Cases

Below are links to descriptions of some situations in which retaliation for dissent appeared to play a prominent role in faculty employment decisions. Cases like these were helpful to me (as well as darkly encouraging) as I prepared an appeal of my tenure case, and they illustrate the importance of explicitly protecting dissent in faculty handbooks. In some cases described here, the AAUP censured the institution for “not observing the generally recognized principles of academic freedom and tenure.”

Protecting junior faculty at University of Wisconsin–Stout: Timothy Shiell describes the events at UW–Stout after a series of faculty members were sanctioned or threatened with sanction for uncollegial behavior. Most “were junior faculty who feared retaliation and thus declined to file a grievance or complaint.” The school added the AAUP statement “On Collegiality as a Criterion for Faculty Evaluation” to its faculty handbook. A department committee and chair had been using allegations of noncollegiality to evaluate a junior faculty member, and was then forced to reframe the allegations in terms of their effects on teaching, research, and service. The faculty member’s contract was not renewed, but they won an appeal in which the internal review committee “unanimously ruled the alleged behaviors either were not proven with sufficient evidence, were protected by academic freedom, or failed to affect teaching, service, and research in any meaningful way.”

Punishing political differences at the University of North Carolina: After a law professor criticized the university’s handling of several racial issues, he was removed from the UNC Press board. The system’s board of governors also closed a law center run by a professor who had been an outspoken critic of the state government. (The AAUP report also covers some political interference not related to dissent, such as the initial refusal by the board of trustees to offer tenure to Nikole Hannah-Jones.)

Retaliation at the University of Mississippi: An assistant professor of history was fired after asking for his department chair to explain in writing, rather than verbally, the reason for rejecting a grant he had won.

Retaliation for disagreement at Brooklyn College: A historian with excellent records in both scholarship and teaching was denied tenure on the basis of “uncollegiality,” which in fact seemed to stem from past disagreements. After a fair amount of negative press coverage and a number of supportive letters from other scholars, the faculty member was ultimately granted tenure.

Punishment of dissent at Husson College: An English professor and division head was denied tenure after positive evaluations from his dean. The president cited previously unstated concerns about the professor’s “effectiveness and cooperation in working with colleagues and the college administration.” The president said that the professor’s disagreement on a placement test score policy constituted “insubordination,” and had written to the professor, “an individual who accepts payment from an institution should be loyal to that institution.”

Dissent and morale at Saint Meinrad School of Theology: A tenured female professor was dismissed for signing an open letter asking the pope to permit continued discussion of the possibility of ordaining women to the priesthood. What struck me most was the description of how the treatment of this professor affected her former colleagues. The school’s first tenured female faculty member left the school, saying that the events were “a breach of faith not only with [the professor], but also with the entire faculty.” The AAUP committee reported with “dismay” the deterioration of morale: “Saint Meinrad appears to have been, for many years, a happy and congenial place …. Highly qualified people shared a high degree of mutual trust, along with a determination … to resolve problems quietly through counseling, consultation, mediation, and good will. The dismissal of [the professor], and particularly the way in which the dismissal was effected, violated not only the regulations, but also the very spirit of the school.”