. The number of potential faculty members
will far exceed the demand for new or replacing faculty posi-
tions for years to come, perhaps into the 19905. It is an
employer's market and colleges and universities need to ex-
ercise due caution, for they need to grant positions of ten-
ure to only the most qualified, especially since the steady-
state staffing allows for so few available tenure openings.

If enrollment drops off as much as 20%, there must
follow an equal reduction in faculty positions. This means
the laying off of some faculty members, perhaps even tenured
professors. The AAUP's 1940 Statement of Principles allowed
for such lay-offs, but stated that such financial need had to
be bona fide. Thus the statement fails to precisely define
financial exigency. Those professors involved in the dismis-
sals were expected to test the financial state of the particu-
lar universities in the courts.

A New Jersey court, concerned about the lack of a
precise definition of financial exigency, presented the fol-
lowing test of exigency.

The test best suited to effectuate the intent of the
parties on judicial review of the college's action,

therefore, is whether the action taken followed from
the board's demonstrably bona fide belief, under honestly

 

1Garland G. Parker, "College and University Enrollments
in America, 1973-1974," Intellect, (February, 1974), p. 330.

 

 

 

36
formulated standards, in the existence of a financial
exigency and extra-ordinary attendant circumstances,
and in the necessity for terminating tenured faculty
members as a means of relieving the exigent condi-
tion. Interrelated therewith is the question of
whether sufficient credible evidence of 'exigency'
and 'extraordinary circumstances' exist as to provide
a basis for the conclusions reached if the exercise
of a reasonable and prudent judgment. -

Even though a faculty handbook does not refer to or
define financial exigency,

. . custom and usage of the academic trade or busi-
ness can establish that this is a term of the contract
and cause for termination is concerned, not only the
practices of educational institutions as a whole are
relevant.

When courts are called upon to determine financial
exigency as a basis for tenured faculty dismissal, they must
determine two distinct matters: (1) Does a financial exigency
exist? (2) Were the appropriate faculty members selected for
dismissal? "Unfettered discretion is inherently capable of
abuse, and, the captain of a sinking ship should not be al-
lowed to order activist faculty members to give up their
life jackets first."3

One court defined financial exigency to its jury as
follows:

'Financial ability' as used herin, means the ability
to provide from current income, both cash and accrued

 

1American Association of University Professors Bloom-

field ColIe e C53 ter v. Bloomfield Colle e, 129 N.J. Super.
, . 974), affirmed, I36 N.J. Super. 442,
346 A. 2d 615 (1975).

2"Financial Exigency as Cause For Termination of Ten-
ured Faculty Members in Private Post Secondary Educational In-
stitutions," Iowa Law Review, (December, 1976), p. 519.

31bid., p. 520.

 

 

 

37
the funds necessary to meet current expenses including
current debt payment and sound reserves, without
invading or depleting capital. 'Financial exigency'
means an urgent need to reorder the nature and magni-
tude of financial obligations in such a way as to re-
store 0f preserve the financial ability of the insti-
tution.

With the employment situation so tight in higher edu-
cation and with little prospect for employment at other in-
stitutions, tenured and non—tenured faculty members alike
tend to be willing to go to whatever means necessary to hold
onto their jobs. The Virginia State Board for Community
Colleges decided against the granting of tenure to any fac-
ulty members in all twenty-two of its state institutions.
Spokesman for the AAUP expressed ". . . immediate and grave
concern for the principles of academic freedom, tenure, and
due process as developed and accepted generally in American
higher education."2

In June of 1973, the Board of Trustees of Bloomfield
College in Bloomfield, New Jersey, a small, private coeduca-
tional institution, tried to abolish tenure and fired eleven
teachers who had already been granted tenure. The president
of Bloomfield College, Dr. Merle F. Allshouse, claimed that
the deteriorating financial condition of the college with the

declining enrollments and increased expenses made it necessary

to reduce its total faculty by eighteen members. The AAUP

 

1James L. Peterson, "The Dismissal of Tenured Faculty
For Reasons of Financial Exigency," Indiana Law Journal, (Win-
ter, 1976), p. 420.

2"Elimination of Faculty Tenure: Community Colleges,"
Intellect, (March, 1974), p. 346.

p 38

filed suit in Superior Court of New Jersey on behalf of the
local chapter and the dismissed teachers. If Bloomfield were
to have liquidated all of its assets it would still have had
a deficit of $1,163,000.00. The projected net operating defi-
cit for the following year was $2,329,000.00. Bloomfield was
in serious financial trouble. It was on the verge of finan-
cial collapse.1

These facts notwithstanding, Judge Antell concluded

that Bloomfield College was not in a condition of

financial exigency. On August 5, 1974, Judge Antell

signed the order reinstating the tenured plaintiffs,

the same gay the College filed for Chapter XI pro-

ceedings.

About the same time the University of Wisconsin sent
lay-off notices to 88 tenured faculty members on 9 of its
campuses. A greater number of nontenured faculty members did
not have their appointments renewed. The board of regents
was taken to court, and Judge Doyle sided with the regents
and the administration to make budget accommodations "without
impairing the performance of the 'mission' of the respective
campuses."3

At Southern Illinois university, 28 tenured contracts
were broken in December of 1974.

Deans and department chairmen received quotas in dol-

lar amounts to be cut from departmental salary bud-
gets. Faculty to be out were to be identified on

 

1M. F. Allshouse, "New Academic Slalom: Mission, Per-
sonnel Planning, Financial Exigency, Due Process," Liberal
Education, (October, 1975), p. 359.

21bid.

 

3John v. Board of Regents of the University of Wis-
consin (74-0-142 W. D. Wise. June 13.71974), p. 13.

39
the basis of participation in programs of marginal
value or low productivity, taking into account the

university's commitment to affirmativi action but
not the tenure status of individuals.

Of great concern to the local chapter of the AAUP

was a notice in the New York Times asking for applications

 

for positions in one of the colleges that had just released
faculty members. Suit was filed by the AAUP and the Illi-
nois Federation of Teachers. But

. by the end of June several of the twenty-eight

professors had been placed in other positions on the
campus and all but one of the others had accepted a
settlement from the Board of Trustees. The lawsuit
‘waS‘withdrawn.

If Southern Illinois University could absorb some
of the recently laid-off faculty members, perhaps other
institutions could follow suit with beneficial effects
for both the institutions and the individuals.

In 1976, four tenured philosophers were fired from
the Rockefeller University, New York City. The president of

the university and board of directors had to . come to
terms with the financial pressures of the past decade and to
rethink both the financial and scientific future of the in-
stitution."3

Actually, the university had been preparing for more

than two years to scrap the philosophy department. Junior

 

1Martha Friedman, "How Southern Illinois University
Broke 28 Tenured Contracts," Phi Delta Kappan, (March, 1975),
p. 463.

21bid. p. 464.

3"The Rockefeller university: No Time For Philosophers,"
Science, (January 21, 1977), p. 273.

 

40

faculty members had not been promoted and no graduate students
had been accepted. At first, the philosophers claimed that
the university had violated the principle of tenure, and there
'was some consideration of litigation against the university.
However the 4 tenured faculty members each settled with the
university by accepting 3 years' pay and also received good
job offers from outstanding universities.

Faculty members from.other departments of the uni-
versity began to feel uneasy about the manner in which the
whole situation had been handled. The president of the board
of trustees made a reassuring statement, exclaiming that

. . the university 'has not altered and does not
contemplate altering the long standing policy whereby
a tenured faculty member is assured the security of
his academic position and salary, and the freedom to
pursue his scholarly interests whatever they may be.
Informally, assurances were given that the jobs of fhe
mathematics, physics, and logic groups were secure.

The Florida State Universities set out to retrain
members of its faculties who were no longer needed in their
present locations. The state legislators sought to work
with the State Universities as they set up guidelines for

. . a program of retraining certain tenured faculty
for positions in understaffed fields of critical need.

Essential features of the retraining grants are:

l. The period for which the grants are made will not
exceed three academic quarters

2. Payment will be in the form of full salary by the
university

3. Payment of an expense reimbursement (tuition, etc.)
not to exceed $3, 000 may be made by the State Uni-
versity System.

 

11bid.

41

To be eligible, the candidate must be tenured. . .
He must be no more than 55 years old. . . . One of
the interesting features of the Florida program.is
that it does not prescribe simply formal academic
study as the sole method of retraining. . . . It

is possible to develop programs of individual study
under a recognized authority in the field or to ob-
tain practical experience in industry or with an-
other public agency.

What procedures are followed when dismissing a fac-
ulty member for reasons of financial exigency?

A revised tenure policy for example, could specify
that an educational institution has discretion to
identify the tenured faculty members who are to be
terminated because of financial exigency. This how-
ever, would appear to be unwise, . . . A sounder ap-
proach would be to . . . provide a more specific def—
inition of financial exigency. In addition a tenure
policy should provide guarantors of good faith such
as the requirement that a terminated faculty mem-
ber be offered reinstatement if his or her position
becomes open within three years of termination.
Finally, and most important, the policy should provide
an internal procedure that will ensure that termina-
tion for financial exigency is based on sound educa-
tional considerations.

There have been recent court cases in addition to the
ones already mentioned that have clearly set the direction of
tenure for many years to come. The role of the courts in the

development of the tenure concept is clearly significant.

IV. Court Rulings That Have Affected the Concept of Tenure
In recent years, when faculty openings were many and
candidates were few, termination did not have the effect it

has today. Usually the professor who lost his job could

 

1John P. Lunstrum, "Faculty Retraining in Florida
State Universities," Phi Delta Kappan, (March, 1975), p. 465.

 

2"Financial Exigency as Cause For Termination of Ten-
ured Faculty Members in Private Post Secondary Education In-
stitutions," p. 520.

42
easily find another job elsewhere, and did so, even if it in-
volved receiving less pay or going to a smaller college. To-
day, if a professor experiences the termination of his tenure
contract, he may not only lose his position but also he may
be forced to leave his profession. Under these conditions
most individuals who are losing their faculty positions will
take their plea to court, if they believe they have any chance
of reversing the decision.

More than a decade ago David Fellman, former chairman
of Committee A, was concerned about this frequent use of the
courts to settle academic matters. He called for college and
university faculties to ". . . face the fact that more and
more aspects of academic freedom and tenure were getting in-
volved in litigation, and that increasingly, courts were being
called upon to pass judgment upon some of our most acute pro-
blems."1 Since the printing of Dr. Fellman's warning, the
courts have passed judgment upon academic matters and have
shaped the structure and wording of faculty contracts in col-
leges and universities across America.

Three amendments to the United States Constitution

that have become a part of this shaping process are:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an estab-
lishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exer-
cise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a

 

1David Fellman, "Report of Committee A, 1963—1964,"
AAUP Bulletin, (1964), p. 126.

43

redress of grievances.1

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital,
or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a present-
ment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Mili-
tia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same
offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be
a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, with-
out just compensation.

Amendment XIV

All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State where-
in they reside. No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law nor deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
law.

According to the Fifth Amendment, one is not entitled
to due process unless it can be proven that he has lost some-
thing, either life, liberty, or property. He has not lost
life. And he has not lost liberty, for the professor's lib-
erty is protected here and in the first amendment, and it is
not a professor's liberty that is being guaranteed, but lib-
erty to all citizens. Property is the matter that the courts

have examined. Is the professor whose position is being

 

1U.S., Constitution, amend. I.

2U.S., Constitution, amend. V.

30.8., Constitution, amend. XIV, sec. 1.

44
terminated losing property?
The AAUP, accrediting agencies, and many faculty hand-
books have defined tenure in a manner which the courts have '
not accepted. The courts have recognized tenure only as

. the termination of a probationary period and the
establishment of a mere expectancy of continued em-
ployment. . . . 'Expectancy of continued employment'
that results from a grant of tenure is recognized by
the courts as 'property.'

Expectancy of continued employment can be expressed
in a faculty contract, and as such is not altered by one's
tenure status, or even by the elimination of tenure alto-
gether.

. . The nontenured instructor and even the teacher
hired with no formal contract but with clearly ime
plied promises of continued employment are equally
secure against discharge for the exercise of a pro-
tected right as is the person who has earEed con-
tinuing employment under a tenure system.

When a court establishes that one is being deprived
of property, he must be given "due process," which is regarded
as a process and not a definition. According to Chief Justice
warren,

'Due Process' is an elusive concept. Its exact bound-
aries are undefinable, and its content varies accord—
ing to specific factual contexts. Thus, when govern-
mental agencies adjudicate or make binding determin-
ations which directly affect the legal right of indi-
viduals, it is imperative that those agencies use the
procedures which have traditionally been associated
with the judicial process. . . . Therefore, as a gen-
eralization, it can be said that due process embodies
the differing rules of fair play, which through the

 

1Harold J. Rood, "Legal Issues in Faculty Termination,"
Journal of Higher Education, (March-April, 1977), p.-123.

 

2Alan A. Matheson, "Judicial Enforcement of Academic
Tenure: An Examination," washington Law Review, (1974), p. 508.

45

years, have Become associated with differing types of
proceedings.

The Supreme Court of the United States set forth the
principle of due process by declaring that it

. . . is not a mechanical instrument, it is not a
yardstick. It is a process. . . . The precise nature
of the interest that has been adversely affected, the
menner in which this was done, the reasons for doing
it, the available alternatives to the procedure that
was followed, the protection implicit in the office
of the functionary whose conduct is challenged, the
balance of hurt complained of, and the good accom-
plished--these are some of the cogsiderations which
must enter the judicial judgment.

Keeping in mind the above principles of due process
set forth by the Supreme Court, Young and Gehring have listed
some helpful steps involved in affording due process to fac-
ulty members in higher education.

The accused individual shall be provided a notice
of the charges against him, specific enough to permit
him to defend against them. The notice should also
inform the accused of the time, date, and place at
which a hearing will be conducted. Finally, the no-
tice should inform the accused of the nature of the
evidence against him and the names of witnesses who
will present evidence.

A hearing shall be conducted at which the accused
is permitted to present his side of the story. The
length of time between the notice and the actual hear-
ing should be reasonably calculated to provide the ac-
cused enough time to prepare a defense against the
charges. The hearing should be conducted by an im-
partial person or persons and guilt should be based
only upon sufficient evidence. A transcript of the
hearing should be kept and the accused, if foun
guilty, should be afforded the right of appeal.

Due process has been separated into two different

 

1Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (1960) at 442.

2Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341
U.S. 123 (1951).

3Young and Gehring, p. 53.

46
categories: substantive due process, and procedural due pro-
cess. These two categories have been developing under separ-
ate definitions for many decades. The term, due process
. . when applied to substantive rights, as distin-

guished from procedural rights, ‘means that a state has

no right to deprive a person of life, liberty or pro-

perty by an act having no reasonable relation to any

proper governmental purpose, or which is so far be-

yond necessity of caselas to be an arbitrary exercise
of governmental power.

Procedural due process . requires an orderly pro-
ceeding, adapted to the nature of the case in which the citi-
zen has an opportunity to be heard and to defend, enforce and

protect his rights."2

Included in the proceedings are "notice
and opportunity to be heard and to defend in orderly proceed-
ings adapted to the nature of the case, and the guarantee of
due process requires that every man have the protection of day
in court and benefit of general law."3
The Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments of the Consti-
tution guaranteed that neither life, liberty, or property
could be taken from a person without first affording him due
process. Earlier, teachers were not given due process upon
termination of employment, because their employment was not

seen as property. Most of the earlier cases ". . . were de-

cided in the days before tenure plans came into widespread

 

1Valley National Board of Phoenix v. Golver, 159 P.
2d. 292, 298 (1945).

ZWilkie, p. 12.

3Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary (St.
Paul: west Publishing Co., 195177p. 590.

47
use and acceptance, at a time when employer prerogatives in
all areas were largely unlimited, and professors too were con-
sidered to be mere hired hands."1
. . It is necessary to define the problem and to
place it in the proper historical context. The gen-
eral problem is determining what redress is available
to a teacher who is either dismissed or not retained
in his teaching position for reasons, or through the
use of procedures, which he feels are arbitrary or
capricious. For many years the courts held the posi-
tion that a teacher was merely a government employee
in a typical master-servant relationship and pursuant
to such status his employment was a privilege to be
commenced, continued and terminated on such terms may
deny public employees consEitutional rights generally
enjoyed by other citizens.

Today, professors and teachers are not "hired hands,"
nor are they "merely governmental employees." It is no longer
just a "privilege" to teach. It is no longer that kind of
"privilege" that Justice Holmes referred to, of the employee
agreeing to "suspend his constitutional right of free speech

. by the implied terms of his contract."3 It is no longer
just a privilege to be a professor; it is a protected priv-
ilege, it is a right.

"With the demise of the right-privilege doctrine, the
validity of the limitations put on the teacher's substantive
rights could be tested through due process procedures for the

reasonableness of their denial under the specific

 

1William P. MMrphy, "Educational Freedom In the Courts,"
AAUP Bulletin, (Winter, 1963), p. 309.

 

2"Due Process Restrictions On the Employment Power and
the Teaching Profession," Nebraska Law Review, 50 (1971),
p. 656-657.

3McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford 155 Mass. 220, 29
N.E. 517 l

 

48
circumstances."1 Such tests have since come and will continue
. to mold the content of substantive due process.
Two cases that were to test substantive due process

were the Roth case and the Sindermann case. These two land-

 

mark trials emerged in 1972 and became known as the Board of

Regents v. Roth and Perry v. Sindermann. The Headnote of the

 

Roth decision follows.

David F. Roth, hired for a fixed term of one aca-
demic year to teach at a state university, was in-
formed without explanation that he would not be re-
hired for the ensuing year. A statute provided that
all university teachers would be employed initially
on probation and then only after four years' contin-
uous service would teacher achieve permanent employ-
ment 'during efficiency and good behavior,"with pro-
cedural protection against separation. University
rules gave a non-tenured teacher 'dismissal,‘ but
provided that no reason need be given for nonretention
of a nontenured teacher, and no standards were speci-
fied for re-employment. Roth brought this action
claiming deprivation of his Fourteenth Amendment
rights, alleging infringement of (1) his free speech
right because the true reason for his nonretention
was his criticism of the university administration,
and (2) his procedural due process rightbecause of
the university's failure to advise him of the reason
for its decision. The District Court granted summary
judgment for Roth on the procedural issue. The Court
of Appeals affirmed.

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment does not require
opportunity for a hearing prior to the nonrenewal of
a nontenured state teacher 8 contract unless he can
show that the nonrenewal deprived him of an interest
in 'liberty' or that he had a 'property' interest in
continued employment, despite the lack of tenure or
a formal contract. Here the nonretention of Roth,
absent any charges against him or stigma or disability
foreclosing other employment, is not tantamount to a
deprivation of 'liberty,‘ and the terms of Roth's em-
ployment accorded him no 'property' interest protected
by procedural due process. The courts below there-
fore erred in granting summary judgment for Roth on

 

1Fisher, p. 58.

49
the procedural due process issue.1
The following is the Headnote of the Sindermann
decision.

Robert P. Sindermann was employed in a state col-
lege system for ten years, the last four as a junior
college professor under a series of one-year written
contracts. The Regents then declined to renew his
employment for the next year, without giving him.an
explanation or prior hearing. Sindermann then brought
this action in the District Court, alleging that the
decision not to rehire him was based on his public
criticism of the college administration and thus in-
fringed his free speech right, and that the Regents'
failure to afford him a hearing violated his proce-
dural due process right. The District Court granted
summary judgment for the Regents, concluding that
Sindermann's contract had terminated and the junior
college had not adopted the tenure system. The Court
of Appeals reversed on the grounds that, despite lack
of tenure, nonrenewal of Sindermann's contract would
violate the Fourteenth Amendment if it was in fact
based on his protected free reemployment, the failure
to allow him an opportunity for a hearing would vio-
late the procedural due process guarantee.

Held: (1) Lack of a contractual or tenure right
to re-employment, taken alone, did not defeat Sinder-
mann's claim that the nonrenewal of his contract vio-
lated his free speech right under the First and Four-
teenth Amendments. The District Court therefore
erred in foreclosing determination of the contested
issue of his right of free speech. (2) Though a sub-
jective 'expectancy' of tenure is not protected by
procedural due process, Sindermann's allegation that
the college had a de facto tenure policy, arising
from rules and understandings officially promulgated
and fostered, entitled him to an opportunity of prov-
ing the legitimacy of his claim to job tenure. Such
proof would obligate the college to afford him a re-
quested hearing where he could be informed of the
grounds fgr his nonretention and challenge their suf-

iciency.

The important difference between these two cases is

the expectation of re-employment. The court ruled that Roth

 

10.3.3. Ct. No. 71—162, 40 U.S.L.W. 5079, June 29, 1972.
20.3.5. Ct. No. 70-36, 40 U.S.L.S. 5037, June 29, 1972.

50
did not expect re-employment, for he was serving under a one
year contract with its own terms and expiration date. The
ruling was made on this issue alone, and the matter of aca-
demic freedom.and Roth's constitutionally protected right to
free speech was not denied. Sindermann, however, had a
right to due process, which he had been denied by the Regents.
He was assured of this right, because he had served four
years at the Odessa Junior College and six years in other
Texas colleges. The court claimed that Sindermann had a
right to de facto tenure, and the court found that the Fac-
ulty Guide was so worded that Sindermann could expect con-
tinued employment. Therefore, he had been improperly denied
due process proceedings. This, of course, certainly does not
mean that Sindermann was to be reinstated, only that he must
be given due process before any decision would be made by
the Regents or one of the lower courts.
While expressing the majority opinion, Justice Potter
Stewart said that
. . the State, in declining to rehire Professor Roth,
did not make any charge against him that might seriously
damage his standing and associations in his community.
It did not base the nonrenewal of his contract on a
charge, for example, that he had been guilty of dis-
honesty or immorality. Had it done so, this would be
a different case. For where a person‘ 8 good name,
reputation, honor or integrity is at stake because of
what the government is doing to him, notice and oppor-

tunity to be heard are essential.

The Court did not support any general right to public

 

1Board of Regents of Wisconsin State Colleges v.
David F. Roth, (U.STS. Ct.), No. 71-162, 40 U.S. Law Week
5079 (June 29, 1972).

51
employment. Neither did it demand due process in every sit-
uation involving termination of employment. But the Court
did find a property interest in continued public employment,
requiring notice and hearing before dismissal in each of the
following circumstances:
(a) Where an office is held under tenure provisions
(b) During the term of an existing employment con-
tract
(c) Where there is a clearly implied promise of con-
tinued employment
(d) Where the right to employment is grounded in
sta tute
(e) Where the employment practices in question have
evolved into a 'common law' of continued employ-
ment
(f) In any other situation in which the employee has

an objective expectation of continued employment

(more than an abstract need, desire 0f unilateral

expectation of continued employment).

What is the protection afforded by the courts to
professors employed under short-term contracts, probationary
contracts, and tenured contracts? In summary, teachers with
short-term.contracts could be let go simply by letting their
contracts expire at the stated termination date within it.2
But what difference is there between the protection afforded
teachers with probationary tenure and teachers with continuing
tenure? Procedurally there is no basic difference. If the
time of dismissal for the probationary teacher comes before the

termination of his probationary contract, he still must be

 

1Norman B. Smith and Patricia Cerbala, "Job Security
For Public Employees," Washington and Lee Law Review, 31

1976, p. 558.
2M; M; Chamber, The College and the Courts: Faculty

and Staff Before the Bench. (Danville, Illinois: The Inter-
state Printers and Publishers, 1973), p. 12.

