Faculty at colleges and universities strive and struggle to earn tenure. The concept of tenure as always bee though of as a lifetime guarantee of continued employment.
The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit disagrees. In Branham v Cooley Law School, et al the court upheld a lower court decision that declares tenure not a guarantee of future employment.
If upheld further, the case will send shivers through the academic community.
Lynn S. Branham egan teaching at the Cooley Law School in 1983 and earned tenure. At the time of her dismissal in 2006 she was a tenured professor. Branhan sued the school for wrongful termination and claimed that tenure was a lifetime appointment. Although she was tenured, she continued to sign a series if one-year contracts in accordance with Cooley policy. Branham was dismissed after refusing to teach a class.
In arguments before the court Branham's attorney claimed that “tenure means a lifetime appointment or a guarantee of continuous employment.” The court disagreed and upheld the lower court decision.
The court found that tenure is meant to allow for "academic freedom" in the classroom. It does not guarantee a lifetime appointment or guaranteed employment beyond the term of the contract. According to the court, Branham's contract was for a single year and Cooley met that responsibility.
For now, the ruling is currently binding in the Sixth Circuit which includes parts of Tennessee, Michigan, Kentucky and Ohio. The ruling could be used as precedent in other courts.
Is this the end of tenure? Unlikely, but it would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court would handle this. Would it be an academic freedom case or simply a case in contract law.
More from The Cardinal Newman Society
No comments:
Post a Comment