Compile | Duzanie
Typically, tenure for most researchers means stable employment, full academic freedom, and a guaranteed financial income.
However, is this really the case?
Previously, eight tenured faculty members at Tufts University School of Medicine (TUSM) appealed against the university over tenure policy. Recently, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts announced the results of the appeal of the case.
According to the documents, due to the school's policies in recent years, the basic salaries of the eight have dropped significantly, ranging from about $4,500 to $95,500. They argued that the policy seriously affected the plaintiff's financial income and academic freedom, and also challenged the traditional tenure protection system.
The case is expected to go to trial in 2025, and the outcome of the trial could be seen as an important precedent for other courts to resolve similar legal disputes, with broad implications for how tenure is awarded, interpreted, and performed at academic institutions across the United States.
Rights and interests are impaired and protection is lacking
Back in 2017, Tufts University announced a "Tenured Faculty Compensation Plan for Basic Sciences", referred to as the 2017 Salary Plan. The program requires tenured faculty members in the basic sciences to receive external research funding to cover half of their salaries.
The policy states that tenure-track faculty members who fail to meet this 50 percent funding requirement are not only at risk of a pay cut and loss of full-time status, but the school may also downsize or even close its labs. It is worth mentioning that many medical schools in the United States are implementing similar policies.
In 2019, the university issued a revised version of its 2017 compensation plan – the 2019 Compensation Plan. While the revised compensation plan largely retains the terms of the 2017 compensation plan, it makes important changes to the full-time equivalent (FTE) metric for faculty members: if a faculty member's FTE is below 0.75 for four consecutive years and fails to meet the university's other expectations for employment, the faculty member may be subject to review in tenure revocation proceedings.
That same year, eight faculty members who had been granted tenure at TUSM between 1970 and 2009 filed a lawsuit against Tufts University after their salaries were cut, alleging that their tenured rights had been violated.
In 2023, the trial court issued a brief judgment in favor of Tufts University, rejecting the claims of eight tenure-track faculty members. Subsequently, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, leaving the case pending.
They noted that there is an important principle in the university's policy on academic freedom, tenure and retirement, which states that tenure should be provided with "a sufficient degree of financial security to ensure that the profession is attractive to both men and women of ability."
However, the base salaries of the eight plaintiffs in the case were significantly reduced due to the 2017 and 2019 compensation plans, ranging from approximately US$4,500 to US$95,500. One of the plaintiffs, cancer biologist Amy Yee, lowered his base salary from $139387 to $77,220.
Yee has been a tenured faculty member at Tufts University since 1998. In response to the financial pressure of a salary cut, she now works part-time in real estate to supplement her income.
In response to the allegation, Tufts argued in court filings that it had the right to reduce wages. A summary document on the appeal reads: "The plaintiff has failed to meet performance expectations for many years. They have failed to maintain independent research projects that produce impactful academic outputs, nor have they been able to secure meaningful external funding to support their research. "Court documents show that in 2020, defendants were far from meeting the policy requirement of paying 50% of their wages.
In response, the plaintiffs noted that they were hired to carry out research, teaching, and service work, not just to write grant applications. One of the plaintiffs, who requested anonymity, said: "I disagree with anything that says that the faculty of our medical school did not contribute. ”
In addition to this, the eight plaintiffs also pointed out that many funding agencies limit the grant funds that can be used to pay PI compensation. Ana Soto, the plaintiff in the case, said that some people "wouldn't pay me a penny of my salary." Soto has been a tenured faculty member at Tufts University since 1994 and is best known for his research on bisphenol A, a chemical widely used in plastics. Plaintiffs' attorneys allege that forcing faculty members to choose grants without institutional restrictions violates their academic freedom.
For Soto, the 2017 compensation plan put her in a dilemma: whether to comply with university requirements or to retain lab staff.
Eventually, Soto chose not to comply with the policy because, in her opinion, "lab members are not optional". Court documents show that she paid only 25 percent of her own salary in 2020.
Empty promises, opposing opinions
In March 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court for further hearing, stating that the eight plaintiffs' claims were justified: "Tenure seems like an empty promise without any salary commitment." ”
In a legal filing filed with the court by representatives of the Association of American University Professors (AAUP), Risa Lieberwitz, a professor of labor and employment law at Cornell University and general counsel of AAUP, argued that Tufts' program is "fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of tenure, financial security, and academic freedom."