52
granted due process.
Dismissal procedures must include:

1. Notification at the proper time of intention to
initiate dismissal procedures

2. written statement to the teacher enumerating the
causes for dismissal

3. Formal notification of the final decisions of the
employing body.

The courts are not in complete agreement concern-
ing the proper procedure for dismissing a non-tenured
teacher during the contractual period. There is, how-
ever, enough precedence for following for non-tenured
teachers the procedure described above, to makelit
appear the most appropriate and the safest way.

Fisher concluded that
. . A tenured faculty member is entitled to due pro-
cess of law because of a property interest in continued
emplo ent. Whereas, a non-tenured faculty member
has t e burden of proving that a property or liberty
interest exists2 before the faculty member is entitled
to due process.

Obviously, the concept of tenure has undergone some

difficult struggles in recent years, following economic hard
times, job shortages, and litigation, but it seems to be sur-
viving in spite of recent predictions to the contrary.3 What
is there about tenure that makes it a controversial issue?
What do the pro forces use as their defense? What do the con
forces use as their major arguments against tenure? These

questions need answers.

 

1Gene 8. Jacobsen, David J. Sperry and F. Boyd, "The
Dismissal and Non-Ree loyment of Teachers," Journal of Law
Education, (July, 197gg, pp. 441-442.

2Fisher, p. 218.

 

 

3Richard Martin, "Tenure For Teachers Is Beginning to
Crumble As Courts Push Drive," The wall Street Journal, (April
16, 1971) O p0 1.

 

53
V. The Concept of Tenure Pro and Con
Over two decades ago, Alfred North Whitehead stated
that when considering tenure, the question of justice to
teachers was all but irrelevant. "The sole question is,
'What sort of conditions will produce the type of faculty
which will run a successful university?‘ The danger is that
it is quite easy to produce a faculty entirely unfit--a fac-
ulty of very efficient pedants and dullards."1
At times, the courts, and maybe the people have
changed the emphasis of that statement today. The courts
have made very clear that the constitution is vitally related
to the concerns of citizens, and has expressed itself in such
a way that justice will be done for all, including teachers.
But Whitehead has pointed out a long-term fear. Will tenure
produce the best of all possible faculties, or will it make a
contribution to slothfulness?
Central to every argument about tenure is the notion
of academic freedom since it is this value above all that a
tenure contract is meant to insure.
Because tenure places the faculty member beyond the
reach of smalldminded administrators, politically
motivated Regents and other academic demons, his
freedom to search, criticize and expound is protected.
Since the original AAUP statement of 1915, academic-
freedom-and-tenure has virtually become a single

concept so that to questioa tenure may appear to
attack freedom of inquiry.

 

1Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education
(New York: The Macmillan Company,—I959), p. 150.

2Dabney Park, Jr., "Tenure Shock," The Chronicle of
Higher Education (June 4, 1973), p. 16.

 

54

But even the AAUP does not claim that tenure is the
only means to guard academic freedom, since it calls for the
same quality of academic freedom for teachers during the pre-
tenured days. With "less than half of the faculty members in
the nation on tenure, less than half of them.enjoy the guaran-
tees of due process which should protect their academic free-
dom both from outsiders.and from tenured faculty members in
their own departments."1 Spokesman for the AAUP get a little
defensive about this inconsistency, and even when the guaran-
tee of academic freedom was called for to extend to the pro-
bationary faculty members, the members of Committee A.spent a
great deal of time deciding what to do. Their decision was
that the nontenured members of faculties had to be guaran-
teed academic freedom, and that the protection of academic
freedom afforded tenured faculty members was really the im-
petus that made academic freedom a protected right of the non-
tenured faculty members.

In addition to the claim.that tenure is the guard-
ian of academic freedom, the scholar claims that tenure's

. most important purpose is to provide untrammeled

.time to do scholarly work. It is hoped that all fac-
ulty members are scholars. Hopefully, everyone real-

izes that it is not possible to do creative work 'on
order.‘ In response to a demand that one solve a
problem, the best that one can do is try. The scholar,
a creative worker, simply has to be able to let his

thoughts organize themselves.2
Perhaps one of the most compelling arguments for ten-

ure is that it ". . . is an expression of the human concern

 

1O'Brien, p. 8. 2Hackerman, p. 253.

55
for continuity and stability in personal, social, professional,
and business life."1

A final argument in support of tenure was made in the
first statement of principles by the AAUP in 1915. "T0 at-
tract men and women of creative ability." It was felt then,
that the professorate was some kind of calling that included
poverty vows. Tenure was to provide some kind of compensa-
tion for the low income afforded by most colleges and univer-
sities. Today, generally this argument fails in public col-
leges and universities.

What is wrong with tenure? What negative effects does
it have upon American higher education? Blackburn claims that
critics declare V. . . two principle charges against tenure.
First, they say that it prevents change, that it is an invi-
tation to stagnation. Next they say that tenure stifles out-
put, that with tenure a man may cease to produce."2 Put an-
other way, the tenure system comes down to two basic argu-
ments. First, the system interferes with the ability of the
organization to adjust to the economic and social constraints
which govern its operation. Second, the system prevents a
transfusion of new blood while preserving the decadent flesh
of those who received tenure during happier times.

Time magazine even picked up the popular theme in

1973 and reported that

 

, 1John R. Silber, "Tenure in Context," The Tenure
Debate, ed. Bardwell L. Smith and Associates (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc., 1971), p. 39.

 

2Blackburn, p. 7.

1em

56

. . every campus has them: incompetent professors
who cannot be fired, much less shamed into quitting.

. Tenure has become a device used by the devil.
to encourage faculty slothfulness. . . . Many cam-
puses are now afflicted with an oversupply of drones
who refusf to make way for younger, more dynamic
teachers.

Nisbeth continues on the same theme, suggesting that

All one need do is think of the very large number of
individuals who have taught or are teaching in uni-
versities and colleges in this country, and think too
of the smaller but by no means insignificant number
of the tenured in whom signs of deterioration, in-
competence, gross neglect of duty and willful flaunt-
ing of academic authority are only too evident, and
then ask how“many tenured faculty members in this
country have ever in fact been dismigsed for cause.
The number is, of course, miniscule.

Silber claims that the AAUP contributes to this prob-
of an underachieving tenured faculty by throwing

. so many obstacles in the way of removal or re-

'assignment of professors and imposes such severe penal-

ties on most institutions that dare to recognize ten-
ure in its true meaning that administrators have ac-
quiesced in the transformation of Senure into sinecure
and use the terms interchangeably.

As Goode observes, few professors ". . . are fired for incom-

petence, especially if they last long enough to become members

of their work group."4 Brown clahms that

. . tenure policies may freeze professors in place
by decreasing competition. Tenure'may isolate senior
professors from the market pressure that would other-
wise goad them to greater productivity. . . . The mo-
bility of tenured professors is lower than that of the

 

Debate, p. 46.

can

1"Faculty Featherbedding," Time (May 10, 1971), p. 64.
2Nisbeth, p. 27.

3John R. Silber, "Tenure in Context," in The Tenure

 

4W. J. Goode, "The Protection of the Inept, " Ameri-
Sociological Review, (February, 1967), p. 8.

57

nontenured Even after a correction is made for age
difference.

Rebuttals flow like criticism, Sandrin suggests that

. . . we need to stop using tenure as a scapegoat for

poor teaching. ‘we may need to look elsewhere for the

reasons which contribute to ineffective teaching. It

may well lie with poor hiring procedures, weak or non-
existent evaluation policies, ineffective supervisory

techniques, and absgnce of the administrator as an in-
structional leader.

In addressing the problem of incompetence in teaching,

Keck declares that

. . lax administration, not tenure, protects incom-
petence. Under any definition of tenure, incompetence
is a perfectly justifiable reason for dismissal. Yet
in all of the dismissal cases I have investigated over
the past four years (and the number is in the hundreds)
I have rarely found a man dismissed because he was in-
competent. On the contrary, incompetent professors
whose incompetence is clearly recognized by the ad-
ministration are retained, the administration making
no effort either to assist them to improve their teach-
ing or to remove them from.the classroom. At the same
time, I have seen faculty members dismissed for criti-
cizing the administration, for attempting to organize
the faculty, for teaching unpopular ideas, for dress-
ing or behaving in an unorthodox manner, for partici-
pating in political activities, (i.e., testifying be-
fore a legislative committee), for lack of 'collegi-
ality' (i.e., not being liked by the administration
or other members of the faculty), for having a wife
who is not sociable with his colleagues or their wives,
for getting married (i.e., to another faculty member),
£11 Having a (legitimate) baby, and for no reason at
a .

Perhaps the arguments regarding tenure can be con-

cluded with two confessions that academicians need to make.

 

1Brown, pp. 51-52.

2J.'W. Sandrin, "Tenure: Evanescent or Enduring?"

Clearing House, (January, 1972), pp. 269-270.

 

3Donald J. Keck, "Tenure: Who Needs It?" Phi Delta

Kappan, (October, 1972), pp. 125-126.

58
First, according to Goode, teachers,
. like all professions, while claiming to be the
sole competent judges of their member's skills, and
the guardians of their clients' skills, and the guard-
ians of their clients"welfare, refuse to divulge in-
formation about how competent any of them are, and
under most circumstances their rules assert it is un-
ethicallto criticize the work of fellow members to
laymen.
And secondly, in defending tenure Nisbeth queries,
Why can we not be honest in our defense of academic
tenure? There is one, and one only honest justifica-
tion of tenure: It is there. It has been there a
long time. Tenure, not freedom, is academic man's
most cherished idol. No president could last in of-
fice a week if he sought to abolish academic tenure.
At very best, the ancient rule of conservatism applies:
If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not
to change. From how much frustration and banality we
would be spared if that defense of tenure were accepted
for what it 18.2
If not tenure, what would take its place? ‘What are
Ithe alternatives? Might they be worse than the original? If
tenure is not the answer, perhaps a search for a "new way"

would be appropriate.

VI. Alternatives To Tenure

The drop in college enrollment, the increased costs,
and the employer‘s market in the professorate have left some
colleges with the problem of an Over population of tenured
faculty compared to nontenured faculty. This "tenuring in"
phenomena resulted in an older and aging faculty, without
room for the reception of the young and creative recently
graduated Ph.D. In order to effectively deal with the pro-

blem, some administrators and college boards set up percentage

 

1Goode, p. 7. g 2Nisbeth, p. 31.

59

ratios or quotas between tenured and nontenured faculties.

The following variables are suggested as basis on
which to build a given percentage of tenured fac-
ulty positions.

1.

The percentage of faculty members to be tenured

. The percentage of tenured faculty in each of the

2
3.
1,

major organizational units
Determination of policy with respect to awarding
tenure based on faculty rank

. Determination of the number of nontenured faculty

who can be awarded tenure in the major organiza-
tionallunits as a proportion of institutional
total.

How high should the percentage be allowed to go?

Keast supports a percentage between 50 and 67. Keeping the

percentage down can benefit the university in meny ways.2

1.
2.

It accelerates the introduction of new faculty with
recent graduate training

It assures diversity of age among the faculty and
makes certain that students will have young teach-
ers as well as teachers who are middle- -aged or
older, providing freshness and enthusiasm.as well
aS‘maturit

. It makes the sustained achievement of top- -level

salaries for the ranks of associate and full pro-
fessor less implausible

. It creates greater flexibility for the institution

in making curricular change

. It increases the opportunities of the university

to go into the academic market during those periods
when the market is favorable to the institution

Union College has adopted a quota system. A limit

of sixty percent tenured faculty has been established by the

board of trustees. The college no longer practices the seven

year "up or out" rule. A new faculty member comes to the

college on probation, and at the end of the probationary period

 

1Leslie F. Malpass, James R, Montgomery, and Barbara

A. Price, "Dividing Up the Tenure Pie," College and University
Business, (August, 1974), p. 33.

2Keast, p. 50. 3Emenhiser, p. 3.

60
he is evaluated. The recommendation and full reports of his
evaluation go to the board of trustees.

If after receiving the report, the Board of Trustees
decides that the candidate is not qualified to receive
tenure, then the administration is instructed to send
the candidate a terminal contract. If the board of
trustees decides that the candidate is qualified and
if the report on positions has determined that there
is a tenure position available, then he or she is
granted tenure. If the Board of Trustees decides that
the candidate is qualified to receive tenure, but that
there is no tenure position available, then the Board
authorizes the administration to give the candidate a
contract. The contracts for faculty members who have
passed the seventh year review but who have not re-
ceived tenure may be three to five years in length.
The contracts are renewable if both the candidate and
the College agree to renew them, There is no 1i t

to the number of times a contract may be renewed.

Such a method, of course, would not allow more room
for young faculty at the lower ranks, than if those who did
not receive tenure had been given tenure. And the courts
would sustain the "expectation of re-employment" clause for
any dismissal of nontenured on post probationary contracts.
The AAUP castigates quota systems as well.

We are dismayed and we take issue with the attitude
of those bodies and individuals who view professors
as an easy target in these difficult times, and we
urge upon the Association and its members a counter-
offensive to ensure that transition to an era of 'no
growth,‘ to the extent that such a transition cannot
be avoided, is not at the expense of the basic values
and commitments which unite our profession.

By 'basic values' of our profession, we obviously
mean a number of things, but we mean most importantly
the commitment to excellence in our pursuit of know-
ledge and to reaching decisions based upon that com-
mitment. It is on this ground that we must oppose
the imposition of tenure quotas, for they would sup-
plant the vital criterion of merit with the artifi-
cial measure of an arbitrary percentage or range

 

1W. J. Enteman, "Tenure at Union College," Liberal
Education, (December, 1974), p. 461-466.

 

 

61
of percentages.1

The Union College plan already has introduced the con-
cept of contracts as an alternative to tenure. Proponents of
this view call for an evaluation much like the one adminis-
tered under the tenure system at the end of the probationary
period. The proponents called for this evaluation to take
place before each new contract is awarded. They call for an
initial 3 year contract, then an 8 year contract, and finally
a 15 year contract until retirement age.

A useful scheme might start with 2 three-year con-
tracts

. leading to two seven year contracts, followed by
a contract extending to the age of 60 and terminating
in a contract to the mandatory retirement age. Each
seven year contract would include a sabbatical year at
full pay; in cases of nonrenewal, this provision would
be of bfinefit in seeking new employment, or preparing
for it.

However, an opposing opinion points out that

. . this renewal plan followed by extensive evalua-
tion following a prescribed number of years, is really
not attractive, since it is as threatening as the year
to year contract with longer intervals, would be dis-
astrous to a faculty morale, and would increase ad-
ministrative control of classrooms to the point of
threatening academic freedom. Since a tenured posi-
tion was never meant to be a sinecure, then it fol-
lows that this continuous appointment ought to be
based on continuous evaluation. If tenure is really
only a reasonable expectation of continuance, along
‘with immunity from capricious removal, then why should
a university grant this expectation on the basis of
service that has not been evaluated by colleagues

 

1Donald J.Yane11a, "1973 Report of the Special Com-
mitigg on Nontenured Faculty," AAUP Bulletin, (Summer, 1973),
P

2Florence Mbo , "A Dragon Called Tenure," Change
(November, 1972), p. 81

 

62
since the tenure decision? This question still de-
fies serious analysis since most faculty are in agree-
ment that tenured or untenuredlfaculty members can
always be dismissed for cause.

The Keast Commission rejected all alternatives to the
tenure system, and recommended the retaining of the tenure
system. ‘With respect to the contractual system, the come
mission felt that it would lead to greater self-interest on
the part of faculties in recommending each other for reap-
pointment. This would lead to a backwards step, with adminis-
tration more heavily involved in these decisions, and the role
of the faculty returning to the level of "hired hands."

In conclusion, the Keast Commission co-sponsored by
both the AAUP and the AAC characterized the tenure system as
"our most tested and reliable instrument for incorporating
academic freedom into the heart of our institutions."2 Un-
doubtedly the problems in the tenure system can and need to
be corrected. One means to correct some problems

. . is to create a clear set of standards and prac-
tices for hiring, promotion and dismissal. Defini-
tions are needed of what an effective scholar should
be, what the intervals of evaluation will be, and
how performance will be measured. Everyone would
then have to follow those rules and regulations and
see that the requirements are fulfilled. To have a
case reach the courtroom and a reasonable decision
overturned because procedures were not properly fol-
lowed is debilitating and unnecessary. There is no

reason for any 05 our institutions to get caught in
that difficulty.

 

1C. H. Farmer, "Colleague Evaluation: The Silence Is
Deafening," Liberal Education, (October, 1976), p. 434.

2

 

Keast, p. 22.
3Hackerman, p. 225.

63
The case for tenure is not for the individual faculty
member. It
. must be made to rest upon what it does for the
university, not upon a claim of special privilege for
a class of individuals who form today but one part of
the larger corps of the creative and intellectually
productive in society. Tenure must be divorced from
mere gratitude for prior service rendered. Such
gratitutde can be expressed in other ways--by honorary
degrees, plaques, professorships named after the meri-
torious, even money payments. Tenure must also be di-
vorced from need by the individual and his family for
financial security. 1
VII. Subjective Literature and Research Related to Tenure
The Commission on Academic Tenure in Higher Education
was established to re-examine faculty practices in colleges
and universities throughout the United States. The Special
Committee on Campus Tension of the American Council on Educa-
tion (the Haven Commission), and the President's Commission
on Campus Unrest (the Scranton Commission) both raised the
thought that tenure as practiced in American higher education,
may be responsible for some of the campus unrest that was a
part of American higher education in the late 19608 and early
19708. The responsibility of the Commission on Academic Ten-
ure in Higher Education
. . was to consider the operation of the tenure sys-
tan in higher education, to evaluate the criticisms of
the academic tenure made during recent years, to con-
sider alternatives to tenure in effect or proposed for
adoption, and to recommend needed modifications or
improvegents in the tenure system if it is to be re-
tained.
The Commission was created an independent and auton-

omous unit. Its findings, interpretations, and recommendations

 

1Nisbeth, p. 38. 2Keast, p. xi.

64
‘were to be the views of the Commission itself, and not those
of the American Association of University Professors, the
Association of American Colleges, or of the Ford Foundation
which funded it.

The Commission made a survey of the practices of ten-
ure as found in higher education in the United States. It
reported its findings, giving special attention to the com—
parison between the tenured and the nontenured faculty members.
It studied the alternatives to tenure and rejected them all.

It reported on the pros and cons of tenure, listing 11 argu-
ments against tenure and 7 in favor of tenure. It decided in
favor of tenure, but recommended the adoption of a quota sys-
tem of tenure. It also considered, but rejected all forms of
the contract system. It listed 47 recommendations to insti-
tutions of American higher education about the practice of
tenure. It included a strong emphasis upon professional devel-
opment of all faculty members, both tenured and nontenured, and
a guarantee of due process of those faculty members who were
denied tenure at the end of the probationary period.

Keast's report also included a section of chapters
authored by authorities on the concept of tenure. A chapter
by walter P. Metzger entitled "Academic Tenure in America: A
Historical Essay," skillfully traced the history of tenure
from the Middle Ages to the present. Another article written
by Victor G. Rosenblum entitled "Legal Dimensions of Tenure,"

detailed the Roth and Sindermann cases as they applied to the

 

First Amendment rights and due process.

65

In 1973, Bardwell L. Smith and Associates produced a
book entitled The Tenure Debate. This book considered the
broad spectrum of the tenure controversy including the dif-
ference between the tenured and nontenured practices and pol-
icies, and collective bargaining. John R. Silber in his
chapter on "Tenure in Context," challenged the concept that
tenure is the only means of the protection of academic free-
dom.1 Arvo Van Alstyne argued in his chapter that tenure
does support academic freedom, and drew support from the
Utah Commission to Study Tenure.2

Through the years many studies have been made to de-
termine the actual practices of tenure at specific and var-
ious colleges and universities. In 1946, H. E. Bosley
Studied American State Teachers Colleges. Of the 98 insti-
tutions reporting, only 15 colleges reported the existence
of tenure laws for their college teachers. Forty-two of
the 98 reporting schools dismissed 95 teachers over a 5 year
period. Reasons given for the dismissal ranged from mili-
tant pacifism.and inciting students to disobedience, to "of
such a temperament they could not work with other people."
Procedures for removal of a faculty member were reported as

"on recommendation of the president" in every case, with only

 

1Silber, "Tenure in Context," in The Tenure Debate,
pp. 34-53.

 

2Arvo Van Alstyne, "Tenure System at the University
of Utah," The Tenure Debate, ed. Bardwell L. Smith and A880-
ciates (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1971), pp. 74-96.

 

66
one institution mentioning a means of appeal.1
In 1955, C. P. Dennison studied 8 eastern colleges

finding that nearly all professors and associate professors
had tenure. All of the colleges had a probationary period of
up to 7 years, and all of the colleges either had explicit
trustee legislation defining dismissal procedures or had
adopted the principles of the AAUP-AAC.

The composition of the body before whom the accused

teacher is given a hearing is presumably an important

factor in the justice of the process. Of the seven

institutions that have a prescribed hearing process,

four assign the hearing to a faculty committee and

three to a joint trustee-faculty group. Three of the

four faculty committees are the regular elected stand-

ing advisory committees of their respective faculties,

while the fourth is a specially designated group.

Only two institutions have a written provision for

an appeal and a second hearing.

In 1962, Paul Dressel, through the office of Institu-

tional Research at Michigan State University, undertook a
study of the tenure policies of 31 selected major universities.
He found that approximately 30% of the faculty members at the
universities were full professors, 24% were associate profes-
sors, 26% were assistant professors, and 18% were instructors.
The combined percentage of the top 2 ranks equalled 54% of
the faculty. This, he pointed out, was close to the 52% re-

ported by the AAUP of 452 institutions in 1961.3

 

1H. E. Bosley, Administration of Facult Personnel
in State TeachgggColleges (Oneonta, New York: T e American
Association of Teachers Colleges, 1946), pp. 122-124.

 

2Charles P. Dennison, Facult Ri hts and Obligations
(New York: Teachers College Columbia, 1955), p. 38.

3"Committee 2, The Economic Status of the Profession,
1960-61, Annual Report," AAUP Bulletin, (Summer, 1961),
pp. 252-253.

 

67
Dressel concludes that universities

in general have rejected the idea of reserving
tenure for a specific number (or percentage) of fac-
ulty, but have tried to maintain a balance between
those on tenure and those on probationary appoint-
ments by careful screening. The task is complicated
by: (1) lack of objectivity in recommending promotion
and tenure; (2) overly generous commitments by ad-
ministrators to new appointees; (3) discrepancies among
departments in standards and qualifications for pro-
motion and tenure; (4) failure to terminate the ser-
vices of certain persons at the appropriate time;
(5) the expediency of giving promotions and tenure in
lieu of increase in salary; and (6) the extension of
rank and tenure to the growing numbefs of administra-
tive and noninstructional personnel.

In 1971, B. N. Shaw studied the tenure policies and
procedures in State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
finding little to no change from.other studies with respect
to the length of the probationary period or the ratio among
the professorial ranks. He did find that 30% of the insti-
tutions were unable to find data that would have provided
information concerning tenure termination. He recommended
that colleges develop more efficient record keeping proce-

dures, that colleges . examine their institutional docu-
ments or statements explaining their tenure policies and pro-
cedures and evaluate the same considering completeness and
precision as the main criteria. . . ."2 He further recom-
mended that ". . . colleges and universities include in

their statements on tenure policies and procedures all in-
formation of which a teacher should be aware."3

James C. Walters studied "Academic Tenure in Indiana

Higher Education," in 1971. Of the 32 institutions of higher

 

lDressel, pp. 252-253. ZShaw, p. 120. 31pm.

