Editorial:
Unraveling Tenure

Recent tenure decisions have prompted a lengthy and costly swirl of debate, with four lawsuits filed in the past five years over tenure denials. The complex tenure procedure, which determines whether certain professors will be granted the life-long job security that tenure affords, often looks inscrutable to outsiders, including the very educators up for tenure review.

Faculty that are hired on the tenure track have a seven year trial period as assistant professors to prove they excel in the three areas that are criteria for receiving tenure: teaching, "collegiality" — defined loosely in the Blue Book as contributions to the community of faculty scholars — and scholarship.

The recent tenure-related lawsuits have encompassed claims of racism, sexism, reverse discrimination and personal antagonism. Two of these disputes erupted over scholarship evaluations, including the plight of Anthony Daley, the former assistant professor of government denied tenure in 1993 and again in 1994 for because he did not meet the standards of scholarship required by the department.

Tenure denial potentially debilitates a career, rendering a professor virtually unable to land another teaching job at a school of similar caliber.

Daley’s dissatisfaction with the decision handed to him spawned four years of expensive and grueling lawsuits, with Daley accusing the government department of breach of contract and reverse discrimination. The closely guarded confidentiality of the tenure process was broken when the University was asked to release tenure files and teaching evaluations for evidence. In response to Daley’s complaints that the tenured faculty in the government department were not sufficiently informed in his particular field of research, outside experts were called upon to judge his publications.

In the end, Wesleyan won, with a July 17 verdict from the Connecticut Superior Court. And still Daley, his career in shambles, plans to appeal the most recent court decision, asking for financial compensation for lost wages and damaged reputation.

There is a lot that is unclear and inaccessible about this and other contested tenure denials in the dance and MB & B departments, and the cycle of bitter lawsuits that have followed in their wake.

What is clear is the high personal and professional stakes involved, the inherent ambiguity of the job criteria, and deep dissatisfaction with the explanations given for recent rejections.

The result, in this case, is more painful procedures, drawn-out investments of time and money.

For a procedure that makes or breaks livelihoods, it is remarkably — and deliberately — hard to decipher.