Tufts attorneys argue that the statement of financial security in the tenure document is a "desirable vision" and that it is not contractually binding due to its lack of concreteness. The statement stems from a seminal statement announced by AAUP in 1940 and is common in documents from many American universities.
While the court upheld the plaintiff's claim on the issue of financial security — for example, in last month's judgment — the court concluded that "financial security is an important material term of tenure contracts" and noted that more evidence is needed to determine which types of pay reductions did not violate the terms of the contract. However, the Court upheld Tufts University's position on the issue of the right to laboratory space, and the decision made it clear that granting tenure to an individual does not imply a guarantee of ownership of a particular laboratory space.
"The decision in this case will have a significant impact on other state courts when they hear contract disputes similar to tenure positions," Lieberwitz said. ”
Academic freedom, multiple challenges
在现代的美国高等教育中，终身教职概念起源于AAUP于1940年发表的“学术自由与终身教职原则声明”（1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure）。
“学术自由与终身教职原则声明”（1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure）。
The statement states that tenure is an indefinite appointment, and that the university cannot arbitrarily dismiss a professor who has been granted tenure, and that it can only be terminated for some reason or under exceptional circumstances, such as a serious financial crisis or a serious problem with the professor.
Since its inception, the concept of tenure has been an important institution in the higher education system. Academic institutions enhance their academic reputation and status by awarding tenure to attract and retain top talent.
For individual teachers, attaining tenure is an important goal in their careers, as it is a recognition of their professional competence and academic achievement, and it means long-term career stability and security. In addition, thanks to a strong job protection system for tenure, teachers are able to conduct academic research freely without external interference or pressure.
Although tenure has always been regarded as an important guarantee of academic freedom, it faces many challenges in the face of policy and institutional changes, financial pressures, legal requirements, and other factors.
In 2018, three professors at the University of Arkansas filed a lawsuit against them over the university's latest tenure policy. The new policy states that faculty members may be dismissed if they engage in unethical behavior, or if their actions negatively impact the functioning of the teaching or work environment.
The plaintiffs argue that the policy gives university administrators more freedom and power to find reasons to dismiss tenured faculty members. Because there are no specific definitions and standards for related terms such as "unethical conduct", "harmful conduct" and "poor performance" in the policy terms related to the reason for termination.
In 2021, Georgia's public university system approved a new policy that allows tenured professors to be fired without the need for another faculty member to participate in the review if they fail two consecutive annual reviews and fail to complete an improvement plan. Previously, however, the university had to go through a cumbersome peer review process before it could fire tenured professors. Notably, this new policy will also evaluate the performance of tenured professors based on student learning outcomes.
In May of the same year, AAUP released a special report on "Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia and Academic Governance", pointing out that many American universities have suffered heavy financial losses due to the impact of the epidemic. Among them, Kenicius College in New York State has laid off 22 full-time teachers, most of them tenured professors, on the grounds of budget cuts.
In addition, the reasons for terminating tenure are becoming more concrete. For example, Title IX of the U.S. Federal Education Act mandates that academic institutions should fire or force faculty members to resign if they are found to have violated core principles of equal treatment, particularly harassment of students.
The data shows that the number of tenure-track faculty members has shown a steady downward trend over the past few decades. According to AAUP's March 2023 report, Data Snapshot: Tenure and Surprises in U.S. Higher Education, the U.S. academic workforce is becoming increasingly reliant on temporary faculty and graduate students.
Percentage of total teachers by faculty type in the United States from fall 1987 to fall 2021. Source: AAUP official website
In its report, the AAUP noted that tenure is the main way to protect academic freedom, and that it exists to protect not only individual teachers, but also to ensure the quality of teaching and research in higher education, for the benefit of students and in the public interest.
Reference Links
1.https://www.science.org/content/article/university-cut-tenured-faculty-s-pay-they-re-suing
2. Hattapus://mp. Vaccine.K.com/S/Stil5C2HK3UKPU-Jagmag
3.https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure
4.https://theconversation.com/academic-tenure-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters-162325
5.https://view.op.org/special-report-COVID-19-and-academic-governance#Canicius-College
6.HTTPS://www.op.org/article/data-snapshot-tenor-and-contingency-US-higher-education#. JC7GVXVVMKul
7. Hattpus://vv.nighttime.com/2021/10/13/as/georgia-university-system-tenor.html
8.https://www.aaup.org/brief/wortis-v-trustees-tufts-college-no-sjc-13472-mass-2023
9.https://www.thefire.org/news/faculty-sue-university-arkansas-system-over-new-tenure-policy