68
education in Indiana that hold accreditation with the North
Central Association of Colleges and Secondary SchoOls, he
chose to study 17 of them. Four were state-assisted univer-
sities, 5 were privately supported universities, and 8 were
privately supported colleges. Walters found only 1 of the 17
institutions that did not recognize or confer tenure. Only
5 of the 17 institutions provided the right of appeal from
denial of tenure and described the procedures to be followed
in cases involving the termination of tenure. ‘Walters listed
meny recommendations, one of which was that

. the development of more precisely defined eval-

uative criteria and improved procedures for tenure
evaluation should be sought by institutions retaining
the tenure system, Such criteria and procedures
shoulf be made known to the individuals being evalu-
ated.

In 1975, Bethany Jeanne Fisher made "A Study of the
Implications of the Nonretention of Tenured and Nontenured
Faculty for Public Four-Year Institutions of Higher Education
in the United States." One of her conclusions that is im-
portant to the present study is that

. . . a tenured faculty member is entitled to due pro-
cess of law because of a property interest in con-
tinued employment. Whereas, a nontenured faculty mem-
ber has the burden of proving that a property or lib-
erty interest exists, efore ths faculty member is
entitled to due process of law.

"A Review of Tenure Policies of Private Higher Edu-
cation in the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1964 to 1974," was
the subject of Jack C. Van Newkirk's study. The sample used

for the study involved 12 of the 18 accredited institutions

 

1Walters, p. 161. 2Fisher, p. 218.

69

of higher education in Virginia. It was found that adminis-
trators in private institutions exercised extensive authority
in matters of tenure policies and practices. Only 2 of the
institutions had released a faculty member over a 10 year
period. Van Newkirk also concluded that "the institutions
participating in the study seemed to be oversensitive about
their independence to a point of overprotection of their inter-
nal activities and to the preference for isolationism rather
than collective problem-solving."1

The great controversy over tenure practices of the
early 19708 has subsided. The debates conducted in the jour-
nals over the importance of tenure or the opposition to ten-
ure have slowed. Alternatives to tenure are in practice, and
tenure itself is still very much a part of American higher
education. The research that took place before or during the
height of the controversy is now out-dated. Changes come
slower in the larger universities. It is from this perspec-
tive, that a study of tenure as practiced in 1977-1978 in
the smaller colleges in America was undertaken. Chapter IV

analyzes the results of that study.

 

1Van Newkirk, p. 135

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to determine the current
tenure policies and practices of the 189 colleges associated
with the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges.

There were two methods used in this study for the collection
of data. The first method used was that of a survey question-
naire sent to the participating colleges, for their completion
and return. This questionnaire was used to determine the
practice of tenure in these colleges. The second method in-
volved content analysis of tenure policies as stated in the
most recent publication of the faculty handbook of the par-
ticipating CASC colleges. It is the purpose of this chapter to
identify the population used in this study, to describe the
two instruments that were used, and to outline the procedures
that were followed for the collection and tabulation of the
data.

This study of the 189 CASC colleges was patterned
after the study made by B. N. Shaw in 1969-1970, who used as
his population the 106 State Universities and Land-Grant Col-
leges which were members of the National Association of State

Universities and Land—Grant Colleges.

70

71
I. ngulation Of The Study

At the time this study was begun, in the fall of 1977,
there were 189 colleges with membership in CASC. 0f the 50
States in the Union, there were only 8 that were not repre-
sented by a CASC college. Eleven states had only 1 member
of CASC, and 10 states had a number of member colleges rang-
ing between 8 and 17. See appendix B for complete list of
CASC member colleges. CASC colleges are private liberal
arts colleges with no more than 2,000 full-time equivalent
students. The colleges must have been in operation at least
3 years and offer a minimum of 5 major areas of study with
50% or more of its course work in general education. In
addition, a CASC college must also be recognized as a candi-
date for regional accreditation or have received its full ac-

creditation from.the regional accreditation association.

11. Sources Of The Data

 

The instrument used to determine the practice of ten-
ure in CASC colleges was a questionnaire adapted from Shaw's
study of tenure in State Universities and Land-Grant colleges.
The questionnaire (see appendix C) asked for the composition
of the faculty both full and part-time and tenured for the
year 1977 and the year 1972. In particular the instrument
sought to determine the number of times the CASC colleges
had denied tenure to nontenured faculty, the due process
afforded those denied tenure, and the number given tenure

following due process. In addition, the questionnaire

72
sought to determine the number of times that tenured faculty
members had been dismissed in the past decade, the stated
reasons for the dismissal, and the due process afforded the
tenured members of the faculty. The last area of information
sought to determine the alternatives to tenure that the col-
lege had considered or was considering, and the year in which
the tenure policies had most recently been reviewed.

The instrument developed and used for content analysis
in Shaw's study was more extensive than the questionnaire.

See appendix D for the Instrument For Content Analysis of Doc-
uments Concerning Academic Tenure Policies and Procedures.
This instrument analyzed the type of tenure that a particular
institution had adopted, determined the process for the ac-
quisition of tenure along with its criteria, and ascertained
the degree of faculty involvement and the right of due pro-
cess afforded in the event of tenure denial. The instrument
also included delineation of the process for the termination,
the justifiable cause for termination, and the due process
afforded to the person whose tenure was being removed.

The process of analyzing the tenure policies found in
the 120 faculty handbooks received from the population needed
a high degree of objectivity. The analyst not only had to be
objective, but also consistent (reliable) in the study of the
handbooks.

The same procedures that Shaw introduced were followed
in this study. Three of the 120 faculty handbooks were selec-

ted for use in a reliability test to determine this author's

objectivity in evaluation.

73

Three analysts were selected to

complete the instrument for content analysis.

Each of the

3 was given a copy of instruction (see appendix E), 3 cop-

ies of the instrument for content analysis and a copy of

the 3 handbooks selected for analysis and for use in the re-

liability test.

The data recorded by the independent ana-

lysts and the data recorded by the investigator were compared.

The results of this test for consistency and objectivity

show that the 3 analysts and the researcher agreed 91.4% of

the time.

See appendix F for a chart showing agreement and

disagreement in content analysis between the investigator and

the 3 independent analysts.

Table 3.1.--Percentage of Agreement Between the Researcher
and the Three Analysts Determining the Reliability of Con-
tent Analysis of the Institutional Documents Relating to

Tenure Policies and Procedures

 

 

 

Analysts Document X Document Y Document Z Averages
A 93.5 '93.5 90.3 92.5
93.5 96.8 83.9 91.4
C 90.3 93.5 87.1 90.3
Averages 92.5 94.6 88.2 91.4

 

Procedures

 

dents of the 189 CASC colleges.

On February 1, 1978, a packet was mailed to the presi-

The packets contained 2 let-

ters, the first one was from the Vice-President of CASC col-

leges introducing the researcher and endorsing the study (see

74
appendix C); the second letter was from the researcher and
the chairman of his committee from Michigan State University
(see appendix H). This letter explained the purpose of the
study and asked for the assistance of the presidents of the
colleges. The questionnaire was enclosed with 2 envelopes,
one for the completed questionnaire and the other for the
current faculty handbook of the college. The first and only
follow-up letter was mailed to the presidents on February 24,
1978 (see appendix 1). It was mailed to 130 CASC colleges
that failed to respond by sending either the completed ques-
tionnaire or the faculty handbook, or both. The responses for
requests for completed questionnaires or handbooks are shown
in table 3.2. When the handbooks were received from.the par-
ticipating CASC colleges, they were read and systematically
interpreted. The content analysis documents were completed
from this study. In the event some answers were not clearly
given, inferences were drawn from the documents that allowed
for the completion of each of the instruments for content
analysis. It was discovered by means of the questionnaire
and the faculty handbooks, that 31 of the participating col-
leges did not have any tenure policies.

Since the purpose of the study was to determine the
tenure policies and practices of CASC colleges, it was as-
sumed that a lack of a tenure policy was a tenure policy.
Therefore the 31 colleges that reported that they did not
have tenure were examined apart from the other colleges that

had tenure. They were studied with respect to faculty

75

Table, 3.2--The Dates, Numbers, and Percentages of Question-
naires and Faculty Handbooks Received From.the CASC Colleges

 

 

 

 

, Handbooks Questionnaires

Dates Received Received

N % N %
February 13 17 9 30 16
February 20 19 10 32 17
February 27 24 l3 l7 9
March 6 30 16 31 16
Merch 13 20 ll 7 4
March 20 6 3 5 3
March 27 3 2 3 2
April 3 1 l 2 1
Total 120 64 127 67

 

composition, initiation of faculty employment, and termina-

tion of faculty employment.

It was also found that 15 colleges had some kind of

periodic contract renewal system.

Again these colleges were

considered an important part of this study, but the data from

these colleges did not become a part of the data from colleges

that did have a tenure system.

The contractual systems were

compared as to faculty composition by rank and part-time and

full-time in 1977 and 1972. The initial contract, extended

contracts, the concept of probation, and the failure to renew

short-term or long-term contracts were studied in much the

same way tenure was studied for the other colleges.

76
Substantive and procedural due processes were also studied
in the faculty handbooks in the colleges that had the con-
tractual system and compared with the colleges that had ten-
ure.

Questionnaires were received from 127 of the CASC col-
leges and faculty handbooks were received from 120 colleges.
Ninety-one colleges sent the questionnaire and faculty hand—
book, 145 colleges sent either the questionnaire or the hand-
book or both. Nine colleges indicated that they were unable
to participate for reasons of time, bankruptcy, death of per-
sonnel, or lack of interest. A total of 175 colleges responded
to the first or second mailing.

The data from the questionnaires and the instrument
for content analysis were hand tabulated. The CASC data were
compared within the CASC colleges themselves, with the results
of the Shaw study, and with other pertinent studies that were

reviewed in Chapter II.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

This chapter describes the tenure policies and prac-
tices of CASC colleges based upon their tenure policies as
expressed in the most recent faculty handbook (see appendix
D). Institutional definitions and classifications of tenure
‘were compared. The stated criteria for the awarding of ten-
ure were compared, as well as the procedures for the acquisi-
tion of tenure. When tenure was denied, the various methods
of appeal were discussed. This section of the chapter con-
cludes with a delineation of the criteria and stated proce-
dures for tenure termination.

The tenure practices were contrasted, based upon the
questionnaire (see appendix C) received from the CASC col-
leges. The faculty mix has been compared by rank and by ten-
ure. The number and type of proceedings originating at the
colleges for terminating the services of either tenured or
nontenured faculty members were also examined.

The membership in the Council for the Advancement of
Small Colleges was 189 institutions in the Fall of 1977. One
hundred and seventy-three of the colleges responded in some
manner to the request for information. One hundred and three

colleges returned both the completed questionnaire and the

77

78
faculty handbook. One hundred and twenty colleges returned
the faculty handbook; of these, 103 had a tenure policy.
One hundred and twenty-seven colleges returned the completed
questionnaire; of these, 108 had a tenure policy, 6 had a con-
tract renewal policy, and 15 had no tenure policy. In addi-
tion to these 145 colleges that returned either the faculty
handbook or the questionnaire or both, there were 13 addi-
tional colleges that indicated that they had no tenure policy;
17 indicated that they could not participate for reasons of
lack of time, death of personnel, bankruptcy, or lack of in-
terest. Fourteen colleges did not reply. A distribution of
the number and percentage of materials received from the re-

quests made to the CASC colleges is explained in table 4.1.

1. Institutional Definitions of Tenure

Of the 120 faculty handbooks received, 103 of them
represented colleges that had tenure policies. Eighty-three
included a specific definition of tenure; 74 colleges had
legal tenure and 29 had moral tenure. In the Shaw study, 22
of the 80 (28%) provided a definition of tenure in their
handbooks. The Van Newkirk study provided tenure definitions
in 7 of 12 responses (58%).2

'The following definitions of moral tenure were estab—
lished by the institutions and include statements which make
them unenforceable by a court of law.

Tenure shall not in any respect restrict the right
of the college to release a faculty member for any of

 

1Shaw, p. 47. 2Van Newkirk, p. 76.

79

Table 4.1.--A,Distribution of the Number and Percentage of
Faculty Handbooks and Questionnaires That were Received from
One Hundred and Eighty- -Nine CASC Colleges

 

 

Employment Questionnaire Handbook Questionnaire Totals

 

 

Policy and Handbook Only Only

. N % N % N % N %
Tenure 91 48 12 6 l7 9 120 63
Contracts 5 3 4 2 1 l 10 5
No Tenure 7 4 1 l 7 4 15 8
Total 103 54 17 9 25 14 145 77

 

the following reasons: the discontinuance of a teach-
ing field in whole or in part because of financial
necessity; the deterioration of the intellectual or
physical capacity of the faculty member; academic in-
competence, moral turpitude or a change in the faculty
member‘s view-point which results in teaching or iction
contrary to the stated objectives of the college.

The purpose of tenure is to assure faculty members
of freedom for teaching and research and of a substan-
tial degree of economic security. While faculty meme
bers on continuous tenure are not subject to annual re-
election, their status may be reviewed at any time by
she Board of Trustees upon recommendation by the presi-

ent .

Tenure involves continuous appointment of a
faculty member without the necessity of reappoint-
ment annually or at other specified intervals.

Faculty members with tenure may assume that they have
continuous employment at College unless they
receive specific notification to the contrary.

Tenure is understood to be the right a teacher has
to continue permanently in his position as long as
he/she has services in line with his/her professional

 

1The letter sent to the Presidents of CASC colleges
explaining the study and seeking participation, assured the
participants that "all responses will be held in confidence. "
Therefore the faculty handbooks from which many quotes in
this chapter have been taken are not being identified.

80

training which the institution needs. Tenure is sub-
ject to continued evidencing of good moral character,
professional effectiveness, and loyalty to the insti-
tution, its ideals and objectives.

The following definitions of tenure can be made legally
binding by a court of law. They illustrate legal tenure.

To reinforce and give substance to the foregoing
principles of academic freedom, we have adopted a
policy with respect to the granting of tenure to mem-
bers of the College Faculty. Tenure is the form.by
which we give legal and economic protection to aca-
demic freedom. It is a guarantee against dismissal
of a faculty member by the administration through
caprice or animosity. It is also the means by which
the College maintains its standards of professional
excellence.

Tenure means appointment without specified expir-
ation date, granted by the college after adequate eval-
uation. The granting of tenure implies that the fac-
ulty member will continue to maintain a high level of
competence in his academic duties and in other areas
of professional responsibility. The granting of ten—
ure also implies that the college may not discharge
the faculty member without the clear showing of ade-
quate cause and without allowing him the opportunity
to refute any charges brought against him that he be-
lieves to be without basis or inadequate to warrant
dismissal.

Tenure is defined as the right to security in the
responsible execution of one's job. It means the em-
ployment of a teacher is continued from year to year
unless economic circumstances of the College make it
necessary to terminate the position. It provides a
form of institutional protection from external pres-
sures, either ecclesiastical or political, which might
interfere with the quality of the teacher's work. It
should not be inter rated to mean (1) the attainment
of perfection or (2 the protection of laziness or
overly destructive behavior. Tenure is to be an award
for excellence and faithfulness in contributions to
the institution as a demonstration of mutual trust
and commitment.

Although tenure is not an unconditional guarantee
of employment, it does assure the tenured faculty mem-
ber that he or she will not be dismissed without both
an explicit statement of the cause and a fair hearing
to establish whether the cause is valid, pertinent, and
sufficient to justify such an action.

81

The four definitions that illustrate moral tenure
contain clauses like "tenure shall not in any respect re-
strict the right of the college to release a faculty member;"
a faculty member's ". . . status may be reviewed at any time
by the board of trustees;" faculty members may assume they
have tenure ". . . unless they received specific notifica-
tion to the contrary;" and "tenure is subject to the contin-
ual evidencing of . . . ." Mbral tenure depends upon the
good will of its enforcers--administrators and members of
boards of trustees.

The definitions that illustrate legal tenure reveal a
very noticeable difference, for they contain phrases such as
"Tenure is the form by which we give legal and economic pro-
tection to academic freedom;" "the college may not discharge
the faculty member without the clear showing of adequate
cause;" a ". . . faculty member may not be dismissed without
both an explicit statement of the cause and a fair hearing to
establish whether the cause is valid." Legal tenure guarantees
the right of procedural and substantive due process, involving

a hearing and right of appeal.

II. Acquisition of Tenure
The steps and procedures governing the acquisition of
tenure were analyzed using each of the college handbooks.
The pre-tenure rank, the length of the probationary period,
the criteria, and the procedures for the acquisition of tenure
were identified and compared. If denial of tenure were stipu-

lated, appeal procedures were explained in the handbook.

82
The Pre-Tenure Rank

 

One hundred colleges granted tenure only after an
evaluation of the candidate had been completed and he had
been recommended to the appropriate person or board. Only 3
granted tenure automatically after serving a stated period of
time. In the Van Newkirk study, only 1 institution of the 12
studied indicated that it granted tenure automatically.1

Eighty-two colleges indicated that the rank of in-
structor was designated as the pre-tenure rank, i.e.,-the
rank in which the probationary time was to begin. These 82
colleges only granted tenure to faculty members in the upper
ranks of assistant professor, associate professor, and full
professor. There were 18 colleges that indicated their pre-
tenure rank was that of assistant professor, leaving only
those persons in the associate professor or professor ranks
eligible for tenure. Three colleges indicated they had no
pre-tenure rank. Table 4.2 compares the pre-tenure rank in
this study with the pre-tenure rank found in the Shaw study.
Table 4.3 shows a comparison of the lowest rank at which tenure
was granted in the anister study, the Shaw study, and this
study.

In the anister study, 44% of the colleges reported
that they granted tenure to faculty members at the instructor
rank; the Shaw study reported 28% of the institutions did so.
In this study of CASC colleges only 3% of the participants

indicated that they granted tenure at the instructor rank.

 

1Van Newkirk, p. 76.

83

Table 4.2.--Comparison of the Pre-Tenure Ranks in the State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges of theIShaw Study to the
CASC Colleges of This Study

 

 

 

 

Pre-Tenure Number of Percentage Number of Percentage
Rank Lnstitutions Reporting Institutions Reporting
Reporting in Reporting in

Shaw Study N = 80 This Study N = 80

Associate
Professor 15 19 -- --

Assistant
Professor 37 46 18 17
Instructor 22 27 82 80
Not Specific 6 8 3 3
Total 80 100 103 100

 

The assistant professors were eligible for tenure in 34% of
the institutions of the anister study, 46% in the Shaw study,
and 80% in this study.

The Pre-Tenure Probationary Period

 

The probationary period is that period of time be-
tween the initial contract of a new faculty member and the
time that he is granted tenure. Some CASC colleges had a
stated length of probationary time for all ranks. Other col-
leges varied the length of probationary time according to the
rank the professor was granted at the time of his initial con-
tract. A few colleges did not specify any length of time for

the probationary period.

 

1Shaw, p. 60.

84

.Ho .a .smamN

.«nu .m .Ammma .huoscwhv HHxxx .hauouummd coaumHUOmm< Hmuucou sunoz
.moonHoo ouosomumuuooob ca moaoHHom choosy one soauoaoum: .uoumacmm .o cmaa<a

 

 

 

 

 

ooa Moe ooa om OOH wNH amuOH
I: u: m o n m powwwoomm uoz
m m wN mm «a an uouoauumaH
ow mm we mm an «a mammomoum
unnumamm<
NH ma ma ma ma ea Hammomoum
oumaoOmm<
nu u: u: u: N N acmmomoum
wcquhomum wcwuuoemm wcfiuuommm
mace» mcoau mcowu
nouaumcH nauwumGH nauaumcH xcwm ouscmauoum

owmunoouom mo Hooasz owmucoouom mo Hoeasz omoucooumm mo nonaoz

 

 

 

appum page Naeppm spam Hapspm puumacmm

 

 

mama- aama weappo aepum page as mmmpaaou
om<u money use monocsm one can use onma meme weapon hosum swam «nu aw mowoaaoo unmannocag
can pmauamup>aca «spam auawam an app mama amaa manage apppm a .uuumacma pa pompaaoo sauna
umusosa one weapons use an consume mu ounces noasz um xsmm «no mo somwummaou:u. n. a manna

85

Eighty-three CASC colleges indicated they had a set
number of years for the probationary period for all ranks.
Sixty-one required 7 years probationary status; 10 required 6
years; 7 required 5 years; 3 required 4 years; and 2 required
only 3 years. For the 83 colleges that had uniform duration
of the pre-tenure rank, the mean was 6.5 years.

Keast found that the median length of the probation-
ary period was 9. . . six years for all institutions, seven
years in private universities, four years in public two-year
colleges. Eighteen percent of all institutions use a maxi-
'mum period of three years or less; 28% use a maximum of four
years or less."1 Two percent of the CASC colleges used a
‘maximum.probationary period of 3 years or less, and only 6%
used a maximwm of 4 years or less.

Thirteen of the CASC colleges adopted a probationary
period that varied according to the rank in which one was ap-
pointed at the time of the initial contract. Of those faculty
members who were first contracted at the rank of professor, 10
colleges required between 2 and 4 years of probation and 3 re-
quired 5 or 6 years. Of those faculty members contracted at
the rank of associate professor, 8 of the 13 colleges required
between 3 and 4 years of probation, 5 required 5 or 6 years.
Of those faculty members contracted at the rank of assistant
professor, 6 colleges required between 3 and 5 years, and 7
required 6 years. There were three colleges in the study that

granted tenure at the instructor level.

 

1Keast, p. 5.

86
Credit For Prior Service

.Sixty-eight of the colleges reporting in this study
stated that they gave some credit for years of teaching ex-
perience at other institutions of higher education. Some
indicated that to be granted such credit, the other teaching
experience had to be at an institution that was accredited
by the regional accrediting association; some indicated that
the experience must have been in a college approved by the
particular church affiliation. Three colleges indicated that
they would not accept previous college teaching experience,
and 32 were not specific.

Forty-seven colleges indicated that the number of
years of credit toward the probationary period for teaching
experience at other institutions was uniform,irrespective of
rank. One college gave 1 year credit; 7 colleges gave 2 years
credit; 36 colleges granted 3 years credit; and 2 colleges
gave 4 years credit. Fourteen colleges indicated that they
would give from 1 to 3 years credit as a minimum with a mean
of 1.5 years. The same colleges indicated they would give a
‘maximum of 2 to 6 years credit with a mean of 3.4 years of
credit. Table 4.4 shows the maximum and minimum number of
years of prior service accepted by these 14 CASC colleges.
Twenty-eight institutions in the Shaw study indicated they
would "accept prior service at other institutions to reduce
their prescribed probationary periods. The majority of the

28 accept up to 3 years."1

 

1Shaw, p. 65.

