By Shanani D.
For most researchers, tenure typically means stable employment, academic freedom, and assured financial security. But is that really the case?
Earlier, 8 tenured faculty members from the Tufts University School of Medicine (TUSM) filed a lawsuit against the university over its tenure policies. Recently, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, USA, released the appeal results of this case.
According to disclosed documents, due to the university's policies in recent years, the basic salaries of the 8 individuals have significantly decreased, ranging from $4,500 to $95,500. They argue that this policy significantly impacts their financial security and academic freedom, challenging the traditional tenure protection system.
The case is expected to be heard in 2025, with the judgment potentially serving as a significant precedent for resolving similar legal disputes and having a broad impact on how academic institutions across the United States award, interpret, and enforce tenure.
Rights undermined, safeguards missing
Going back to 2017, Tufts University enacted a "Base Science Tenure Track Compensation Plan," abbreviated as the 2017 Compensation Plan. This plan required tenured faculty in the base science fields to secure external research funding to cover half of their salaries.
Under this policy, faculty who fail to meet the 50% funding requirement not only face pay cuts and the risk of losing their full-time status but also the possibility of laboratory downsizing or closure. It's worth noting that many medical schools in the United States are implementing similar policies.
In 2019, the university issued a revised version of the 2017 Compensation Plan – the 2019 Compensation Plan. While largely retaining the terms of the 2017 plan, the revised plan made significant changes to the faculty's Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) metric: if a faculty member's FTE remains below 0.75 for four consecutive years and fails to meet other expectations of the university, they may face tenure revocation proceedings.
That same year, 8 faculty members who received tenure at TUSM between 1970 and 2009 filed a lawsuit against Tufts University, claiming their tenure rights had been violated after their salaries were cut.
The trial court issued a brief ruling in favor of Tufts University in 2023, dismissing the tenure-track faculty's lawsuit. Subsequently, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, keeping the case under review.
They pointed out a crucial principle in the university's policies on academic freedom, tenure, and retirement, indicating that tenure should provide "sufficient economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability."
However, the basic salaries of the 8 plaintiffs were significantly reduced due to the 2017 and 2019 Compensation Plans, ranging from $4,500 to $95,500. One plaintiff, cancer biologist Amy Yee, saw her basic salary drop from $139,387 to $77,220.
Since 1998, Yee has been a tenured faculty member at Tufts University. To cope with the financial pressure from the pay cut, she now works part-time in real estate to supplement her income.
In response to these allegations, Tufts University argued in court filings that it had the right to reduce salaries. A summary filed regarding the appeal stated, "Plaintiffs have consistently failed to meet performance expectations. They have failed to maintain independent research programs resulting in impactful scholarly output, as well as failed to obtain meaningful external funding to support their research." Court documents show that in 2020, the plaintiffs fell far short of the policy requirement to pay 50% of their salaries.
In rebuttal, the plaintiffs argued that they were hired to conduct research, teach, and serve, not just to write grant proposals. One plaintiff, who requested anonymity, stated, "I disagree with any statement that suggests that faculty at our medical school haven’t contributed."
Additionally, the 8 plaintiffs noted that many funding agencies restrict funds available to pay PI salaries. Plaintiff Ana Soto, known for her research on bisphenol A (a chemical widely used in plastic products), said some "won’t pay me a penny." Since 1994, Soto has been a tenured faculty member at Tufts University. Plaintiffs' attorneys argued that forcing faculty to choose unrestricted funds violated their academic freedom.
For Soto, the 2017 Compensation Plan presented a dilemma: comply with university requirements or retain laboratory staff.
Ultimately, Soto chose not to comply with the policy because, in her view, "lab members are not expendable." Court documents show that she paid only 25% of her own salary in 2020.
Hollow promises, conflicting views
In March 2024, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, stating that the plaintiffs' claims had merit: "Without any salary commitment, tenure seems to be an empty promise."
In a legal document submitted to the court by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) representation, Risa Lieberwitz, Professor of Labor and Employment Law at Cornell University and AAUP General Counsel, argued that Tufts University's plan "fundamentally violates principles of tenure, economic security, and academic freedom." Tufts University's lawyers argued that statements regarding economic security in tenure documents are "aspirational" and lack specificity, thus not legally binding. This statement originates from a seminal declaration by the AAUP in 1940, which is commonly found in the documents of many American universities.
While the court has supported the plaintiff's position on issues of economic security—for instance, in a ruling last month, it concluded that "economic security is a vital substantive term of a tenure contract" and noted the need for more evidence to determine which types of salary reductions do not violate contract terms—on the issue of lab space rights, the court sided with Tufts University. The ruling indicates that granting an individual tenure does not guarantee them specific lab space.
Lieberwitz stated, "The ruling in this case will have significant implications when similar contract disputes involving tenure are adjudicated in other state courts."
Academic Freedom: Challenges from Multiple Fronts
In modern American higher education, the concept of tenure originates from the AAUP's "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure."
The "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure" states that tenure is an indefinite appointment, and professors granted tenure cannot be arbitrarily dismissed by the institution. Termination can only occur under specific circumstances, such as severe financial exigency or significant faculty misconduct.
Since its inception, tenure has been a cornerstone of higher education systems. Academic institutions use tenure to attract and retain top talent, enhancing their academic reputation and status.
For individual faculty members, achieving tenure is a significant career milestone, as it signifies recognition of their professional competence and academic achievements, providing long-term job security and protection. Moreover, the robust job protection afforded by tenure enables professors to pursue academic research freely without external interference or pressure.
While tenure has long been seen as a crucial safeguard for academic freedom, it faces challenges from various quarters amid policy changes, financial pressures, and legal requirements.
In 2018, three professors at the University of Arkansas filed a lawsuit against the institution's latest tenure policy. The new policy stated that faculty could be dismissed for engaging in unethical behavior or conduct detrimental to teaching or the work environment.
The plaintiffs argued that the policy granted administrators more freedom and power to find reasons for dismissing tenured faculty, as terms like "unethical behavior," "detrimental conduct," and "poor performance" lacked specific definitions and standards in the termination clauses.
In 2021, the public university system of Georgia approved a new policy stating that if tenured professors received two consecutive unsatisfactory annual reviews and failed to complete improvement plans, the college administration could dismiss them without further peer review, which was previously required. Notably, this new policy also evaluates tenured professors' performance based on student learning outcomes.
In May of the same year, the AAUP issued a special report titled "COVID-19 and Academic Governance," noting that many U.S. colleges faced severe financial challenges due to the pandemic. For instance, Keuka College in New York directly terminated 22 full-time faculty members, most of whom were tenured, citing budget cuts.
Furthermore, reasons for terminating tenure contracts are becoming increasingly specific. For example, under Title IX of the federal education law, academic institutions are urged to dismiss or force the resignation of faculty members found to violate core principles of equal treatment, particularly regarding harassment of students.
Data indicates a steady decline in the number of tenured faculty members over the past few decades. According to the "Snapshot Data: Tenure and Contingent Faculty in U.S. Higher Education" report released by the AAUP in March 2023, the academic workforce in the United States is becoming increasingly reliant on adjunct faculty and graduate students.
Percentage of Teachers by Faculty Type in the United States from Fall 1987 to Fall 2021
Source: AAUP Official Website
In its report, the AAUP notes that tenure is a primary means of safeguarding academic freedom. Its presence not only protects individual teachers but also ensures the quality of teaching and research in higher education, benefiting students and serving the public interest.
References:
