Lawsuit against Ashland University will define value of tenure

Ashland University recently announced that it granted tenure to three faculty members.

I worked with two of the faculty who received tenure prior to leaving for Fairfield University in Connecticut last year. While I am incredibly happy that the hard work these faculty have done has been recognized, I worry that the reward of tenure is meaningless at AU.

In August 2015, several tenured faculty — the university has never actually said how many — were told their jobs were being eliminated. As of January 2017, they are no longer employed by AU. This move on the administration’s part is the primary reason I left AU. I no longer felt the tenure I was granted in 2014 meant anything.

Fortunately, seven faculty members whose jobs were eliminated have filed a lawsuit against the university claiming administrators violated the rules and regulations that govern the university when it comes to this type of act. (You can read the entire complaint by clicking here.)

This is an incredibly important lawsuit, not just for Ashland University, but for universities in general. It boils down to what the definition of the word restructure is, and it has the potential to destroy tenure, the staple of academic freedom that has made American universities the great institutions they are.

The university’s rules and regulations contain wording that allows the administration to eliminate tenured faculty members. The first reason is because the university is on the verge of financial collapse. Here, the Board of Trustees would have to declare something called “financial exigency.” Once a board declares that, it’s open season on tenured faculty, all in the effort to save the university.

It’s no secret that AU has not done well when it comes to managing money over the last decade. However, the trustees have not declared financial exigency.

Other than dire financial straits, according to the rules and regulations, the university can remove tenured faculty members because of the “formal discontinuance of a program or department,” or the “formal restructuring of a program or department of instruction.”

The seven faculty members claim, according to their lawsuit, that the university has not restructured anything. No departments have been eliminated. Curriculum has remained virtually the same. The classes these faculty taught are still being offered to students, albeit taught by significantly lower-paid, part-time faculty.

The university, on the other hand, has claimed that a prioritization process conducted in 2014-15 identified departments that could possibly be restructured, and that was in essence a restructuring. I know this because I heard it many times when faculty questioned the administration about the firings before I left AU.

Basically, AU is arguing that simply saying the university should restructure is an act of restructuring.

Why is this important?

If the university prevails in this lawsuit, then tenure is dead at Ashland University. It would mean that any time the university felt the need to get rid of a faculty member, for any reason at all, they could simply say “We’re restructuring. You’re fired.”

This is chilling. In higher education, faculty need to be able to question the moves administrators make, and vice versa. Universities depend on shared governance, where the faculty and the administration make decisions together for the betterment of the institution.

Why do I care about this? I’m an alumnus, and I care about AU. This is something all alumni should care about, because if the administration prevails, AU will no longer be able to attract the type of faculty who made us who we are today.

It won’t be the AU that we know and love. It probably already isn’t.

Sincerely,

Matt Tullis, ‘98

Sandy Hook, CT

 

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. James Davis · February 21

    You act like universities are governments. For profit or not, any institution (business, etc) should not be governed by rules that give ultimate power where frequently unnecessary. Allowing a professor to continue to be employed should be based on results, performance, and nothing else. Name another industry that even considers allowing something exist “because it always has” and I’ll show you something that is about to fail in a modern, competitive, and ever changing world… Especially in higher ed. Education is moving online. Technology is becoming smarter and and students are becoming smarter. The ommission of “technological change” from the reasons tenure could be axed in a contract a professor signed 35 years ago is fault of no one. The lawsuit won’t hold up because there aren’t successful small private institutions anymore. The argument here is built on emotion, not logic. That doesn’t hold up so well in court. Sorry about your friends but they obviously weren’t performing. (I’d be willing to bet they taught subject matter(s) in the arts as well. Even less reason for a court to uphold a “business” decision. You bring the University no money.)

    Like

  2. Ken Martin · February 22

    I am a professor, and have been tenured at two institutions. One of them being Ashland. I am not a fan of tenure, but this is more about following institutional rules regarding employment. These faculty (most of whom I know) were expensive. They weren’t let go because they weren’t good at their jobs, they were fired for being expensive. Ashland replaced strong, engaged faculty with temps. They are giving students less than what they promise. And that should be a major part pathos story.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s