87

Table 4.4.--The Acceptance of a Professor's Prior Service at
Another Institution by CASC Colleges During 1977-1978

 

 

 

 

5
Minimum Years Accepted Maximum Years Accepted
Number of Number of Number of Number of
Years Colleges Years Colleges
1 9 2 2
2 3 3 7
3 2 4 3
- - 5 l
- - 6 1
Total 14 Total 14

 

The Criteria for Acquisition of Tenure

 

The criteria for tenure acquisition that were specified
in the CASC colleges were widely varied. Three criteria that
were most frequently stated were: teaching ability, profes-
sional degree and achievement, and cooperation and general
services to the institution. Ninety-five of the 103 colleges
listed the criteria for the acquisition of tenure. Each of
the 95 institutions indicated teaching ability, cooperation,
and general service to the institutions were important. Ninety-
two indicated that professional degree and achievement were imr
portant. The fourth ranked criterion was scholarly publica-
tions, listed by 67 colleges. The fifth criterion was research
ability, 28 colleges; sixth was advising service to students,

32 colleges; seventh was community service, 15 colleges; and

88
eighth was character and personality, 13 colleges.1 Other
criteria used were: academic citizenship, Christian commit-
ment, doctrinal faith, theologicaltraining, and performing
and visual arts.

Table 4.5 compares the criteria for the acquisition
of tenure in this study of CASC colleges with the criteria
listed in the Shaw study of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges.

The Shaw study indicated that slightly more than one-
half (54%) of the institutions specified necessary criteria
for tenure consideration. The Van Newkirk study indicated
that one-third had no policy or very general criteria for
tenure acquisition. The remaining two-thirds of the colleges
he studied indicated 1 or 2 standards that need to be reached
or maintained.2 In this study 92% of the participating col-
leges indicated specific criteria that had to be met in order
to be considered for tenure.

One of the goals of the McCleary study from the Uni-
versity of Utah was to classify the criteria used in the ac—
quisition of tenure and it differed from the criteria of the
CASC institutions in that community service was more signifi-
cant than institutional service. His study concluded with 6
criteria most frequently used. Listed in order of importance,

they were: teaching, research, community service, publication,

 

1The total will not equal 100% because most of the 81
colleges indicated more than one criterion necessary for the
acquisition of tenure.

2Van Newkirk, p. 77.

89

Ian .m .355."

 

 

 

w w an we eHneuHuu unooe UHMHoeme uoz
H H o m enOHunnHuunoo HenoHeeemonn nonuo
H H H H huHHHne e>Hueeuu
m m u: :: uneauHanoo neHueHnno
mH mH HH m huHHenOeuem one Heuoenenu
mH nH m N eOH>noe mannaBoo
NN mm mm mm manages auspmmpm
Hm , mm m e euneonue ou e0H>uee wnHeH>o<
me no HN NH enOHueOHHnnm mHueHonom
am No Hm mN unene>eHnoe one
oeuweo HenOHeeewonm
Ho «0 HN NH eweHHoo one On eoH>uem
Henenem one nOHuenenooo
mm mm me an auananm manauaoa
mQH n 2 cm I z
aesum page an aepum spam as
enOHunuHumnH enOHunuHuenH eunnea mo nOHuHeHnuon
emeuneouem mo ueoanz eweuneonem mo neeenz one now eHneuHuo

 

mama-aama manage aesum page nuns oaan-momn weapon aepum Hanna was an access”
:HuenH mo nenanz enu one ennnea mo nOHuHmHnoo< How eHHeuHuo one mo nomHnenaoo <u:.n.e eHneH

90

personal characteristics, and professional activities.r

' Governing Procedures For the Granting or Denial of Tenure

Initiating the process for tenure consideration was
usually made in one of two ways. First, by attaining the ap-
propriate number of years in the probationary status, in
which case the process was begun by someone other than the
candidate himself. Second, once the candidate decided that he
had met the criteria for the acquisition of tenure, he made
application to the appropriate person or committee. One of
the faculty handbooks stated the procedures as follows:

Prior to tenure consideration each faculty member
shall be evaluated, at least every other year, by
students, colleagues, the Faculty Status Committee,
and the Dean of Academic Affairs. The results of
such evaluations shall be made known to him by the
Dean of Academic Affairs. Candidates for tenure
will be reviewed by the Faculty Status Committee and
the Dean will make independent recommendations to the
President. In the event that these recommendations
differ, the President will call the Committee and the
Dean together and try to reconcile the differences.

The second method of initiating the process for ten-
ure consideration is illustrated in the following quote:

It is the responsibility of the individual faculty
member to show cause for the granting of tenure, via
a letter to the Committee on Rank, Tenure and Promo-
tion, stating his/her request and supporting the re-
quest by including the following documentation: the
department chairperson's annual evaluations for at
least the last three years, the current chairperson's
evaluation, the self-evaluation, peer evaluations from
the past three years, and student course evaluations
for the last three years.

 

1Lloyd E. McCleary "Promotion and Tenure: A Content
Analysis Study of Department Criteria at a Major University"
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1976), p. 88.

91
It was found that 18 of the CASC colleges left the
governing procedures for the acquisition of tenure in the
hands of the administration. One college that limited
this procedure to the administration, stated its tenure
policy in this way:

Tenure is granted to a new faculty member after a
probationary period of three years. Such recommenda-
tions are made by the President to the Board, usually
after nominations by the Dean of Instruction or Divi-
sion Chairperson. Nominations and/or recommendations
for tenure are not automatic at any time. If, and
when such recommendations are made and approved by the
Board, the teacher receives the status of tenure.

Seventy-six colleges reserved the action of tenure

granting to the administration, but some kind of faculty
consultation or action was a part of the governing pro-
cedure. Only 9 did not specify what groups were involved
in the governing procedures. Table 4.6 shows a complete
comparison of the governing procedures for the acquisition
of tenure as found in this study and in the Shaw study.1

If the administrative personnel initiated the tenur-

ing procedure, the process ordinarily followed this course:
The departmental chairperson, or the academic dean made a list
of all faculty members who were in their final probationary
year. Added to this list were other probationary faculty mem-
bers who had been with the college for less than the maximmm
probationary period, and had shown the kind of service to the
institution that made them eligible for earlier tenuring.

This list of prospective tenure candidates was given to the

 

lshaw, p. 72.

92

chairperson of a standing faculty committee, usually referred
to as the committee on premotion and tenure. The committee
chairperson asked the candidates who were in their final pro-
bationary year to make a self-evaluation and submit it to the
committee. A recommendation for each candidate was requested
from the divisional chairperson. Those candidates who were
being recommended with less than the maximum probationary
years at the college were usually recommended by the divi-

sional chairperson.to the committee on promotion and tenure.

Table 4.6.--Governing Procedures for the Acquisition of Tenure

_ t — —
_¥ _¥ —_

 

Number in Percentage Number in Percentage

 

 

Shaw Study This Study
N = 80 N a 103
Reserve action
to the adminis-
tration 30 38 l8 17
Reserve action
to the adminis-
tration but pro-
vide some imput
from faculty 14 18 76 74
Not specific 36 45 9 9
Total 80 100 103 100

 

The committee on promotion and tenure then studied the
recommendations in hand, and scheduled interviews with the
candidate's peers, his students, and the candidate himself, in
order to come to a proper and defendable decision. This com-

mittee then gave its written recommendation to the dean and

93
divisional chairperson. The dean and divisional chairperson
examined the recommendation of the committee and if they had
differences of opinion with the committee's recommendation,
they met with the committee in an effort to come to an agree-
ment. The recommendation of the dean and the divisional chair-
person, along with the recommendation from the committee on
promotion and tenure was then sent to the president. The
president sent his recommendation, with accompanying documents,
to the board of trustees.

If the initiative were taken by the candidate himself,
he simply sent a copy of his self-evaluation and personal
recommendation to the divisional chairperson, who upon re-
ceiving it followed the remaining procedures as outlined
above.

One of the CASC colleges defined the responsibilities
of its rank and tenure committee in the following way.

The Rank and Tenure Committee is charged with
evaluation, and reporting thereon to the proper
authority, of applications of faculty members de-
siring promotion and/or tenure. The committee shall
be composed of five members, one of whom is Chairman,
each selected by the voting membership for a two-
year term from an eligibility list of all faculty
members with the rank of Professor, Associate Pro-
fessor, or Assistant Professor who have taught at
the College for at least three years prior to the
time of election.

A second college described the function and composi-

tion of its tenure and promotion committee this way.

The Committee acts as a faculty review body in
the matter of the granting of tenure and promotion in
rank to faculty members. It submits its recommenda-
tions to the Dean of the College. The Committee is

comprised of three tenured faculty members with three
or more years of service at the College.

94
Appeal From the Denial of Tenure
The Keast report recommended that

. each institution should develop clear proce-
dures under which a faculty member who, by an other-
wise final decision, is denied reappointment or ten-
ure can secure an impartial review of the decision if
he believes that it results from.improper procedure,
or rests on grounds which violate academic freedom or
constitutional rights, or is substantively arbitrary
or capricious. In such appeal procedures1 the burden
of proof should be on the faculty member.

The CASC colleges did not follow the recommendation
of the Keast Commission report of 1973 regarding the appeal
for denial of tenure. There were 20 colleges that granted a
right to appeal a decision to deny tenure, and the same num-
ber of colleges gave specific guidelines to follow in the
course of the appeal. Eighty-three of the reporting colleges
did not make the right of an appeal or its procedures specific.
Table 4.7 gives a comparison of the right to appeal as found
in this study, the Shaw study,2 and the Walters study.3

The procedure for an appeal to reverse a decision to
deny tenure was expressed in one of the CASC college hand-

books:

Method of appeal of recommendations for denial
of tenure: An impartial review board consisting of
one person selected by the faculty member, one 8e1-
ected by the administration, and one agreed upon by
both shall review any case appealed by a faculty
member and make recommendations to the President.
Final action rests with the Board of Trustees.

In all cases where the facts are in dispute the
accused faculty member shall have the option to face
the accusers and to be heard in his own defense by
all bodies that pass judgment upon the case. The
faculty member should be permitted to have with him
or her an advisor of his own choosing who may act as

 

1Keast, p. 72. 2Shaw, p. 77. 3walters, p. 95.

95

 

 

 

c.00H mOH oOH NH 00H om HeuOH
e.om mm nu ma pm as emaeaupam uoz
Heena< on uanm
e.aH om NH m eH HH oeHMHoeam
Hemaa< ou gamma
eweuneonem neoanz eweuneonem Heoanz eweunoonem neoenz
moH u z NH u 2 cm a z
aesum aezum aeaum
mHnH mneuHeS seem

 

 

mama-aama manage aespm

page no mmonHoo om<o «page was empeasm mao pew suns o~an-momn manage spasm appease
C

on» mo enOHunuHumnH neeuno>em one .ONmHumomH

Hana monum seem on» no eoHuHmne>HnD

zuanm one nH manneH mo HeHneo Bonm Heenn< ou uanm one mo nomHnenaoo <uu.N.e eHneH

96

counsel. There should be a full stenographic record
of the hearing available to the parties concerned.

Another faculty handbook stated the policy by saying:
Any faculty member who feels he has not been
treated fairly by the Committee on Promotion and Ten-
ure may submit a statement and corroborating evidence
to the Steering Committee appealing the recommenda—
tion of the Committee on Promotion and Tenure and the
Steering Committee will then present it to the Educa-
tional Policy Committee of the Board of Trustees
whose final action will be taken.
As indicated in the two illustrations above, the
final decision was made by the Board of Trustees. The 18
CASC colleges that provided for an appeal procedure allowed
some kind of hearing in which the faculty member under con-
sideration could be heard by his peers. The hearing committee
members were not members of the original faculty tenure and
promotion committee. Often, there were administrative members
on the hearing committee. The disposition of the case was
made by the board of trustees reviewing the7reportsofthe

committee on tenure and promotion and the hearing committee,

and then making an investigation of its own if it so desired.

III. Termination of Tenure
In this section, the criteria and the procedures for
the termination of tenure will be presented. This information
is based upon the faCulty handbooks of the 103 tenure-granting
CASC colleges.

The Criteria for the Termination of-Tenure
The influence of the American Association of Univer-

sity Professors was evident in the CASC college handbooks.

97
Thirty-eight of the 103 reporting colleges mentioned the AAUP
directly, in addition to specifying the criteria for termina-
tion. Eight more stated that they followed the 1940 Statement
of Principles1 when considering the termination of a faculty
member's employment. Forty-six colleges indicated that the
AAUP Statement of Principles was considered when termination
procedures were instituted. Many other college handbooks used
the language of the Statement of Principles in their section
on tenure. .

There were 86 CASC colleges that were specific about
the criteria for the termination of tenure; 9 colleges were
not specific. Of those that were specific, all of them
listed professional incompetence a8 grounds for dismissal;

85 listed immorality or misconduct; 70 listed financial exi-
gencies; 68 listed neglect of duty; 70 listed failure in insti-
tutional relationship; and 60 listed incapacity or disability.
These reasons and others are compared with the reasons listed
in the Shaw study in Table 4.8.

Faculty members who were being considered for dis-
missal due to incapacity or disability were given some special
considerations such as those stated in this handbook.

Dismissal for reasons of physical or emotional

disability shall be based on convincing medical and
psychiatric evidence developed by qualified profes-
sionals. However, failure to develop such evidence
due to the unwillingness of the faculty member to
undergo reasonable examinations at University expense
shall not prohibit proceeding on the best available

alternative evidence. A tenured faculty member
dismissed for such reasons may request, in writing,

 

1See appendix A

98

 

m e m N noHuenHononnenH xnem
H H m N NueenoneHn
o n oH e aenwonn no
unmannemeo e mo eonennHunooeHn
NN mH o o nOHuHmom HeonOHoenu nH owneno <
0N NN om NH noeeenu mnHonHonH .eaqno
on Hm m H nnaonw HenOHeeemonn nH ennHHem
0N co mm eH NuHHHnemHo no NuHoeneonH
N we E 2 .33 mo uumemz
Hm 0N mH o eanenOHueHen
HenOHunuHumnH nH ennHHem
mm mN me NH meHunowae HeHonenHm
mm mm om Nm nononooeea no huHHenoeaH
00H om oN mN eoneuemaoonH HenOHeeemonm

em I z oe I z

henna page an Nepum seem an
enOHunuHuenH enOHunuHuenH ennnea mo
eweuneonem mo neeanz eweuneonem mo nonanz nOHuenHaneu man now eHneano

 

 

weaH-NNan manage

nepum page no ppmpnnoo omau pap nuns oamn-msan wanupn apaum naaam was an muonupunupcn

one he oeHMHoenm ee oneneH mo nOHuenHeneH one now eHneano one we

noeHnenaoo <uI.m.e eHoeH

99

.om .a .spamH

 

o o o o mmeue nH nOHuonoen
e eunennes noHns Nonemnene Henonuez

o o m H unmanne>ow no snow HenOHunuHumnoo nno
mo sonnune>o eueoo>oe NHHeweHHH 0H

0 o m H emHMHooam eoana map
. anuH3.e>eeH Eonm nnnuen ou ennHHem
H H o o . mapHpona
nOHueanaEH no hannoem HenOHuez

H H o o uoHn op mcHuHuaH
N N o o meHon e>HuenueHnHaoe nH emneno
N N o o oooeoou

no .HonooHe .wwnno HeweHHH mo em:

0 o n N . eoHnue
HenOHmmmmonn mo nonueH0H> mmonu

 

om - 2 as a z
nepum pHnn pH menum seem an
enOHunuHuenH mnOHunuHuenH ennneh mo
eweuneonem mo neeanz oweuneonem mo neoanz nOHuenHaneu man now eHneano

 

 

epsanupoo--.m.s «Heme

100

a leave of absence without pay for up to a maximum
of three years. This request must be delivered to
the President at the time of dismissal or within a
reasonable time thereafter.

When the teaching staff must be reduced because of

financial exigencies, special considerations are also given

to the faculty member. The following example taken from one

of the CASC college handbooks refers to such considerations.

The

Where termination of appointment is based upon
financial exigency or bona fide discontinuance of a
program.or department of instruction the dismissal
procedure will not apply, but the faculty members
shall be able to have the issue reviewed by a hear-
ing committee, with ultimate review of all contro-
verted issues by the governing board. In every
case of financial exigency or discontinuance of a
program or department of instruction, the faculty
member concerned will be given notice as soon as
possible, and never less than six month notice. Be-
fore terminating an appointment because of the aban-
donment of a program or department of instruction,
the institution will make every effort to place
affected faculty members in other suitable positions.
If an appointment is terminated before the end of
the period of appointment, because of financial exi-
gency, or because of the discontinuance of a program
of instruction, the released faculty member's place
will not be filled by a replacement within a period
of two years, unless the released faculty member has
been offered reappointment and a reasonable time
within which to accept or decline it.

Keast Commission in its 34th recommendation stated that

. . . faculty dismissal proceedings should be re-
stricted to (a) demonstrated incompetence or dishonesty
in teaching or research, (b) substantial and manifest
neglect of duty, and (c) personal conduct which sub-
stantially impairs the individual's fulfillment of his
institutional responsibilities. The burden of proof

in establishing cause for dismissal rests upon the
institution.

The CASC colleges are private colleges. In reviewing

the stated criteria used by these colleges for the termination

 

1Keast, p. 75.

101
of tenure, all but one appeared to be within the restrictions
suggested by Keast. Financial exigency and personal incapac-
ity are recognized by the Keast Commission as reasons for
possible termination of services.1 National security or im-
migration problems do not fit into the restrictions that
Keast suggests should be maintained for cause for the ter-
mination of tenure.

The Van Newkirk study reported that 25% of the insti-
tutions in the study did not make provision in their written
policies for the termination of tenure.2 Two of the 10 insti-
tutions studied in the Walters study had no stated criteria
for the termination of tenure. The walters study also reported
that 71% of the institutions listed incompetency as a grounds
for termination of tenure; 59% listed immorality; 41% listed
neglect of duty; and 24% listed failure in institutional re-
lationship because of religious reasons, as grounds for ter-
mination of tenure. Eighteen percent of the institutions
stated physical or mental disability as criteria for dismissal
and 12 of the 17 institutions (71%) listed financial exigen-

cies as grounds that might lead to termination of tenure.3

Procedures for the Termination of Tenure
Seventeen (17%) CASC colleges did not specify any
prescribed procedure to follow in the event that termination

of tenure was being considered. Eighty-six (83%) gave some

 

1Keast, pp. 55—56. 2Van Newkirk, p. 82.
3Walters, p. 97.

102

detail to their termination process. The "due process" that
was guaranteed a faculty member under legal tenure and was
afforded a faculty member under moral tenure, usually included
5 procedural actions. They were (1) a means by which an in-
formal adjustment or reconciliation can be mutually agreed
upon, (2) procedures that must take place in anticipation of

a formal hearing, (3) the formation of the hearing committee,
(4) the procedures which take place in the formal hearing, and

(5) the final disposition of the case.

The Informal Adjustment and Reconciliation Procedures
The 1968 Recommended Institutional Regulations on
Academic Freedom and Tenure states:

Dismissal of a faculty member with continuous tenure,
or with a special or probationary appointment before
the end of the specified term, will be preceded by:
(1) discussions between the faculty member and the
appropriate administrative officers looking toward a
mutual settlement; (2) informal inquiry by the duly
elected faculty committee which may, failing to ef-
fect an adjustment, determine whether in its opinion
dismissal proceedings should be undertaken, without its
opinion being binding upon the President; (3) a state-
ment of charges, framed with reaspnable particularity
by the President or his delegate.

Forty-one (40%) of the participating CASC colleges were
not specific about such an informal adjustment effort. Sixty-
three (79%) of the universities in the Shaw study were not
specific. Sixty-two (60%) of the CASC colleges and 17 (21%)
of the universities in the Shaw study provided a means for in-

formal adjustment or reconciliation before a formal hearing

 

1"1968 Recommended Institutional Regulations on Aca-

demZ§OFreedom and Tenure," AAUP Bulletin (Winter, 1968),
p. .

103
was discussed.1 One CASC college faculty handbook stated the
informal procedure as follows:

. . the dismissal of a tenured faculty member must
be preceded by discussions between his department
chairman, divisional chairman, the academic dean, and
other appropriate administrative officers, with a
view to rectifying alleged professional weaknesses.
These officers shall maintain adequate written records
of such discussions. The faculty member should be
allowed a reasonable time after these discussions
begin in order to bring his teaching or other profes-
sional responsibilities up to the desired standards.

Another CASC college handbook reported this informal
effort at reconciliation in the following manner:

The faculty member will be notified of the decision
by the Dean of the college. After a discussion of
the decision with the faculty member in question,

no other action will be undertaken if mutual agree-
ment is reached, both by the faculty member and the
administrative officer. An administrative review of
the decision will automatically be granted upon the
request by the faculty member. If a review results
in a reaffirmation of the decision and the faculty
member disagrees with the judgment of the adminis-
tration, he may request a hearing on the dismissal by
means of a letter to the President of the College.

Procedures That Anticipate a Formal Hearing

At 7 of the 103 participating CASC colleges (7%), the
opportunity for a formal hearing was automatically granted in
cases of termination of tenure. In 79 (77%) colleges, the
formal hearing was granted upon the request of the faculty
member being considered for termination of tenure. In 17 (17%)
colleges, the opportunity for a hearing was not specified.

In 83 CASC colleges (81%) copies of the charges

against the person in question were distributed before the

 

IShaw, p. 88.

104
hearing, and in 20 (19%) colleges, this distribution of
charges was not specified. Sixty-three institutions of the
Shaw study gave the accused faculty member written charges
before the hearing.1
One handbook stated that the accused faculty member
would receive a "statement of the causes along with a list of
‘witnesses to be called against him and a statement of the na-
ture of the testimony to be given against him must be mailed
to the employee by certified mail, return receipt requested."
Table 4.9 shows a comparison of the hearing granting
procedures of the Shaw and the CASC studies.
Table 4.9.--A.Comparison of the Procedures to Grant a Hearing

as Specified in the Institutions in the Shaw Study During 1969-
1970 and the CASC Colleges of This Study During 1977-19782

1
—

Institutions in Institutions in
Shaw Study N=80 This Study N=103

Number Percentage Number Percentage

 

Hearing granted

 

 

 

automatically 6 8 7 7
Hearing granted
if requested 63 79 79 77
Granting of hearing
is not specific 11 10 l7 17
Total 80 100 103 100
1Shaw, p. 90.

21bid.

105
Table 4.10 shows a comparison of the provision of
written charges and the names of witnesses that will be used

at the hearing.

Table 4.10.--A Comparison of the Procedures to Supply Charges

and a List of Witnesses as Specified in the Institutions in

the Shaw Study During 1969-1970 and the CfSC Colleges of This
Study During 1977-1978

 

 

Institutions in Institutions in
Shaw Study N-80 This Study N-103

Number Percentage Number Percentage

 

Copy of the charges
are supplied before

the hearing 63 3 79 83 81

Delivery of charges

is not specific 17 21 20 19
Total 80 100 103 100

List of witnesses
is supplied

before hearing 17 21 5 5
List is not supplied 0 O 2 2
Not specific about

supplying list 63 79 96 93

Total 80 100 103 100

 

The Formation of the Hearing Committee

At 85 of the CASC colleges (83%) some kind of hearing
committee reviewed the charges brought against a faculty mem-
ber when the intent was to terminate tenure. Seventy percent

of the universities in the Shaw study provided for such a

 

1Shaw’, p. 90.

106
hearing.1 This hearing committee was a standing committee at
34 (33%) of the CASC colleges. In 51 (50%) colleges the com-
mittee was a special committee that was formed to hear the
case. In many cases involving a special committee, the
accused faculty member had opportunity to nominate a faculty
member of his choice to the committee. In one of the CASC
college handbooks, the following policy was noted: "The Fac-
ulty Review Committee shall be composed of four faculty mem-
bers from the Committee for Promotion and Tenure, plus a
fifth member of the faculty agreed to by the accused faculty
member and the members of the Faculty Review Committee."

Another handbook states with respect to the Faculty
Grievance Committee:

1. This committee will be comprised of five members who:
a) have tenure
b) are elected at large by a special election con-
ducted by the Standing Election Committee of
the Faculty Senate
2. One faculty member requested by the complainant
3. One faculty member requested by the President.

The composition of the hearing committee varied widely
from.institution to institution. In 56 of the CASC colleges
(54%) the hearing committees were composed of faculty members
exclusively. In 17 (17%) they were composed of faculty mem-
bers and members of the administrative staff. In 4 (4%) of
the colleges, the hearing committee was composed of faculty
members and members of the Board of Trustees. In 2 colleges

the hearing committee was made up of only members of the

Board of Trustees. One college used only administrators, and

 

1Shaw, p. 91.

107
2 other colleges used trustees and administrators. One col-
, lege was not specific about the composition of the hearing
committee. Table 4.11 shows a comparison of the composition
of the hearing committee in tenure termination cases.

In 7 (7%) CASC colleges, the hearing committee was
formed by appointment. Thirty-eight (37%) of the committees
were formed by an election of the faculty. There were also
38 colleges that formed the hearing committee both by electing
some members and appointing other members to it. Three col-
leges were not specific.

One of the CASC colleges that formed its hearing com-
mittee by appointment explained in its faculty handbook the
formation of the committee:

The President of the College will appoint a hear-

ing committee made up of faculty members who are
mutually acceptable both to the complainant and the
Dean of the College. The committee should select its
own chairman.

Another college that used a special committee made up
of both faculty members and members of the Board of Trustees
was written this way: "The Review Committee shall consist of
the Board Committee on Academic Affairs and two faculty mem-
bers with tenure elected by the faculty."

One college had a 16 member special committee com-
posed of faculty members and members of the Board of Trustees.
It is formed as follows:

The Board of review will be composed of eight mem-

bers of the Committee on Academic Policies of the
Board of Trustees or of other trustees selected by the
chairman of the board, four faculty members elected

by the faculty, and four faculty colleagues selected
by the dismissed faculty member. The chairman of the

108

Table 4.ll.--A Comparison of the Composition of Hearing Come

mittees in Tenure Termination Cases at the Eighty Institutions

in the Shaw Study.During 1969-1970.and the Eighty-Six1CASC
Colleges Included in This Study During 1977-1978

 

Institutions in Institutions in
Composition of Shaw Study N=80 This Study N-103
Hearing Committee

Number Percentage Number Percentage

 

Faculty members

only 31 39 56 54
Faculty members and

administrative

personnel 6 8 17 17

Faculty‘members,

Administrative person-

nel and members of the

board of trustees 4 27 3 3

Faculty members and
members of the board

of trustees l l 4 4
Members of the board

of trustees 2 2 2 2
Administrative

personnel 0 0 l 1

Administrative per-
sonnel and members of
the board of trustees 0 0 2 2

Not specific about
the composition of

 

hearing committee 12 15 l 1

Not specific about ,

hearing 24 30 17 17
Total 80 100 103 100

 

 

IShaw, p. 92.

109
Committee on Academic Policies of the Board of Trustees,
or a member of the committee designated by him shall
serve as chairman of the board of review.
The Procedures of the Formal Hearipg
In 75 (73%) CASC colleges, the accused professor had
the right to be present with counsel in the hearing. Only 1
college specifically opposed the representation while twenty-
seven (26%) were not specific about this point. In 55 (53%)
colleges the accused could introduce witnesses; 2 colleges
did not allow'witnesses; while the remaining 46 (45%) were
not specific about this matter. Fifty-one (50%) were given
the right to cross examine witnesses that might be introduced
by the administration. Again, 2 colleges did not allow it,
while the 50 (49%) remaining colleges were not specific.
Sixty-three (61%) of the CASC colleges upheld the
right of the accused professor to receive a full transcript of
the hearing. Two colleges did not provide for this right and
38 (37%) were not specific. There were 67 (65%) colleges
that granted the right to appeal the decision of the hearing
committee. Three colleges had no provision for the appeal,
and 33 (32%) were not specific about an appeal provision.
One of the CASC colleges gave these detailed proce-
dures to be followed at the hearing:
The accused faculty member will be permitted to
have an academic advisor and/or counsel of his own
choice. A verbatim record of the hearing or hearings
will be taken and a typewritten copy will be made
available to the faculty member without cost to him,
at his request. The hearing committee will grant ad-
journments to enable either party to investigate evi-

dence as to which, in its judgment, a valid claim of
surprise is made. The faculty member will be afforded

110

an opportunity to obtain necessary witnesses and docu-
mentary or other evidence, and the administration of
the institution will, insofar as it is possible for it
to do so, secure the cooperation of such witnesses and
make available necessary documents and other evidence
within its control. ,

The faculty member and the administration will
have the right to confront and cross-examine all wit-
nesses. Where the witness cannot or will not appear,
but the committee determines that the interests of
justice require admissions of his statement, the com-
‘mittee will identify the witness, disclose his state-
ment and, if possible, provide interrogatories.

In the hearing of charges of incompetence, the
testimony shall include that of qualified faculty mem-
bers from this or other institutions of higher educa-
tion.

The hearing committee will not be bound by strict
rules of legal evidence, and may admit any evidence
which is in its judgment of probative value in deter-
mining the issues involved.

In the Shaw Study, a comparison was made between the
findings of that study with respect to hearing procedures and
the findings of an earlier study made by Byse and Joughin.
Table 4.12 is a comparison of these two studies with the
study of CASC colleges.

Table 4.13 shows a comparison of the hearing provisions

of the Shaw study with the CASC colleges.

The Final Disposition of the Case

 

After the hearing committee had heard evidence from
both sides, all persons except the members of the hearing com-
mittee were dismissed from the hearing room, The committee
then went into executive session in order to come to a con-
clusion regarding the matter. If the committee could not
reach consensus, both a majority and a minority report were
presented to the President of the college. He in turn presented

the findings to the board of trustees who made the final

111

.mm .a .3ean

 

 

 

 

 

no No we mm m N nOHeHoeo eene>oe
ne Bonn Heenne on unwnm
on Hm cm as m a mumpuHs
enfiaexeueeono on uanm
He no as us HH a maHnmma we» no uaHnomapnu
HHnm e e>Heoen on uanm
mm mm mm Hm m o memeenuH3_noaane
one anemone on uanm
MN mN on mm mN ON . Hemnnoo eHn
nufiz anemone on on unwnm
mOH I z om I 2 cm I z
honum
monum honum anwnOH
eweuneonem eHnH eweuneonem senm eweuneunom one omen mennoeoonm oHMHoemm
neeeemonm oemnooe one no uann
enu wanneee enonunnHuenH mo neoanz
Heeeeo nOHuenHaneH hanoem mo eHeenn< nH one ewaneem nH owe: eennoeoonm
mnHoneweM honum eHnH mo eeonHou omen enu mo ewnHonHm man one honum senm enu mo enoHnnuHue

unH enu mo emnHonHm ens .nnnwnon one seem an oounoeem ewnHonHm mo nOeHnenaoo ¢II.NH.e eHoeH

”112

.mm .a .3eamH

 

 

 

 

Nm mm m n no No HH HH mm Hm we mm Heeene on uann
e.n0meomonm any
an an N N He no «H HH an Na mm Ne maHupoa
enu mo uanomnenu
HHnm e e>Heoen on
uann e.n0eeemonn any
me on N N on Hm eH HH oN HN on we eeemenuHs
enHaexeuemono on
uann m.n0meemone any
mH we N N mm mm eH HH we mm mm Hm eeeeenqu eonoonunH
one noaane on uann
m.nommemonn one
0N oN H H mN mN eH HH 0N 0H we mm Hemnnoo nuHB
anemone on on uann
e.n0eeemonn enH

N z N z N z N z N z N z

oHMHoemm oeoH>onm oeoH>onm onnoomm oeoH>onm oeoH>onm

uoz uoz uoz uoz
mennoeoonm OHMHoenm
NOH I 2 cm I z

pompHHou omen

enOHunuHuenH zenm

 

 

eeeeu nOHuenHaneH ennneH nH ewaneem mo eennoeoonm nHeuneo

maHeH>oum NHHmonnHouam no: no NHHaUHMHoppm apnea pHan no momoHHoo omen pap auHs spasm

seem on» no enOHunuHuenH enu mo eweuneonem one neoanz enu mo nOmHneeaoo <uu.mH.e .eHneH

113
decision. The accused professor usually was able to make an
appeal to the Board of Trustees. Other colleges allowed the
Board of Trustees to clarify information gathered at the
hearing, before it reached its final decision.
One of the CASC colleges expressed its policy in this
manner:

If the hearing committee concludes that adequate
cause for dismissal has not been established by the
evidence in the record, it will so report to the
President. If the President rejects the report, he
will state his reasons for doing so, in writing, to
the hearing committee and to the faculty member, and
provide an opportunity for response before trans-
mitting the case to the Board of Trustees. If the
hearing committee concludes that adequate cause for
a dismissal has been established, but that an academic
penalty less than dismissal would be more appropriate,
it will so recommend, with supporting reasons.

Another college reported:

Until the final decision concerning the termina-
tion of an appointment has been reached, the faculty
‘member shall be suspended or he shall be assigned other
duties in lieu of suspension, but only if immediate
harm to himself or others is threatened by his con-
tinuance.

The payment of salary after dismissal proceedings had
been finalized was expressed by one college this way:

If, as a result of the hearing process described
herein, the College terminates an appointment, then
in case the Faculty member is on tenure he shall re-
ceive full pay at his current salary for at least one
year after the date of dismissal. This payment prac-
tice normally shall be observed whether or not the
Faculty member continued to work for the college.
However, in the event that the termination results
from a Judicial Committee finding that the Faculty
member has been guilty of action involving moral turpi-
tude, the Board of Trustees shall determine what pay-
ments, if any, to make beyond the effective date of
dismissal, taking into consideration the length and
quality of service of the Faculty member prior to the
operative facts constituting the basis for dismissal.

114

Eleven CASC colleges (11%) indicated that the presi-
dent of the college could summarily dismiss a professor in
cases of serious offense. Sixty-six (64%) indicated that the
president could not dismiss a professor and 26 (25%) in-
dicated that the provision for presidential dismissal was
not specified. Shaw found only one institution in his study
in 1969-1970 that granted the president the power to summar—
ily dismiss a professor in case of serious offense.1

One of the CASC colleges that gave its president such
power worded the policy this way: "The College reserves the
right to dismiss immediately any member of the faculty or
staff whose conduct is contrary to the ethics of the teaching

profession or detrimental to the best interest of the college.‘

Analysis of the Questionnaire Replies

One hundred and twenty-seven (67%) of the 189 CASC
colleges returned questionnaires. Thirteen (7%) colleges that
returned questionnaires did not have a tenure policy. Six
(3%) of those that had no tenure policy stated that they had
adopted a contract system. The remaining 108 questionnaires
represented institutions with current tenure policies. These
108 colleges employed 5,601 full-time faculty members of all
ranks during the 1977-1978 year. Full-time tenured faculty
members numbered 2,732. The ratio of tenured faculty members
to non-tenured faculty members was 49%.

In 1972, 93 of the 108 CASC colleges employed 4,573

 

IShaw, p. 103.

115

full-time faculty members. The figures from the other 12
colleges were not available. The ratio of tenured faculty .
members to nontenured faculty members in 1972 was 42 tenured
to 58 nontenured, or 42% granted tenure. In 1977-1978, the
average college reported 52 full-time faculty members. In
1972, the average reporting college had 49 full-time faculty
members, which showed a small (6%) increase in the number of
faculty members in the CASC colleges over the past 5 years.

The colleges reported a total of 2,231 part-time fac-
ulty members including all ranks. In 1972, 93 colleges re-
ported 1,378 part-time faculty members. The average increase
for the colleges' use of part-time faculty members was 6 per—
sons per college, a 39% increase.

In 1972, the average CASC college had 20 tenured fac-
ulty members on the full-time teaching staff. In 1977-1978,
the average college had 25 tenured faculty members on its
teaching staff. The increase in the total number of tenured
faculty members from 1972 to 1977 was 44%.

Tenure by rank was distributed as follows: there were
1,199 full-time professors employed by the 108 reporting CASC
colleges, 1,072 (89%) of these professors were tenured; of the
1,574 full-time associate professors, 1,126 (72%) were tenured;
of the 1,872 full-time assistant professors, 512 (27%) were
tenured; there were 852 full-time instructors, and only 15
(2%) were tenured. Three colleges reported that 6 of their
full-time lecturers were tenured. One college reported an

archivist on its teaching staff.

116
Table 4.14 shows the number of professors at the var-

ious ranks and the number and percentage that are tenured.

Table 4.14.-<A Comparison of the Number and Percentage of
Faculty Member by Rank and Tenure in CASC Cplleges and the
Institutions of the Shaw Study

— 1

 

 

 

Total Total Percentage Percentage
Number Number on Tenure on Tenure
Rank of on in This in the
Faculty Tenure Study Shaw Study
Members
Professor 1,119 1,073 89 94
Associate
Professor 1,574 1,126 72 83
Assistant
Professor 1,872 512 27 18
Instructor 852 15 . 2 5
Lecturer 104 6 6 5
Total 5,601 2,732 49 55

 

'Table 4.15 shows the number of full-time professors
for each rank in the Shaw study and the corresponding per-
centage of the total full-time faculty, compared with the numr
ber of full-time professors for each rank found in the CASC
colleges and the corresponding percentage of the total full-
time faculty.

The universities had a greater percentage of profes-
sors (31%) than associate professors (23%), while the CASC

colleges have a greater percentage of associate professors

 

1Shaw, p. 80.

117

Table 4.15.--A Comparison of the Number and Percentage of
Full-Time Faculty Members Per Rank Found in the ShaY Study of
1969-1970 and the CASC Colleges During 1977-1978

 

Number of Percentage Number of Percentage

 

 

Rank Full-Time Within the Full-Time Within the
Faculty Rank Faculty Rank
Members Members

Professor 16,151 31 1,199 21

Associate

Professor 12,329 23 1,574 28

Assistant

Professor 16,355 31 1,872 33

Instructor 6,355 12 852 15

Lecturer 1,556 3 104 2

Total 52,746 100 5,601 100

 

(28%) than professors (21%).

Thirty-five colleges reported that the number of full-
time faculty members decreased from 1972 to 1977. The number
dropped from a total of 1,940 in 1972 to a total of 1,692 in
1977. This was a 13% decrease in the number of full-time
faculty members over the five year period. One college
dropped from 36 faculty members to 19 (47%), while the small-
est drop was from 50 to 49 faculty members (2%). Table 4.16
presents a distribution of the number of teachers lost by the
36 CASC colleges from 1972 to 1977 and the corresponding per-

centage drop.

 

1Shaw, p. 80.

118

Table 4.16.--Distribution of the Number and Percentage of the
Reduction of Full-Time Faculty Members in the Thirty-Five CASC
Colleges That Experienced Faculty Reduction from 1972-1977

 

Size of Number Number Size of
Reduction in in Reduction
of 1972 1977 in
Full-Time Percentage
Faculty
1. 20 80 60 25
2. 18 46 28 39
3. 17 36 19 47
4. 17 49 32 35
5. 15 75 60 20
6. 13 49 36 27
7. ll 55 44 20
8. ll 81 70 14
9. 10 39 29 26
10. 9 56 47 16
11. 9 63 54 14
12. 8 53 45 15
13. 8 56 48 14
14. 8 94 86 9
15. 7 56 49 13
16 7 64 57 ll
17. 6 42 36 14
18. 6 74 68 8
19. 5 50 45 10
20. 5 58 53 9
21. 4 31 27 13

119
Table 4.16.--Continued

 

 

 

 

 

Size of Number Number Size of
Reduction in in 4 Reduction
of 1972 1977 in
Full-Time Percentage
Faculty

22. 4 71 67 6

23. 4 73 69 5

24. 3 31 28 10

25. 3 35 32 9

26. 3 49 46 6

27. 3 67 64 4

28. 3 83 80 4

29. 3 92 89 3

30. 2 33 31 6

.31. 2 46 44 4

32. 1 28 27 4

33. 1 35 34 3

34. 1 40 39 3

35. l 50 49 2

Total 248 1,940 1,692 'Mean of 13%

 

Three colleges had fewer than 16 full-time faculty
members. Their faculty sizes were 15, 14, and 8. There were
5 colleges that had over 100 full-time faculty members, rang-
ing in size from 103-131.

There were 14 CASC colleges or 12% that had more

120
part-time faculty members than full-time faculty members. Of
these colleges the lowest number of part-time faculty members
was 13 and the highest was 109. Table 4.17 is a comparison of
the 16 CASC colleges with more part-time than full-time fac-
ulty'members.
Table 4.17.--Distribution of the Number of Full-Time Faculty
Members, the Number of Part-Time Faculty Members and the Per-
centage of these that are Part-Time in the Fourteen CASC Col-

leges That Reported Having More Part-Time Faculty Members Than
Full-Time Faculty Members During 1977-1978

 

 

Number of Full-Time Number of Part-Time Percentage
Faculty Members Faculty Members of Part-Time
80 109 58
66 70 51
49 68 58
45 59 57
42 77 65
32 - 75 69
‘32 63 66
30 68 69
29 54 65
23 46 67
17 29 63
13 22 63
8 13 62

 

Total 498 807 Mean of 62%

 

121

Of the 5,601 full-time faculty members employed by
CASC colleges during 1977-1978, 2,732 of them (49%) were on
tenure. Fifteen (14%) of these colleges tenured 30% or less
of their full-time faculty and 13 (14%) tenured more than
70% of their full-time faculty members. Table 4.18 shows
the number and percentage of tenured faculty members in the
108 CASC colleges.
Table 4.18.--A Comparison of the Total Number of Faculty Meme

bers from the One Hundred and Eight CASC Colleges, with the
Number and Percentage of Them That Are on Tenure

 

 

 

Percentage Number Percentage
on Tenure Per Interval Per Interval
l - lO 2 1.9
11 - 20 7 6.5
21 - 30 6 5.6
31 - 40 22 20.4
41 - 50 21 19.4
51 - 60 23 21.3
61 - 70 14 13.0
71 - 80 - 10 9.3
81 - 90 l 1.0
91 - 100 2 1.9
Total 108 100.0

 

Of the 108 CASC colleges that had a tenure policy, 25
(23%) reported 56 tenure termination proceedings. One college

dismissed 10 tenured teachers from 1968-1978; one college

122

dismissed 7; 1 dismissed 4; 7 dismissed 7; and 6 colleges dis-
‘missed 6. Table 4.19 compares the distribution of tenured
faculty dismissals of the Shaw study with the dismissals of
faculty from the CASC colleges.

Twenty-five colleges reported that they had dismissed
56 faculty members from 1967 to 1977. Shaw found that 9 uni?
versities dismissed 14 faculty members from.1959-1969.1 Four-
teen percent of the colleges in this study dismissed l or
more faculty members over a 10 year period, while 15% of the
institutions in the Shaw study dismissed 1 or more faculty
‘members over a 10 year period. Bosley reported that 42 insti-
tutions dismissed 95 faculty members from 1941 to 1946. Of
(the 98 institutions reporting in the Bosley study, 42 (43%)
reported that they had dismissed l or more faculty members
over the 5 year period.2

The CASC colleges reported that 23 colleges dismissed
49 faculty members. Thirty of these faculty dismissals
came fdllowing a hearing (the faculty handbooks indicated that
86 of the 103 institutions guaranteed a hearing, 17 were not
specific about the right of a hearing). Six colleges reported
that 7 faculty members were granted a hearing and then re-
tained. Ten colleges accepted the resignation of 19 faculty
members after the question of tenure termination was raised.
Shaw found that only 1 faculty member was retained after
being granted a hearing and he also found that 2 institutions

accepted the resignations of a total of 6 faculty members.3

 

IShaw, p. 104. zBosley, p. 124. 3Shaw, p. 104.

123

.HOH .a .zmamH

 

 

 

on NN Hench
0N N o o mH
m H o o m
o o m H m
o o e N N
o o o m N
e e o o H
N N e e H
oH 0H m m H
appum macaw spam
eHnH mo eweH nonum man no nOHunu
nonum mHnH nH uHoo noem nonm seam one nH :HuenH noem Bonn mnOHnnuHumnH
oemeHBmHn Heuoa oeemHBmHQ neoanz oeemHaeHa Heuoa oeemHamHa nonanz mo neeanz

 

HmNaH-NNmH empopen msaH-NsaH maHpsn neppm pHan no mpmeHoo.p>Hm
-nuposn HHHs meaH-woaH amnopan ooaH-mmmH mcHupn Nessa seem was no mcoHpauHumaH Nume no
neeunnom nH manuem oennneH mo eHemeHBeHn mo nOHunoHnumHn one mo nOmHneeaoouu.mH.e eHneH

124

Causes for tenure termination listed by the 24 col-
leges that reported dismissing 49 faculty members were as fol-
lows: 21 faculty members were dismissed for financial exi-
gency; 17 for incompetence; 6 for failure in institutional re-
lationships; 3 for serious misconduct or immorality; none for
crime; and 2 for incapacity or disability. Table 4.20 shows
a distribution of the listed causes for tenure termination.
Table 4.20.--Distribution of the Causes of Dismissal of the

Thirty-One Tenured Faculty Members From the Twenty-One CASC
Colleges During 1967-1977

 

 

 

 

Causes for Tenure Termination Number of Number of
Colleges Faculty
Members
Financial exigency ll 21
Professional incompetence 9 17
Failure in institutional
relationships 1 6
Serious misconduct or immorality l 3
Incapacity or disability 2 2
Total 24 49

 

Twelve colleges reported 15 dismissed professors took
legal action against the college. Five of these professors
won in a court of law, but none were reinstated. Ten of the
professors that went to court were financially compensated.

Seventy CASC colleges dismissed 545 nontenured faculty
members before they were granted tenure. Of the nontenured

faculty members, 84 asked for a statement of reasons for

125
dismissal; 69 were given such statements; 32 asked for and re-
ceived a hearing; and 5 were reinstated following the hear-
ing. Table 4.21 shows a distribution of the number of col-
leges and nontenured faculty members involved in the dismissal
procedures.

Table 4.21.--Number of CASC Colleges and Nontenured Faculty
Members Involved in the Dismissal Process During 1967-1977

A‘—
_-

Process Involved with Dismissal Number of Number of
Colleges Professors

 

Number of dismissed nontenured
professors 71 545

Number that asked for a written

statement of reasons for
dismissal 34 84

Number of written statements
granted 19 69

Number of dismissed nontenured

professors that asked for a

hearing 22 32
Number of hearings granted 22 32

Number of professors reinstated
after the hearing 3 5

 

There were many CASC colleges that considered alter-
natives to tenure during the past years from 1967-1977. A
periodic contract renewal system of faculty employment was
considered by 34 colleges; 29 colleges considered limiting the
number of tenured faculty by means of a set quota; and 15 con-
sidered abolishing tenure altogether. There were 34 colleges

that had no tenure policy; 15 that had a contract renewal

126
system; and 14 had established a quota to limit the number of
tenured faculty. Table 4.22 compares some of these alterna-
tives to tenure.
Table 4.22.--A Comparison of the Alternatives to Tenure That

Have Been Considered, Are Being Considered and Have Been
Adopted by CASC Colleges During 1977-1978

 

 

Number of Number of Number of
Alternatives to Colleges Colleges Colleges
Tenure That have That Are That Have

Considered Considering Adopted

 

A periodic contract
renewal system 34 22 15

A limitation of the
number of tenured
faculty by quota 29 15 7

Abolishing tenure 15 12 34

A two year moratorium
on tenure 0 0 4

Making tenure a
negotiable item through
collective bargaining l 0 0

Developing nontenure
tracts l l 2

 

The average number of full-time faculty members per
college was 28. Two of these colleges reported a reduction in
full-time faculty members from 1972-1977. One college dropped
from.43 full-time faculty members to 24 (44%), and another
dropped from 26 to 18 (31%). The colleges without tenure em-
ployed an average of 14 part-time faculty members. The 108
tenure granting colleges employed an average of 21 part-time

faculty members.

127

Nine of the 34 colleges that did not grant tenure made
their faculty handbooks available for this study. Three hand-
books made no provision for the termination of a faculty mem-
ber's employment. Reasons for a dismissal were not given to
the person in writing, if given at all. There was no mention
of a hearing, or of due process. One of the handbooks had
only this to say about the dismissal of faculty members:

The University may terminate an agreement with
proper notice, if need for the services of the indi-
vidual diminishes or if another adequate reason
exists. However, each member of the faculty is as-
surred of a frank approach to such problems and of
the complete cooperation of the administration in
efforts to make continued employment possible.

Two colleges without a tenure policy had full pro-
visions made for informal adjustment and reconciliation. In
the event these provisions failed, a hearing was afforded
with full due process and an appeal. One handbook stated
part of the policy as follows:

The College has no tenure status for faculty.
The Administration does recognize its moral responsi-
bility to maintain ethical and legal relationships
with faculty. The general assumption is that changes
in faculty are inimical to morale and always expen-
sive, and that people who join the College should
stay as long as they desire to do 80. College pol-
icy is for the Academic Dean or his designee to work
closely with new faculty to help solve problems that
may develop in teaching and other aspects of the in-
structional-professional staff appointment, and to
help the individual to become integrated into the
faculty. No faculty person is ever dismissed capri-
ciously. If anticipated nonrenewal or dismissal of
faculty personnel becomes necessary, early notice and
formal due process hearings are provided for.

There were 7 CASC colleges that reported a limitation
to the number of faculty members that could be tenured. These

colleges had quota systems. One college had a policy of

128
limiting the number of tenured faculty members to 50% of the
total faculty; 2 colleges had a limitation of 60%; and one had
a quota of 75%. Table 4.23 shows a distribution of these 7
colleges as to their quota, and the percentages of faculty on
tenure in 1972 and 1977.
Table 4.23.--A Comparison of the Distribution of the Seven

CASC Colleges That Limited the Percentage of Tenured Faculty
with the Percentage That Each College Had on Tenure in 1972

 

 

and 1977

Established Percentage on Tenure Percentage on Tenure
Quota in 1972 in 1977

50 40 20

6O 27 ' 26

60 53 41

65 0 45

67 2 8

67 N/A N/A

75 31 41

 

The colleges represented in table 4.23 kept their
tenured faculty ratio below their established quota. The
average CASC college with tenure policies had 49% of its fac-
ulty tenured. The average college with a quota on tenure had
31% of its facultytenured.

One handbook expressed its quota policy in this way:

The number of faculty members holding tenure at

any one time shall be limited to sixty (60) percent.
Those faculty members eligible and judged qualified

for tenure by the Tenure Eligibility Committee but
unable to have it conferred due to a lack of tenure

129
vacancies in the faculty shall be designated 'tenur-
able.‘ They shall be given priority when vacancies
occur.

Fifteen CASC colleges indicated that they had adopted
a periodic contract renewal system, but only 10 of these 15
returned their faculty handbooks. Nine of the 10 colleges
made the initial appointment for one year, the other col-
leges made an initial appointment of 2 years. Each college
had a probationary period of 2 to 7 years in length. During
this probationary period, usually toward its end, the proba-
tionary faculty members were evaluated. One college gave its
sequence of appointment as follows:

The normal sequence of appointment under this pol-

icy shall be four (4) one-year appointments and one
(1) three-year appointment, prior to the granting of
the first five-year appointment. The sequence of ap-
pointment is subject to all of the other provisions
of this Policy, provided, however, nothing herein
shall limit the number of one and three-year appoint-
ments which may be granted, nor shall anything herein
prohibit the granting of a shorter appointment of a
faculty member who has previously held a longer term
appointment.

In 8 of these colleges all evaluations and recommen-
dations for longer term contracts were made by the adminis-
tration. In only two colleges was there provision made for
faculty consultation and participation in the evaluation pro-
cess. The lengths of the long term contracts varied. Some
colleges gave long term contracts until the age of 65, for*
periods of 5 years, while others used only 3 year contracts.
One college used contracts which varied in length, beginning
with a 3 year contract, followed by a 5 year contract, then by

7 years, then 10 years until the age of 65. One college gave 5

130
year contracts until the age of 52, at which time a contract
was given until the faculty member reached the age of 65.
Table 4.24 shows the length of the initial contract, the
length of the probationary period, and the length of the en-
suing contracts. Only 4 of the 10 colleges that had contract
renewal systems did not provide a means for a hearing or due
process in the event of non-renewal of a contract. One col-
lege protected itself by the inclusion of the following
statement in its contract policy:

The non-reappointment of a member of the faculty
or administration whose term of appointment expires
does not constitute a dismissal nor does it necessarily
reflect adversely upon that person's professional com-
petency. Accordingly, it is not necessary for the col-
lege to provide a statement of the cause or due pro-
cess proceedings.

Another college said the following about cause.

Where adequate cause for dismissal exists, the
President shall have the right, subject to confirma-
tion from the Board of Trustees, to terminate the
employment of the faculty member immediately without
payment or further compensation. The President shall
also have the option of suspending the faculty member
from classes pending a determination on dismissal but
such suspension shall be with compensation until the
end of the appointment period or the date of the fac-

ulty member's termination by the Board of Trustees,
whichever is earlier.

The 4 colleges that made provision for due process by
means of a hearing and an appeal, followed similar procedures
of colleges that had no tenure and provided due process.

The colleges that adopted the periodic contract re-
newal system had an average of 53 full-time faculty members
in 1977, 48 in 1972. Only 1 college reported a decrease in

the number of full-time faculty members. Five colleges

131
reported that they failed to renew the contracts of 10 fac-
ulty members before they were eligible for the longer term
non-probationary contract.
Table 4.24.--Comparison of the Length of the First Contract,
The Probationary Period and Subsequent Contracts at Ten CASC

Colleges That Had a Periodic Contract Renewal System.During
1977-1978

 

 

 

Length of Length of Lengths of
Initial Probationary Period Continuing Contracts
Contract
1 7 Variable
l 3 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 3
2 2 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3
l 2 3 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5
l 4 3 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5
l 2 3 - 5 - 5 - 5 age 52-65
1 5 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5
l 6 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5
l 2 3 - 5 - 7 -10 -10
l 5 6 - 8 -10 -10 -10

 

Forty-six of the 124 CASC colleges indicated they had
just completed or are still in the process of revising their
tenure policies. One hundred and sixteen colleges indicated
they had revised their policies since 1972. Only 8 colleges
had not revised their tenure policies since 1972. Table 4.25
gives a distribution of the dates of the most recent revision

of the tenure policies of the participating CASC colleges.

132

Table 4.25.--A Distribution of the Dates of the Most Recent
Revision of Tenure Policies at One Hundred and Twenty-Four
CASC Colleges

 

Year of Latest Number of Colleges Percentage of Colleges
Revision

 

 

 

1978 _ 46 . 37
1977 25 20
1976 15 12
1975 16 13
1974 9 7
1973 5 4
1972 l 1
Before
1972 7 6
Total 124 100
Summary

Data were received from.the questionnaires and faculty
handbooks of colleges which hold membership in the Council for
the Advancement of Small Colleges. One hundred and twenty-
seven questionnaires and 120 faculty handbooks were received.
One hundred and twenty colleges had an active tenure system,
28 had no tenure, and 10 colleges had adopted a periodic con-
tract renewal system- The data were analyzed and compared

within the CASC colleges and with data from similar studies.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter, the purpose of the study is stated,
the methods of the study are considered, and the findings,

conclusions and recommendations are listed.

1. Summary

 

The purpose of this study was to determine the cur-
rent tenure policies and practices of the 189 colleges asso-
ciated with the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges.
Letters requesting a copy of the current faculty handbook and
a questionnaire to be completed and returned were sent to the
president of each of the CASC colleges. One hundred forty-
five colleges participated in this study by either returning
a faculty handbook, a completed questionnaire, or both. Thir-
teen additional colleges indicated that they had no tenure
policies, 17 indicated that they would not or could not par-
ticipate for a variety of reasons, and 14 colleges made no
reply.

One hundred and three colleges had current tenure pol-
icies and returned their faculty handbooks. One hundred and
eight colleges had current tenure policies and returned a
completed questionnaire. Twenty-eight colleges reported
they had no tenure policies, 13 of these by separate letter,

133

134
6 by means of a faculty handbook and completed questionnaire,
7 by means of a questionnaire, and 2 by means of a faculty
handbook.

The faculty handbooks from the 108 CASC colleges were
systematically analyzed and interpreted. The data were re—
corded in the instrument designed for content analysis and was
manually tabulated for each of the 31 areas of analysis. The
data from the 103 questionnaires was also tabulated manually.
Chapter 4 described the data taken from these two instruments
and compared the data of the CASC study with the data of other

studies concerned with tenure in higher education.

11. Findings of the Study

 

1. The AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic
Freedom and Tenure was directly referred to by 46 of the 103
CASC colleges that had current tenure policies and returned
the faculty handbook. Those who did not mention it directly
used much of the language contained in the statement of prin-
ciples.

2. A definition of tenure was part of the written ten-
ure policies of 83 colleges; 20 colleges did not give a
written definition of tenure.

3. The tenure plan outlined in 74 of the faculty hand-
books was identified as legal tenure, tenure that could be
legally binding on the governing board and the faculty member
concerned. The remaining 29 colleges used a tenure plan that
was identified as moral tenure, tenure with no legal status be-

cause of the prohibitive restrictions stated or implied in

135
the faculty handbook.

4. In 100 of the CASC colleges a faculty member had
to go through an evaluative process and be recommended and
approved by the board of trustees for tenure granting. Only
3 colleges granted tenure automatically following a stated
term of employment.

5. The rank of assistant professor was the pretenure
rank in 18 of the colleges, 82 indicated that the rank of
instructor was the pretenure rank, and 3 colleges did not
identify their pretenure rank.

6. In 83 of the CASC colleges, the length of the pro-
bationary period was the same for all ranks. Thirteen colleges
indicated that the probationary period varied according to
rank. Seven colleges were not specific about this probation-
ary period.

7. Of those colleges that indicated that the length
of the probationary period was the same for all ranks, 61 in-
dicated that the period was for 7 years, 10 indicated that
it was for 6 years, 7 for 5 years, 3 for 4 years, and 2 for 3
years.

8. The colleges that varied the length of the proba-
tionary period according to rank required a period of proba-
tion of from 2 to 6 years for professors, from 1 to 4 years
for associate professors, and from 1 to 4 years for assistant
professors.

9. Years of service at another institution of higher

education were accepted as part of the probationary period at

136
68 colleges, not accepted at 3 colleges, and 32 colleges were
not specific about their policy. Among those colleges that
accepted previous teaching experience, 2 colleges accepted up
to 4 years toward the probationary period, 36 colleges ac-
cepted 3 years, 7 colleges accepted 2 years, and 1 college
accepted 1 year. '

10. The criteria for the acquisition of tenure was
clearly specified in 95 of the college faculty handbooks.
Eight handbooks did not specify criteria for the acquisi-
tion of tenure. The criteria listed in 50% or more of the
reporting colleges were: teaching ability, cooperation and
general service to the institution, professional degree and
achievement, and scholarly publications.

11. Seventy-six CASC colleges stated that their gov-
erning procedures for the acquisition of tenure reserved ac-
tion to the administration but provided for faculty assist-
ance and consultation. Eighteen reserved action for the ad-
ministration alone without assistance or consultation from.any
faculty body or representative, and 9 were not specific about
the procedure.

12. A faculty member's right to appeal a denial of
tenure and the procedures to follow when making the appeal
were specified in only 20 of the faculty handbooks, the re-
maining 83 did not specify the procedure.

13. The criteria for the termination of tenure were
written in 86 CASC college faculty handbooks. Eight other

handbooks were specific, but referred to the grounds for

137
termination in the "Statement of Principles." Nine colleges
'were not specific about the criteria for the termination of
tenure.

14. Of the 86 colleges specifying criteria for the
termination of tenure, all 86 listed professional incompetence,
85 listed immorality or misconduct. Financial exigencies,
failure in institutional relationship, neglect of duty, and
incapacity or disability were each listed by 69% or more of
the specifying colleges.

15. Informal adjustment and reconciliation procedures
following faculty appeal of tenure denial were included in
the faculty handbooks of 62 of the CASC colleges, 41 did not
specify these procedures.

16. Opportunity for a hearing was granted automatically
in 7 of the faculty handbooks, 79 colleges made provision for
a hearing if it were requested, and 17 did not specify about
hearing procedure.

17. In 83 of the colleges a copy of the charges was
supplied to the accused before the hearing, while 20 colleges
were not specific about the copy of the charges. There were
no colleges that refused to supply a copy of the charges.

18. In 34 of the CASC college faculty handbooks the
hearing committee was a standing committee; 51 indicated that
the committee was a special committee; and 18 faculty hand-
books were not specific about the committee.

19. The composition of the hearing committee varied

widely among the CASC colleges. Fifty-six indicated that the

138
committee was composed of faculty members only, 17 indicated
that it was composed of faculty members and members of the
administrative staff. In 4 of the handbooks, faculty members
and members of the board of trustees made up the hearing come
mittee. Other compositions included: (1) trustees only, (2)
administrators only, (3) administrators and trustees, (4) fac-
ulty members, administrators and trustees. Eighteen handbooks
did not specify the composition of the hearing committee.

20. In 38 of the faculty handbooks the hearing commit-
tee was formed by election of the faculty. Another 38 hand-
books indicated that the committee would be formed by means of
election and appointment. In 7 colleges, all members of the
hearing committee were appointed. Twenty handbooks did not
specify how the hearing committee was formed. I

21. Seventeen CASC college faculty handbooks did not
specify particular precedures for the termination of tenure.

22. Five CASC college handbooks specified that a list
of witnesses was to be supplied before the hearing. Two would
not supply a list of witnesses before the hearing, and 79
were not specific about the list of witnesses.

23. The faculty member's right to be present with
counsel was upheld in 75 of the faculty handbooks. The right
to introduce witness on his behalf was granted in 55 of the
CASC colleges.

24. The faculty member's right to cross-examine wit-
nesses was granted in 51 of the faculty handbooks. The right

to receive a full transcript of the hearing without charge to

139
the accused teacher was recognized at 63 institutions. The
right to appeal the decision of the hearing committee was
upheld at 67 colleges.

25. Fifty-four CASC college faculty handbooks made
provision for the suspension of the accused faculty member
pending final decision of the hearing committee, if the fac-
ulty member's presence in.the classroom was considered harmful
to himself or the institution.

26. Faculty handbooks of 11 colleges stated that the
accused faculty member could be summarily dismissed by the
president in case of serious offense.

27. The 108 questionnaires listed 5,601 full-time
faculty members employed during 1977-1978. Of this number,
2,732 were tenured, 49% of the full-time faculty members.
There were 2,231 part-time faculty members.

28. The full-time faculty members by rank were: 1,199
professors, 89% of whom were tenured; 1,574 associate profes-
sors, 71% of whom were tenured; 1,872 assistant professors,
27% of whom were tenured; 852 instructors, 2% tenured, and
finally, 104 lecturers.

29. In 1972, 4,573 faculty members were employed at
CASC colleges, 1,900 or 42% were tenured. During the 5 year
period from.1972 to 1977, the percentage of tenured faculty
members at CASC colleges went up 7%.

30. Twenty-five CASC colleges conducted proceedings to
terminate tenure of 56 faculty members from 1967-1977. Nine-

teen faculty members from 10 CASC colleges resigned after a

140
question of tenure termination. Thirty were granted a hear—
ing and then dismissed, 7 were granted a hearing and then re-
tained.

31. Twenty-three CASC colleges dismissed 49 full-time
tenured faculty members from 1967-1977. Of these 49 dismissed
faculty members, 33 (67%)'were from.colleges that had reduced
the number of full-time faculty members from.1972 to 1977.

32. In 49 dismissal cases the causes for tenure ter-
mination were listed as 21 for financial exigency, 17 for pro-
fessional incompetence, 6 for failure in institutional rela-
tionships, 3 for serious misconduct or immorality, and 2 for
incapacity or disability.

33. Twelve CASC colleges indicated that 15 dismissed
tenured faculty members took legal action against the col-
lege. Five faculty members won in court; none were rein-
stated; 10 were financially compensated.

34. Seventy-one CASC colleges indicated that they
dismissed 545 faculty members before they were granted tenure
from 1967 to 1977. Eighty-four of these faculty members
asked for a written statement of reasons for the dismissal,
only 69 were given the statement. Thirty-two of these faculty
members asked for a hearing and received it. Five were rein-
stated after the hearing.

35. During the period of 1967-1977, 71 CASC colleges
dimmissed 545 faculty members before they were granted tenure.
Of these 545 faculty members, 167 (31%) were from colleges

that had reduced the number of full-time faculty members from

141
1972-1977.

36. Eighty-three percent of the CASC colleges indicated
that they have revised their tenure policies since 1972.

37. CASC colleges have considered alternatives to ten-
ure. Thirty-four colleges have considered the contract re-
newal system; only 10 have adopted it. Fifteen have considered
abolishing tenure altogether. Twenty-eight colleges have no
tenure policies. Twenty-nine have considered limiting the num-
ber of tenured faculty by a quota system; 7 have adopted a
quota system.involving 50% to 75% of the total faculty members.

38. Ten CASC colleges have adopted the contract re-
newal system, From 1972-1977 the average full-time faculty
has increased by 6% while the part-time faculty members have
increased by 79%. Five colleges have dismissed 10 faculty
members during the pre-extended contract probationary period.

39. Of the 28 CASC colleges that have not adopted a
tenure policy, the average full-time faculty has increased by
26% from 1972—1977. The part-time faculty members have in-
creased by 65%, and the part-time faculty members make up 33%
of the total faculty. Three colleges have dismissed 7 faculty
members during the decade from 1967-1977.

40. CASC colleges' presidents were willing to partici-
pate in the study. One hundred and twenty colleges sent the
faculty handbooks, (63.5%). One hundred and twenty-seven col-
leges returned a completed questionnaire, (67.2%). Of these,
102 (54%) returned both. Thirteen additional colleges indi-

cated they had no tenure policies, and 17 indicated they were

142
unwilling or unable to participate in the study. Only 14 col-
leges did not reply. The percentage of some participation in
the study was 92.6%.

111. Recommendations

 

1. That a study of alternatives to tenure including
no tenure and the periodic renewal system be made in repre—
sentive institutions of higher education in order to see if
the alternatives are more widely spread than this study of
CASC colleges indicates, and to see if they are acceptable to
faculty, administration and boardsof trustees.

2. That institutions of higher education maintain
better records concerning the dismissal of tenured and non-
tenured faculty members recording both the substantive and
procedural due process afforded each.

3. That CASC colleges' personnel examine their fac-
ulty handbooks, to make certain that their tenure policies are
complete, that the handbook may be a positive influence upon
qualified faculty considering employment at a CASC college.

4. That CASC colleges maintain the tenure system, giv-
ing of their financial resources and time to the careful re-
cruitment of qualified faculty members, the annual evalua-
tion of probationary faculty members, and the dismissal of
those who are not qualified for tenure.

5. That CASC colleges grant tenure only to those fac-
ulty members that have the potential for outstanding contri-
bution to the colleges for many years.

6. That CASC college administrators and faculty members

143
give special effort to personnel development, both admin-
istrative and professorial. '

7. That CASC administrators involve more faculty mem-
bers in the formulation of tenure policies, and that more
faculty members become involved in the decision to employ new
faculty, in the evaluation of new faculty performance and in

the decision to tenure or not to tenure probationary faculty.

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A
1940 STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE

Academic Freedom and Tenure
Statement of Principles, 19401

Editorial Note: Statement of principles concerning academic
freedom and tenure formulated by representatives 0 the Asso-
ciation of American Colleges and of the American Association
of University Professors and agreed upon at a joint conference
on November 8, 1940. This statement was endorsed by the Asso-
ciation of American Colleges at its Annual Meeting on January
9, 1941, and is to be presented for endorsement to the Annual
Meeting of the American Association of University Professors
in December, 1941.

The purpose of this statement is to promote public
understanding and support of academic freedom and tenure and
agreement upon procedures to assure them in colleges and uni-

versities. Institutions of higher education are conducted for

 

1Since 1934 representatives of the American Association
of University Professors and of the Association of American
Colleges have met in joint conferences to discuss the prob-
lems and principles of academic freedom and tenure. At a
joint conference in March, 1936 it was agreed that the two
Associations should undertake the task of formulating a new
statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure which
should ultimately replace the 1925 conference statement.
Pursuant to this agreement three such joint conferences were
held on October 4, 1936, January 22, 1938, and October 17-18,
1938. At the October, 1938 conference a statement of prin-
ciples was agreed upon. This statement was endorsed by the
Annual Meeting of the American Association of University Pro-
fessors on December 28, 1938, and has subsequently been known
as the 1938 statement of principles. The statement with sev-
eral amendments was endorsed by the Annual Meeting of the
Association of American Colleges on January 11, 1940. These
amendments by the Association of American Colleges made another
joint conference of representatives of the two Associations
necessary. Such a conference was held in washington, D.C.,
on November 8, 1940. At this conference a consensus was again
reached and the 1940 statement agreed upon. The only real
difference between the 1940 statement and the 1938 statement
is in the length of the probationary periods set forth as
representing acceptable academic practice." The probationary
periods agreed upon in the 1940 statement are one year longer
than in the 1938 statement. Please note the section of the
1940 statement under the heading "Academic Tenure" (a) (2),
and compare with same section in the 1938 statement (February,
1940 Bulletin, pp. 49-51.

144

145

the common good and not to further the interest of either the
individual teacher1 or the institution as a whole.' The common
good depends upon the free search for truth and its free ex-
position. 1

Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and
applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research
is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom
in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of
the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to
freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative
with rights.

Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1)
Freedom of teaching and research and of extra-mural activi-
ties, and (2) A sufficient degree of economic security to
make the profession attractive to men and women of ability.
Freedom and economic security, hence tenure, are indispens-
able to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obli-

gations to its students and to society.

Academic Freedom.

 

(a) The teacher is entitled to full freedom.in research
and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate
performance of his other academic-duties; but research for pe-
cuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the

authorities of the institution.

 

1The word "teacher" as used in this document is under-
stood to include the investigator who is attached to an aca-
demic institution without teaching duties.

146

(b) The teacher is entitled to freedom in the class-
room in discussing his subject, but he should be careful not
to introduce into his teaching controversial matter which has
no relation to his subject. Limitations of academic freedom
because of religious or other aims of the institution should
be clearly stated in.writing at the time of the appointment.

(c) The college or university teacher is a citizen, a
'member of a learned profession, and an officer of an educa-
tional institution. When he speaks or writes as a citizen, he
should be free from institutional censorship or discipline,
but his special position in the community imposes special ob-
ligations. As a man of learning and an educational officer,
he should remember that the public may judge his profession
and his institution by his utterances. Hence he should at
all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint,
should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make
every effort to indicate that he is not an institutional spokes-

man.

Academic Tenure

 

(a) After the expiration of a probationary period
teachers or investigators should have permanent or continuous
tenure, and their services should be terminated only for ade-
quate cause, except in the case of retirement for age, or under
extraordinary circumstances because of financial exigencies.

In the interpretation of this principle it is under-
stood that the following represents acceptable academic

practice:

147

(1) The precise terms and conditions of every appoint-
ment should be stated in writing and be in the possession of
both institution and teacher before the appointment is con-
summated.

(2) Beginning with appointment to the rank of full-
time instructor or a higher rank, the probationary period
should not exceed seven years, including within this period
.full-time service in all institutions of higher education;
but subject to the proviso that when, after a term of proba-
tionary service of more than three years in one or more insti-
tutions, a teacher is called to another institution it may be
agreed in writing that his new appointment is for a proba-
tionary period of not more than four years, even though thereby
the person's total probationary period in the academic profes-
sion is extended beyond the normal maximum of seven years.
Notice should be given at least one year prior to the expira-
tion of the probationary period, if the teacher is not to be
continued in service after the expiration of that period.

(3) During the probationary period a teacher should
have the academic freedom that all other members of the fac-
ulty have.

(4) Termination for cause of a continuous appointment,
or the dismissal for cause of a teacher previous to the expir—
ation of a term appointment, should, if possible, be considered
by both a faculty committee and the governing board of the in-
stitution. In all cases where the facts are in dispute, the

accused teacher should be informed before the hearing in

148

writing of the charges against him.and should have the oppor-
tunity to be heard in his own defense by all bodies that pass
judgment upon his case. He should be permitted to have with
him an adviser of his own choosing who may act as counsel.
There should be a full stenographic record of the hearing
available to the parties concerned. In the hearing of charges
of incompetence the testimony should include that of teachers
and other scholars, either from his own or from other insti-
tutions. Teachers on continuous appointment who are dismissed
for reasons not involving moral turpitude should receive their
salaries for at least a year from the date of notification of
dismissal whether or not they are continued in their duties
at the institution.

(5) Termination of a continuous appointment because

of financial exigency should be demonstrably bona fide.

APPENDIX B
CASC MEMBER COLLEGES

THE COUNCIL FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SMALL COLLEGES
One Dupont Circle, Suite 320

Washington, D.C.

20036

Member Colleges

 

Albertus Magnus College
700 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511

Alverno College
3401 South 39th St.
Milwaukee, WI 53215

Annhurst College
Woodstock, CT 06281

Arkansas College
Box 2317
Batesville, AR 72501

Augustana College
29th & Summit Ave.
Sioux Falls, SD 57102

Aurora College
347 South Gladstone AVe.
Aurora, IL 60507

Averett College
Danville, VA 24541

Azusa Pacific College
Highway 66 at Citrus
Azusa, CA 91702

Barrington College
Barrington, RI 02806

Bartlesville Wesleyan College
2201 Silverlake Road
Bartlesville, OK 74003

Bethany College
Lindsborg, KS 67456

Bethany Nazarene College
6729 N.W. 39th Expressway
Bethany, OK 73008

Bethal College
1011 West McKinley Ave.
Mishawaka, IN 46544

149

Bethel College
North Newton, KS 67117

Bethel College
3900 Bethel Drive
St. Paul, MN 67117

Bluffton College
Bluffton, OH 5817
Bradford College
320 South Main St.
Bradford, MA 01830

Brenau College
Boulevard, N.E.
Gainesville, GA 30501

Brescia College
120 West 7th St.
Owensboro, KY 42301

Bryan College
Dayton, TN 37321

Buena Vista College
Storm Lake, IA 50588

Cabrini College
Eagle & King of Prussia Rds.
Radnor, PA 19087

California Lutheran College
60 Olsen Rd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360

Campbellsville College
Campbellsville, KY 2718
Carlow College
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Carroll Colle e
Helena, MT 5 601

Carroll College
100 North East Ave.
Waukesha, WI 52186

Cedarville Colle e
Cedarville, OH 45314
Central College

812 University

Pella, IA 50219

Central Wesleyan College
Central, SC 29630

College Misericordia
Lake St.
Dallas, PA 18612

College of Idaho
Caldwell, ID 83605

College of Mt. St. Joseph
on the Ohio
5701 Delhi Road
Mount Saint Joseph, OH 45051

College of St. Benedict
Saint Joseph, MN 56374

College of St. Francis
500 Wilcox St.
Joliet, IL 60435

College of Steubenville
Franciscan Way
Steubenville, OH 43952

Columbia College
600 South Michigan Ave.
Chicago, IL 60605

Covenant College
Lookout Mountain, TN 37350

Curry College
848 Brush Hill Rd.
Milton, MA 02186

Dakota Wesleyan University
Mitchell, SD 57301

David & Elkins College
Elkins, WVA 26241

Dominican College of Blauvelt
Western Highway
Orangeburn, NY 10962

150

Dordt College
Sioux Center, IA 51250

Eastern College
Saint Davids, PA 19087

Eastern Mennonite College
Harrisonburg, VA 22801

Eastern Nazarene College
23 East Elm Ave.
WOllaston, MA 02170

Edgewood College
855 Woodrow St.
Madison, WI 53711

Eureka Colle e
Eureka, IL 1530

Felician College
South Main St.
Lodi, NJ 07644

Findlay College
1000 North Main St.
Findlay, OH 45840

Flagler College
St. Augustine, FL 32084

Fort Wayne Bible Colle e
1025 West Rudisill Bou evard
Fort Wayne, IN 46807

Franklin College
Franklin, IN 46131

Franklin Pierce College
Rindge, NH 03461

Freed-Hardeman College
East Main St.
Henderson, TN 38340

Friends University
2100 University
Wichita, KS 67213

George Fox College
Newberg, OR 97132

Gordon College
255 Grapevine Ave.
Wenham, MA 01984

Goshen College
Goshen, IN 46526

Grace College
‘Winona Lake, IN 46590

Grand Canyon College
3300 West Camelback Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85017

Grand Rapids Baptist College
Grand Rapids, MI 49501

edd Mercy College
Gwynedd Valley, PA 19437

Hampshire College
West St.
Amherst, MA 01002

Holy Family College
Grant and Frankford Avenues
Philadelphia, PA 19114

Houghton College
Houghton, NY 14744

Huntington College
Huntington, IN 46750

Huron College
Huron, SD 57350

Illinois College
1101 West College Ave.
Jacksonville, IL 62650

Illinois Benedictine College
Lisle, IL 60532

Immaculata College
Immaculata, PA. 3245

Incarnate Word College
4301 Broadway
San Antonio, TX 78209

John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR 72761

151

Judson College
1151 North State St.
Elgin, IL 60120

Kansas Newman College
3100 MeCormick Ave.
Wichita, KS 67213

Kansas Wesleyan College
Salina, KS 67401

King College
East State St.
Bristol, TN 37620

King's College
133 North River St.
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711

The King's College
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510

Ladycliff College
Highland Falls, NY 10928

Lakeland College
Sheboygan, WI 53081

La Roche College
9000 Babcock Boulevard
Pittsburgh, PA 15237

Lee College
Cleveland, TN 37311

Lenoir-Rhyne College
Hickory, NC 28601

LeTourneau College
P.O. Box 7001
Longview, TX 75601

Lincoln University
281 Masonic Ave.
San Francisco, CA

Lincoln Memorial University
Harrogate, TN 37752

MaCMurray College
Jacksonville, IL 62650

Madonna College
36600 Schoolcraft Rd.
Livonia, MI 48150

Marian College
3200 Cold Spring Rd.
Indianapolis, IN 46222

Marion College
4201 South washington St.
Marion, IN 46952

Mars Hill College
Mars Hill, NC 28754

Mary College
Applecreek Rd.
Bismarck, ND 58501

Mary Baldwin College
Staunton, VA 24401

Marylhurst Education Center
Marylhurst, OR 97036

Marymount College

East Iron Ave. & Mary-
mount Rd.

Salina, KS 67401

McKendree College
Lebanon, IL 62254

McPherson College
1600 East Euclid
McPherson, KS 67460

Mercy College of Detroit
8200 West Outer Drive
Detroit, MI 48219

Mercyhurst College
501 East 38th St.
Erie, PA 16501

Messiah College
Grantham, PA 17027

Mid-America Nazarene
College

2030 College way

Olathe, KS 66061

Milligan College
Milligan, TN 37682

152

Missouri Baptist College
12542 Conway Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63141

Mobile College
P.O. Box 13220
Mbbile, AL 36613

Molloy College
100 Hempstead Ave.
Rockville Centre, NY 11570

Morris College
Sumter , SC 29150

Mount Mary College
2900 Monomonee River Parkway
Milwaukee, WI 53222

Mount Mercy College
1330 Elmhurst Drive, N.E.
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402

MOunt Saint Mary's College
12001 Chalon Rd.
Los Angeles, CA 90049

Mount Vernon Nazarene College
Martinsburg Rd.
Mount Vernon, OH 43050

Muskingum College
New Concord, OH 43762

New College of California
777 Valencia St.
San Francisco, CA 94110

Newberry College
2100 College St.
Newberry, SC 29108

North Park College
5125 North Spaulding Ave.
Chicago, IL 60625

Northland College
1411 Ellis Ave.
Ashland, WI 54806

Northwest Christian College
Eugene, OR 97401

Northwest Nazarene College
Nampa, ID 83651

Northwestern College
Orange City, IA 51041

Northwestern College.
3003 Snelling Ave. N.
Roseville, MN 55113

Notre Dame College
4545 College Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44121

Nyack College
Nyack, NY 10960

Oakland City College
Oakland City, IN 47660

Ohio Dominican College
1216 Sunbury Rd.
Columbus, OH 43219

Oklahoma Christian College
Oklahoma City, OK 73111

Our Lady of Angels College
Aston, PA. 19014

Pacific College
1717 South Chestnut Ave.
Fresno, CA 93702

Pacific University
2043 College Way
Forest Grove, OR 97116

Paine College
1235 Fifteenth St.
Augusta, GA 30901

Paul Quinn College
1020 Elm St.
Waco, TX 76704

Pikeville College
Pikeville, KY 41501

Point Loma College
3900 Lomaland Dr.
San Diego, CA 92106

Quincy College
1831 College Ave.
Quincy, IL 62301

Regis College
3539 West 50th Parkway
Denver, CO 80221

Regis College
235 Wellesley St.
weston, MA 02193

Ricker College
Houlton, ME 04730

Rockmont College
8801 West Alameda Ave.
Denver, CO 80226

Roberts Wesleyan College
Rochester, NY 14624

Rosemont College
Rosemont, PA 19010

Rust College
Rust Avenue
Holly Springs, MS 38635

Sacred Heart College
North Main Street
Belmont, NC

Salve Regina College
Ochre Point Ave.
Newport, RI 02840

St. Alphonsus College
Route 5A Mapleton Ave.
Suffield, CT 06078

St. Ambrose College
Davenport, IA 52803

St. Augustine's College
1315 Oakwood Ave.
Raleigh, NC 27611

St. Edward's University
3001 South Congress
Austin, TX 78704

St. Joseph College
1676 Asylum Ave.
West Hartford, CT 06117

St. Joseph's College
Rensselaer, IN 47978

St. Martin's College
Olympia, WA 98503

St. Mary's Dominican College
7213 St. Charles Ave.
New Orleans, LA 70118

St.
St.
IN

Mary-of- -the-Wbods College
Mary-of- the-Woods,
47876

St.
St.

Meinrad College
Meinrad, IN 47657

St. Michael' s College
Winooski, VT 05404

St. Thomas Aquinas College
Sparkill, NY 10976

St. Vincent College
Latrobe, PA 15650

Shaw College at Detroit
7351 Woodward Ave.
Detroit, MI 48202

Silver Lake College of the
Holy Family

Route 5 Box 112

Manitowoc, WI 54220

Simpson College
801 Silver Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94134

Sioux Falls College
1501 South Prairie Ave.
Sioux Falls, SD 57101

Spelman College
350 Spelman Lane,
Atlanta, GA 30314

S.W.
Spring Arbor College
Spring Arbor, MI 49283

Sterling College
Sterling, KS 67579

154

Susquehanna University
Selinsgrove, PA 17870

Tabor College
Hillsboro, KS 67063
Texas Lutheran College
Seguin, TX 78155

The Lindenwood Colleges
St. Charles, MO 63301

Thiel College
Greenville, PA 16125

Tift College
Forsyth, GA 31029

Trevecca Nazarene College
333 Murfreesboro Rd.
Nashville, TN 37201

Trinity College
2045 Half Day Rd.
Deerfield, IL 60015

Trinity College
Burlington, VT 05401
Trinity Christian College
6601 West College Dr.
Palos Heights, IL 60463

University of Dubuque
2050 University Ave.
Dubuque, IA 52001

Urbana College
College way
Urbana, OH 43078

Villa Maria College
2551 West Lake Rd.
Erie, PA 16505
Viterbo College
815 South 9th St.
LaCrosse, WI 54601

Walsh College
2020 Easton St. N.W.
Canton, OH 44720

155

Warner Pacific College
2219 S.E. 68th St.
Portland, OR 97215

warren Wilson College
Swannanoa, NC 28778

western New England College
1215 Wilbraham Rd.
Springfield, MA 01119

Westmar College
1002 Third Ave. S.E.
Le Mars, IA 51031

‘Westminster College
1840 South 13th East St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84105

Westmont College
955 LaPaz Rd.
Santa Barbara, CA 93103

Wheeling College
316 washington Ave.
Wheeling, WVA 26003

Whitworth College
Spokane, WA 99218

William Jewell College
Liberty, MO 64068

William Penn College
North Market Street
Oskaloosa, IA 52577

156
THE DISTRIBUTION OF CASC COLLEGES BY STATE

 

 

§E§E§ Number of Colleges Sggtg Number of Colleges
Alabama 1 'Montana 1
Alaska 0 Nebraska 0
Arizona 1 Nevada 0
Arkansas 2 New Hampshire 1
California 9 New Jersey 1
Colorado 2 New Mexico 0
Connecticut 4 New York 8
Delaware 0 North Carolina 5
Florida 1 North Dakota 1
Georgia 4 Ohio 11
Hawaii 0 Oklahoma 3
Idaho 2 Oregon 5
Illinois 13 Pennsylvania 17
Indiana 13 Rhode Island 2
Iowa 9 South Carolina 3
Kansas 11 South Dakota 4
Kentucky 3 Tennessee 8
Louisiana 1 Texas 5
Maine 1 Utah 1
Maryland 0 Vermont 2
Massachusetts 7 Virginia 3
‘Michigan 5 Washington 2
Minnesota 3 West Virginia 2
Mississippi 1 Wisconsin 8
Missouri 3 Wyoming 0

APPENDIX c
THE QUESTIONNAIRE

ACADEMIC TENURE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
FOR CASC COLLEGES

THE QUESTIONNAIRE*

 

1. Please help me discover a profile of your present faculty.
How many are in each rank? Are they full-time or part-
time? Have they been granted tenure?

Number Number Number
Position Full-Time Part-Time On Tenure

 

 

Professor

 

 

 

Associate Professor

 

 

 

Assistant Professor

 

 

 

Instructor

 

 

 

Other, Please Specify

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. How did your faculty profile differ from the above in

1972?
Number Number Number

Full-Time Part-Time On Tenure
Total in 1972

 

 

 

3. How many proceedings to terminate tenure have
been originated at your college from 1967 to

the present?

 

4. How many tenured professor were granted a
hearing and then dismissed from 1967 to the

present?

 

157

158

. How many tenured professors had their tenure

terminated from.1967 to the present?

 

. How many tenured professors were granted a
hearing and then retained from 1967 to the

present?

 

. How many tenured professors resigned after
a question of tenure termination had arisen

from 1967 to the present?

 

. Please indicate the causes for tenure termination as

evidenced from.the proceedings to terminate tenure from

1967 to the present?

Number of
Causes Proceedings

 

Professional incompetence

 

Serious misconduct or immorality

 

Crime including treason

 

Incapacity or disability

 

Failure in institutional
relationship

 

Other causes, Please specify

 

 

 

. How many dismissed professors took legal action

against the institution during the past decade?

 

a. What number won the case in a court of law?

 

b. What number were reinstated?

 

c. What number were financially compensated
but were not reinstated

 

159

10. How many non-tenured professors have been

11.

12.

dismissed before they were granted tenure

from 1967 to the present?

a.

 

How many of these dismissed non-tenured
professors asked for a written statement
of reasons for the dismissal?

 

. Of those who asked, how many were granted

such a statement?

 

. Homeany of these dismissed non-tenured

 

professors asked for a hearing?

 

. Of those who asked, how many were granted

such a hearing?

 

. Of those who were granted a hearing, how

many were reinstated?

 

During what academic year have you last

studied or sought to update the tenure

policies of your college?

 

Have you, or are you presently considering any alter-

natives to tenure?

Have Considered Are Considering

 

 

. A limitation on the

number of tenured
faculty. (A quota
system)

 

 

. A periodic contract

renewal system

 

 

. Abolishing tenure

altogether

 

 

. Collective Bar-

gaining, making
tenure a negotiable
item

 

 

. Other, Please

specify

 

 

160
The investigator will be grateful for any general statement
or comments you may wish to make. Please return the com-
pleted questionnaire in the self-addressed, stamped envelope

provided. Thank you.

 

*This questionnaire was based upon the questionnaire
used by Shaw and was adopted for use in this study.

B. N. Shaw, "Academic Tenure Policies and Procedures
in State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges which are members
of the National Association of State Universities and Land-
grant Colleges," Ed.D. dissertation, University of Mississippi,
971.

161

ACADEMIC TENURE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
IN STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT
COLLEGES WHICH ARE MEMBERS OF.

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE
UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

THE QUESTIONNAIRE*

1. Total teaching staff and teaching staff on tenure:

Position Total Full-Time On Tenure

Professor

 

 

 

 

Associate Professor

 

 

Assistant Professor

Instructor

 

 

 

 

Other, if any

(please specify)

Total

2. Number

 

 

 

 

of proceedings to terminate tenure which were in-

stituted at your institution during the past ten years

 

3. Number
missed
4. Number
during

5. Number
tained

6. Number

of tenured teachers granted hearing and then dis-
during the past ten years

 

of tenured teachers whose tenure was terminated
the past ten years

 

of tenured teachers granted hearing and then re-
during the past ten years

 

of tenured teachers who resigned after a question

of tenure termination had arisen during the past ten

years

 

162

7. Causes for tenure termination as evidenced from.the
proceedings to terminate tenure during the past ten years:

Causes Number of Proceedings

Professional incompetence

 

Serious misconduct or immorality

 

Crime including treason

 

Incapacity or disability

 

Failure in institutional relationship

 

Other causes, if any (please specify)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Number of dismissed teachers who took legal action
against the institution

 

(a) Number won the case in the court of law

 

(b) Number reinstated

 

(c) Number financially compensated but
not reinstated

 

 

Please return the completed questionnaire to:

Biswanath Shaw
Box 7849
University, Mississippi 38677

The investigator will be grateful for any general
statement or comments you may wish to make.

 

*B. N. Shaw, "Academic Tenure Policies and Procedures in
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges which are Members of
the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges," Ed.D. dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1971.

APPENDIX D

INSTRUMENT FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTS CONCERNING
ACADEMIC TENURE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

INSTRUMENT FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTS CONCERNING
ACADEMIC TENURE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES*

Name of Institution

Tit1e(s) of document(s) studied

 

 

I. DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION OF TENURE
1. Definition of tenure (a) is given (b) is not given

Indicate title of the document and page number of the
definition if given:

 

2. The tenure plan of the institution as described in the
document is (a) legal tenure (b) moral tenure
(c) not specific

3. The tenure plan of the institution as described in the

document is (a) automatic (b) evaluative
(c) not specific

11. ACQUISITION OF TENURE
4. The pretenure rank is

(a) Associate professor

(b) Assistant professor

(c) Instructor

 

(d) Other (specify)

 

5. Probationary period is
(a) Same for all ranks
(b) Varies according to rank

(c) Not specific

 

6. If the probationary period is the same for all ranks,
note the number of years

163

10.

ll.

12.

164

. If the probationary period varies according to rank, in-

dicate the number of years against each rank below
(a) Professor .

(b) Associate professor

(c) Assistant professor

(d) Instructor

. Acceptance of the teacher's previous service at another

institution towards probationary period

(a) accepted (b) not accepted (c) not specific

. If accepted and the acceptable period is uniform irre-

spective of ranks, specify the number of years accept-
able

If accepted, but the period acceptable is not uniform,
indicate below

(a) Minimum number of years acceptable

(b) Maximum.number of years acceptable

Criteria for the acquisition of tenure

(a) specified (b) not specified

If the criteria are specified, check the items applicable
(a) Teaching ability____ '

(b) Research ability_____

(c) Scholarly publications____

(d) Professional degree and achievement

(e) Character and personality____

(f) Cooperation and general service to the institution____
(g) Advising service to students_____

Other criteria (if any) not included above

 

 

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

165

Governing procedures for the acquisition of tenure
(a) Reserve action to the administration

(b) Reserve action to the administration, but provide for
faculty consultation

(c) Reserve action to administration, but provide some
kind of faculty action other than more consultation

 

(d) Governing procedure is not specific
Appeal from denial of tenure

(a) Right to appeal specified

(b) Right to appeal not specified
Procedures for appeal from denial of tenure
(a) Procedures are specified

(b) Procedures are not specified

III. TERMINATION OF TENURE
Criteria for termination of tenure
(a) Specific
(b) Not specific

(c) States in general terms, such as, "Cause," "Good
Cause," or "Adequate Cause," etc.

(d) States in general--"Grounds in the 1940 State-
ment. "

 

Check all the items specified as criteria for termination
(a) Immorality or misconduct

(b) Professional incompetence

(c) Neglect of duty

(d) Failure in professional growth

 

(e) Crime, including treason

(f) Incapacity or disability

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

166

(g) Failure in institution relationship
(h) Financial exigencies

(1) Other criteria not included above

 

 

Informal adjustment and reconciliation procedures
(a) Specified

(b) Not specified
Opportunity for a hearing
(a) Granted automatically
(b) Granted if requested
(c) Provision not specific

 

A copy of the charges
(a) Supplied before the hearing date____
(b) Not supplied

(c) Provision not specific

 

The hearing committee is ordinarily
(a) A standing committee

(b) A special committee for each case
(c) Not specific

Composition of the hearing committee

(a) Faculty members only

 

(b) Faculty and administrative staff
(c) Faculty, administration and trustees

(d) Any other composition

 

(e) Not specific

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

167
Formation of the hearing committee
(a) All members are appointed
(b) All members are elected by the faculty
(c) Seme elected and some appointed
(d) Any manner of formation
(e) Not specific
A list of witnesses is supplied before the hearing date
(a) Yes (b) No (c) Not specific
The teacher has the right to be present with his counsel
(a) Yes (b) No (c) Not specific
The teacher has the right to introduce witnesses
(a) Yes (b) No (c) Not specific
The teacher has the right to cross examine witnesses
(a) Yes (b) No (c) Not specific

The teacher has the right to receive a full transcript
of the hearing

(a) Yes (b) No (c) Not specific
The teacher has the right to appeal
(a) Yes (b) No (c) Not specific

The teacher can be suspended during the hearing pending
final decision of the hearing committee

(a) Yes (b) No (c) Not specific

The teacher can be summarily dismissed by the president in
case of serious offense

(a) Yes (b) No (c) Not specific

Note below any additional data that have not been included

 

*B. N. Shaw, "Academic Tenure Policies and Procedures in

State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Which are Members of
the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges," Ed.D. dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1971.

APPENDIX E
INSTRUCTIONS TO ANALYSIS FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS

INSTRUCTIONS TO ANALYSTS FOR CONTENT ANALYSIS*

Dear Analyst:

Enclosed please find three documents concerning tenure

policies and procedures of three different institutions of

higher education and three copies of the instrument designed

for the content analysis of these documents. Please follow.

the following methods in making the content analysis and

record the desired data in the instrument.

1.

Be thoroughly acquainted with the instrument for
content analysis.

Study the definitions of the following terms:

(a) Tenure. Tenure is defined as a permanence of
position, often granted an employee after a speci-
fied number of years of continuous service and/or
upon appointment at/or promotion to a specific
rank.

(b) Legal Tenure. Legal tenure is tenure, the
terms and conditions of which are legally binding
on the parties concerned.

 

(c) Moral Tenure. Moral tenure i8 tenure which
is establiéhed by convention rather than by law
or tenure with restrictive provisions that make
the tenure legally unenforceable.

 

(d) Automatic Tenure. Automatic tenure refers to
tenure which is acquired by completing a specified
period of continuous service and/or by being pro-
moted to or appointed at a specified faculty rank.

 

(e) Evaluative Tenure. Evaluative tenure is not
automatic in the sense that a teacher does not
assume tenure upon completion of a specified pro-
bationary period or upon promotion to or appoint-
ment at a specified faculty rank. The tenure is
formally granted by an official announcement or

a letter indicating the decision of the governing
board.

 

Please note that evaluation is done in both
kinds of tenure, whether automatic or evaluative.

168

169

(f) Probationary Period. Probationary period
refers to a specified number of years a teacher is
required to serve at a particular rank or particu-
lar ranks to be eligible for tenure.

 

(g) Pre-Tenure Rank. The lowest rank at which a
college or university may grant tenure to its
teachers.

 

3. Study thoroughly one document at a time.

4. Interpret the content of the document systemati-
cally.

5. Draw inferences from the interpretation of the
content of each document.

6. Record the inferences in the instrument for con-
tent analysis in the form of specific data.

7. Review each document and the data recorded in the
instrument and examine the objectivity in analysis
and accuracy in recording of the data.

8. Briefly describe the data with a note of reference
in cases where the data cannot be fitted into the
instrument.

9. On completion of your content analysis and record—
ing of the data, return the documents and the in-
struments to the author.

Your cooperation is highly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Ralph Abuhl

 

*B. N. Shaw, "Academic Tenure Policies and Procedures in
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Which are Members of
the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges," Ed.D. dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1971.

APPENDIX F

THE CHART SHOWING AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT
IN CONTENT ANALYSIS BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATOR
AND THE THREE INDEPENDENT ANALYSTS

CHART SHOWING AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT IN CONTENT ANALYSIS

BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATOR AND THE THREE INDEPENDENT ANALYSTS

Category
in the
Instrument

 

1

\D G! \l 0‘ U! b-U N

h) r4 pa h‘ ha pa P‘ #4 pa h‘ p.
CD so ‘m \n ox kn .b u: no rd <3

 

Analyst A
Documents
X Y Z
A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A D D
A D D
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A

 

A - Agreement with the investigator's analysis

D = Disagreement with the investigator's analysis

170

 

Analyst B
Documents
X Y Z

A
A A D
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A . A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A D
A A D
A A A

 

Analyst C
Documents

Y Z
A A A
A A D
A A A
A A A
D A A
D A A
D A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A A
A A D
A A D
A A A
A A A
A A D
A A A
A A A

171

CHART SHOWING AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT IN CONTENT ANALYSIS
BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATOR.AND THE THREE INDEPENDENT ANALYSTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continued
Category Analyst A Analyst B Analyst C
in the Documents Documents Documents
Instrument X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z
21 A A A A A A D A
22 A A A D A D A A A
23 A A D D A A A A A
24 D A A A A A A A A
25 A A A A A A A A A
26 A A. A A A A A A A
27 A A A A A A, A A A
28 A A. A A A A A A A
29 A A A A D D A A A
30 D A A A. A A A A A
31 A A A A A A A A A
A = 29 29 28 29 30 26 28 29 27
D = 2 2 3 2 l 5 3 2 4
Percentage

of Agreement 93.5 93.5 90.3 93.5 96.8 83.9 90.3 93.5 87.1

 

A 8 Agreement with the investigator's analysis

D = Disagreement with the investigator's analysis

APPENDIX G
LETTER SENT TO PARTICIPATING COLLEGES FROM THE CASC OFFICE

 

The Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges
ONE DUPONT CIRCLE WASHINGTON. D. C. 20036 0 (202) 659.3795

 

. GARY H. QUEHI GERRIT J. TenBRINK WILLIAM A. SHOEMAKER DANIEL I-I. PILON
President Vice President Vice President Ior Research Director, National Consulting Network

About one month ago, a friend and former colleague of mine, Mr. Ralph Abuhl,
approached me about making a study of the tenure policies and practices of
the CASC colleges. I was immediately interested. In my position, I have
become increasingly aware of some of the problems involved with the practice
of tenure in the private college. With continuing inflation, declining
student enrollment, and increasing number of available qualified faculty,
liberal tenure policies could soon result in the “tenuring in” of some of
our colleges. Such a circumstance could lead to a lack of positions avail-
able to youthful, creative faculty members for some years.

Studies similar to this one proposed for the CASC colleges have been made
using state colleges and universities, but I know that we need such a study
for the private, small college. Mr. Abuhl has offered to send a copy of a
summary of his findings to each college that participates, in addition to
making the full report available to the CASC office.

I encourage you to participate in this timely study by sending a copy of

your current faculty handbook to Mr. Abuhl, and by completing his question-
naire at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, léék“u4:/

Gerri J. TenBrink
Vice President

172

APPENDIX H

LETTER SENT TO PARTICIPATING COLLEGES FROM THE INVESTIGATOR
AND HIS. COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION
ERICKSON HALL

I am currently a doctoral student at Michigan State University writing
my dissertation on the tenure policies and practices of CASC colleges.
Your institution, as part of the Council for the Advancement of Small
Colleges is an integral part of my study. I am presently an associate
professor of psychology at the Grand Rapids Baptist College, one of
the CASC colleges to be included in my study. I would greatly appre-
ciate your assistance.

Your participation includes two things: (1) the completion of the
enclosed three-page questionnaire, and (2) the mailing of your faculty
handbook or other documents which contain your official statements on
tenure policies. Accompanying this letter is a self-addressed, stamped
envelope for the return of the questionnaire, and another larger self-
addressed, stamped envelope for your faculty handbook.

All responses are guaranteed anonymity. The results of the study will
be incorporated into the doctoral dissertation, but a summary of the
completed study will be mailed to all participating institutions.

Thank you for your response, your time and your interest. Please
mail the questionnaire and handbook at your earliest convenience.

we, age»)

Ralph Abuhl vandel Johnson . D.
Chairman, Department of Administration
and Higher Education, MSU

Sincerely,

173

APPENDIX I
F OLLOW-UP LETTER

February 24, 1978

A few weeks ago I sent you a letter and a questionnaire concerning
"Tenure Policies and Practices in CASC Colleges," which is the topic
of my doctoral dissertation at Michigan State University. To date

I have not received either your questionnaire or your faculty handbook.
I realize that this is a very busy time of year for you, and that

my request is an imposition upon your time, but I am working under

a deadline and would appreciate your help. Please complete the
questions at the bottom of this page and return it via the enclosed
envelope. In this way I will know what information I can expect to
receive from you within the next week.

Thank you for your interest and your time.

Sincerely,

Ralph Abuhl

I. NAME OF YOUR INSTITUTION:

II. THE QUESTIONNAIRE:

A. We have mislaid it, but would like to assist you, will you
please send us another copy.

B. We have already sent it to you.

C. We do not have tenure, so the questionnaire would not be any
help to your study. ("Please send it anyway, your informa-
tion is significant to the study as a whole. ")

_D. We do not intend to complete the questionnaire for you.

III. THE FACULTY HANDBOOK 0R DOCUMENT CONTAINING YOUR EMPLOYMENT PROMO-

TION, AND TENURING POLICIES:

__;A. We have not mailed it yet, but will try to do it today.

___B. We have already sent it to you.

___C. We do not have tenure, so the handbook would not be of any
help to your study. ("Please send this information too, as
it is significant to the study as a whole.")

D. We do not intend to send you a copy of our handbook/document.

 

 

174,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Ashmore, Henry L. Hypocrisy in Academia? New York: Vantage
Press, 19721

 

Black, Henry Campbell. Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul: west
Publishing Company, 1951

 

Blackburn, Robert T. Tenure: Aspects of Job Security on the
Chan in Cam us. Atlanta: Southern Region Educational
Boarfi, I972.

Bosley, H. E. Administration of Faculty Personnel in State
Teachers Colleges. Oneonta, New York: The American
Association of Teachers Colleges, 1946.

 

Brown, David C. The Mobil Professors. washington, D.C.:
AmericanTCouncil on Education, 1967.

 

Butts, R. Freeman and Cremin, L. S. A History of Education in
American Culture. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Win-
ston,'1953.

Caplow, Theodore and McGee, Reece J. The Academic Market
Place. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., 1955.

 

 

Chambers, M. M. The College and the Courts: Faculty and Staff
Before the Bench. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate
Printers and Publishers, 1973.

 

 

 

Cooper, Thomas. Dr. Cooper's Defense Before the Board of Trus-
tees. C61umbia, South Carolina: Times and Gazette,

 

Dennison, Charles P. Facultngi hts and Obligations. New York:
Teachers College, COIum is, 1955.

 

 

Hodgkinson, Harold L. Institutions in Transition. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 1970.

 

Hofstadter, Richard, and Metzger, walter P. The Development of
Academic Freedom in the United States. New York: Cqum-
his University Press, 1955.

175

 

176

Hook, Sidney, ed. In Defense of Academic Freedom. New York:
Pegasus, 1971.

Joughin, Louis, ed. Academic Freedom and Tenure: A Handbook of
the American AssociatiEn of University Professors.
Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press,
1967.

Keast, William.R. (Chairman). Commission on Academic Tenure
in Higher Education, Faculty Tenure: A Report and
Recommendations. San Fianéisco: Jossey Bass Pub-
lishers, 1973.

 

Post-Secondarnyducation in New York State. New York: State
Education Department, 1973.

Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University. New
York: Vintage Books, 1965.

Smith, Bardwell L., et al. The Tenure Debate. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc., 1971.

U.S. Constitution. Amend. I; Amend. V; Amend. XIV, sec. 1.

 

washington, H. A., ed. wrigings of Thomas Jefferson. vol. VII.
washington, D.C.: Taylor and Maury, 1854.

Whitehead, Alfred North. The Aims of Education. New York:
New'American Library, 1961.

 

Journals By Author

Allshouse,'M. F. "New Academic Slalom: Mission, Personnel
Planning, Financial Exigency, Due Process." Liberal
Education (October, 1974): 349-368.

 

Bauer, Roger D. "Security Versus Freedom: Some Faculty Views
on the Tenure Process." Phi Delta Kappan (December,
1972): 279-280.

 

Berendzen, Richard. "Population Changes and Higher Education."
Educational Record (Spring, 1974): 115-125.

 

Canavan, Francis. "The Process That is Due." Journal of Higher
Education (February, 1973): 114-123.

Clark, Robert D. "Tenure and the Moderation of Conflict."
New Directions for Higher Education (Autumn, 1974):
24-39.

Crase, Darrel. "The Tenure Crisis: Implications for Higher
Eggcgfion Faculty." Physical Educator (October, 1974):

 

177

Devaughn, Everett J. "Termination and Due Process-~A.Comment."
Journal of Law and Education (April, 1973): 305-311.

Dill, David D. "Tenure Quotas: Their Impact and an Alterna-
tive. " Liberal Education (December, 1974): 467- 477.

Dressel, Paul. "A Review of the Tenure Policies of Thirty-
One Major Universities." Educational Record XXXXIV
(July, 1963): 252-253.

Donohue, John W} "A Small Revolt in the Land of Tenure."
America (August, 1974): 75.

 

Eddy, Edward D. and Merrill, Richard L. "Living‘with Tenure
Wéthzgt Quotas. " Liberal Education (October, 1975):
3 9 7

Enteman, W. J. "Tenure at Union College." Liberal Education
(December, 1974): 461-466.

 

Farmer, C. H. "Colleague Evaluation: The Silence Is Deafening."
Liberal Education (October, 1976): 432-436.

Fellman, David. "Report of Committee A, 1963-1964. " AAUP
Bulletin (1964): 126-127.

Friedman, Martha. "How Southern Illinois University Broke 28
zenuzzd Contracts." Phi Delta Kappan (March, 1974):
63- S.

Furniss,‘W. Todd. "Steady-State Staffing: Issues for 1974."
Educational Record (Spring, 1974): 87-95.

 

Goode, W. J. "The Protection of the Inept." American Socio-
logical Review (February, 1967): 8.

 

 

Hackerman, Norman. "Uses and Abuses of Tenure." Journal of
Medical Education (March, 1975): 252-256.

 

Hechiger, F. Mt "Loss of Tenure: Return of a Nightmare."
Saturday Review (May, 31, 1975): 49-51.

Jacobsen, Gene 8., Sperry, David J. and Jensen, Boyd F. "The
Dismissal and Non-Reemployment of Teachers." Journal
of Law Education (July, 1972): 435-448.

Keck, Donald J. "Tenure: Who Needs It?" Phi Delta Kappan
(October, 1972): 124-217.

 

Kenny, William E. "Constitutional Law-~Procedural Due Process--
The Rights of a Non-Tenured Teacher Upon Non- Renewal of
His Contract at a State School. " DePaul Law Review
(Spring, 1973): 702- 712.

 

178

Kilgore, W. J. "Reviewing Tenure." AAUP Bulletin (Autumn,
1973): 339-345.

Kirkland, Edward C. "Annual Report of Committee A." AAUP
Bulletin XXXI (1946): 7-8.

 

Lang, Theodore H. "Teacher Tenure as a Management Problem."
Phi Delta Kappan (March, 1975): 459-462.

Lieberman, Myron. "Tenure: A New High-Priority Issue." Phi
Delta Kappan (March, 1975): 450.

Lunstrum, John P. "Faculty Retraining in Florida State Univer-
sities." Phi Delta Kappan (March, 1975): 465.

 

‘Machlup, Fritz. "On Some Misconceptions Concerning Academic
Freedom." AAUP Bulletin XXXXI (1955): 753.

 

Magarrell, Jack. "State Support: Up Twenty-Nine Percent in
Two Years." Chronicle of Higher Education (October,
21, 1974): l.

 

Malpass, Leslie F., Mentgomery, James R., and Price, Barbara A.
"Dividing Up the Tenure Pie." College and University
Business (August, 1974): 33-35.

 

Martin, Richard. "Tenure For Teachers Is Beginning to Crumble
As Courts Push Drive." The wall Street Journal (April
16, 1971): l.

 

Matheson, Alan A. "Judicial Enforcement of Academic Tenure: An
Examination."'Washington Law Review 50 (1975): 597-622.

 

Mbog, Florence. "A Dragon Called Tenure." hange (November,
1972): 10-11.

Murphy, William.P. "Educational Freedom in the Courts." AAUP
Bulletin (Winter, 1963): 309-327.

Nisbeth,2Rob§rt. "The Future of Tenure." Change (April, 1973):
7-3 .

. "The Permanent Professors: A Modest Proposal." The
Public Interest (Fall, 1965): 38.

O'Brien, D. "Licensing the Gadflies, AAUP and Tenure Regula-
tions." Commonweal (October 5, 1973): 7-10.

O'Brien, Francis‘Williamm "Due Process for the Nontenured in
Private Schools." Journal of Law and Education (April,
1974): 174-202.

 

179

Palmer, Walter H. "Due Process Termination of Untenured
Egaczgr." Journal of Law and Education (July, 1972):
9- 5.

Park, Dabney, Jr. "Tenure Shock." The Chronicle of Higher Edu-
cation (June 4, 1974): 16.

Parker, Garland G. "College and University Enrollments in
America, 1937-197 ." Intellect (February, 1974).

 

Peterson, James L. "The Dismissal of Tenured Faculty for
Reasons of Financial Exigency." Indiana Law Journal
(Winter, 1976): 417-432.

anister, Allen D. "Promotion and Tenure Policies in Under
graduate Colleges." North Central Association Quar-
terly XXXII (January, 1958):’268-275.

Rood, Harold J. "Legal Issues in Faculty Termination."
Journal of Higher Education (March-April, 1977):
123-149.

Sandrin, J. V. "Tenure: Evanescent or Enduring?" Clearing
House (January, 1972): 268-270.

Simpson, William A. "Tenure: A Perspective of Past, Present,
and Future." Educational Record (Winter, 1974): 48-54.

 

Smith, Norman B., and Cerbala, Patricia. "Job Security for
Public Employees." Washington and Lee Law Review 31
(1976): 545-571.

Soules, J. A. and Buhl, L. C. "Reviving Promotion and Tenure:
A Systematic Approach." Educational Record (Winter,
1972): 73-79.

Stone, S. J., and Pega, B. "Stimulating the Tenure Teacher."
Journal of Secondary Education (April, 1969): 167-170.

Thurstonz, L4 2. "Academic Freedom." AAUP Bulletin XVI_(1930):
51- 5 .

. "The Thurstone Plan for Enforcing the Principles of
Freedom and Tenure." AAUP Bulletin XXXII (May, 1932):
361-363. ‘

 

Vaccaro, L. "The Tenure Controversy: Some Possible A1ternatives.‘
Journal of Higher Education (January, 1972): 35-43.

 

Van Alstyne, William. "Tenure: A Summary, Explanation, and De-
fense." AAUP Bulletin XVII (1971): 328-33.

 

. "The Demise of The Right-Privilege Distinction in
Constitutional Law." Harvard Law Review 1439-1464.

 

180

West, Richard R. "Tenure Quotas and Financial Flexibility in
Colleges and Universities." Educational Record
(Spring, 1974): 96-100.

 

Williams, Richard C. "Tenure Practices--Redefined." Junior
College Journal (May, 1969): 26-29.

WOlfe, Dael, and Kidd, Charles V. "The Future Market for
Ph.D.‘s." Science (August, 1973): 784-793.

Wriston, Henry N. "Academic Freedom and Tenure." AAUP Bulletin
XXIV (1939): 328-329.

 

Yanella, Donald J. "1973 Report of the Special Committee on
antenured Faculty." AAUP Bulletin (Summer, 1973): 467.

Young, A. A. "Report of Committee An" AAUP Bulletin II (1916):
17.

 

Young, D. P., and Gehring, D. D. "Teacher Employment Rights
and Due Process. EducationaILHorizons (Fall, 1973):
52-66.

 

Journals By Article

"Academic Freedom.and Tenure--194O Statement of Principles."
AAUP Bulletin (March, 1970): 27-30.

"Call for the Meeting of Organization of a National Associa-
tion of University Professors." AAUP Bulletin II
(1916): 11

 

"Committee 2, The Economic Status of the Profession, 1960-61,
Annual Report." AAUP Bulletin (Summer, 1961): 101-134.

 

"Due Process Restrictions on the Employment Power and the
Teaching Profession." Nebraska Law Review 50 (1971):
655-675.

"Elimination of Faculty Tenure: Community Colleges." Intellect
(March, 1973): 346.

 

"Extracts from Committee Reports and Official Addresses."
AAUP Bulletin VIII (December, 1922): 22-46.

"Faculty Featherbedding." Time (May 10, 1971): 61-64.

"Financial Exigency as Cause for Termination of Tenured Faculty
Members in Private Post Secondary Educational Institu-
tions." Iowa Law Review (December, 1976): 481-521.

Newsweek (June 10, 1974): 75.

181

"1968 Recmmmended Institutional Regulations on Academic Free-
dom.2nd Tenure." AAUP Bulletin (Winter, 1968):
448- 52. -

"Report of Committee A," AAUP Bulletin IV (1918): 28.

 

 

"Statement of Principles, 1940." AAUP Bulletin XXVII (1941):
' 40-45.

"The Rockefeller University: No Time for Philosophers."
Science (January, 21, 1977): 252-275.

"Will Enrollments Nosedive?" The Chronicle of Higher Educa-
tion (February 10, 1975): 7.

Microforms

Emenhiser, JeDon A. Implementing a Tenure Quota: The Colgate
Case. New York: ERIC Document Reproduction Service,
ED 597 847, 1974.

Leslie, Larry L. and Miller, Howard F. Higher Education and
Steady State. washington, D.C.: ERIC Higher Education
REsearch Report Number 5, 1974.

anister, Allen D. ed. University Fagulty in Crisis: Collective
Bargaining, Tenure, Faculty Development, Occasional
Papers in Higher Education. Denver: ERIC Document Re-
production Service, ED II9 573, 1975.

 

Wilson, Charles F. The Case For and Against Tenure. Dallas:

ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 106 944, 1975.
Court Cases

American Association of University Professors Bloomfield Col-
le e Cha ter v. BloomfieldIColle e, 129 N.J. Super.
245, 322 A.2d 846 (I974) affirmed, 136 N.J. Super.
442, 346 A.2d 615 (1975).

Board of Regents of Wisconsin State Colle e v. David F. Roth,
U.S.Sf Ct., No. 7I-162, KO U.S. E w WeeE SO79 (June

‘ 29, 1972).
Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (1960) at 442.

 

John v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin, 74-
Cl42’W1D. Wisc. (June 13, 1974).

 

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123
(1941).

182

McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 220, 29 N.E. 517
d(1892).

u.s.s. Ct. No. 70-36, 40 U.S.L.W. 5087, June 29, 1972.

 

 

U.S.S. Ct. No. 71-162, 40 U.S.L.W. 5079, June.29, 1972.

Valley National Board of Phoenix v. Golver, 159 p. 2d 292,
298 (1945).

WOrzella v. Board of Re ents, Sup. Cr. of South Dakota, 77
S.D. 447, 93 N.W. 2d 411 (1958).

Unpublished Material

 

Fisher, Bethany Jeanne. "A Study of the Implications of the
Nonretention of Tenured and Nontenured Faculty for
Public Four-Year Institutions of Higher Education in
the United States," Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1976.

McCleary, Lloyd E. "Promotion and Tenure: A Content Analysis
Study of Department Criteria at a Major University,"
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1976.

Office of Planning in Higher Education. "Projected Full-Time
Undergraduate Enrollments for New York State Through
1990," Albany: State Education Department, (October,
1973).

Shaw, Biswanath. "Academic Tenure Policies and Procedures in
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Which Are
Members of the National Association of State Universi-
ties and Land-Grant Colleges," Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Mississippi, 1971.

Van Newkirk, Jack. "A Review of Tenure Policies in Private
Higher Education in the Commonwealth of Virginia,
1964-1974," Ed.D. dissertation, College of William and
Mary, 1975.

Wilkie, William R. "Faculty Academic Freedom: A Legal Anal-
ysis," Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,
1969.