Relationship between Tenure and Contracts

[gadfly50]

The traditional definition of Tenure, as propounded by the AAUP, is that it is an indefinite contract.

However, some legal judgments (most notably Branham. V Thomas Cooley Law School) hold that it is merely the promise of being offered a contract each year.

The Branham case is obviously more appealing to administrators.  So today I believe some tenured faculty never sign contracts each year; but some do.

My question is, if tenure is defined simply as the offer of a contract, is there anything to prevent the institution writing into that new contract provisions that restrict academic freedom (i.e. the very thing tenure is meant to protect?). Or, if not to the contract then to the faculty handbook which is incorporated into the contract?

For example, could a change be made to the faculty handbook that restricts the right of professors to speak in public on controversial issues, or limits the right of faculty to critique the universities' own policies, and tenured faculty be asked to sign a contract incorporating this language? If, so then it seems tenure is a mirage.

Indeed, it would be possible for tenured faculty to be asked to sign a contract that makes it easier to dismiss tenured faculty? It would seem a tenured faculty may find that each year they are offered a contract the diminishes the value of tenure to zero.

[Morden]

I assume you're in a place without a union. Our contract/faculty handbook is an collective agreement between faculty and admin. Any changes have to be negotiated. Of course, it's possible that the union representing faculty might agree to changes in language in exchange for something else, like wage increases.

[Mercudenton]

Yes no union, and the mechanism for changing the faculty handbook has recently been amended to weaken faculty input.

[lightning]

The traditional definition of Tenure, as propounded by the AAUP, is that it is an indefinite contract.

However, some legal judgments (most notably Branham. V Thomas Cooley Law School) hold that it is merely the promise of being offered a contract each year.

The Branham case is obviously more appealing to administrators.  So today I believe some tenured faculty never sign contracts each year; but some do.

My question is, if tenure is defined simply as the offer of a contract, is there anything to prevent the institution writing into that new contract provisions that restrict academic freedom (i.e. the very thing tenure is meant to protect?). Or, if not to the contract then to the faculty handbook which is incorporated into the contract?

For example, could a change be made to the faculty handbook that restricts the right of professors to speak in public on controversial issues, or limits the right of faculty to critique the universities' own policies, and tenured faculty be asked to sign a contract incorporating this language? If, so then it seems tenure is a mirage.

Indeed, it would be possible for tenured faculty to be asked to sign a contract that makes it easier to dismiss tenured faculty? It would seem a tenured faculty may find that each year they are offered a contract the diminishes the value of tenure to zero.

Your place sounds pretty messed up.

[Hibush]

While the AAUP recommends certain standards, the employment conditions for faculty are determined by the institution's contract or faculty handbook. Changes in the contract or handbook are happen under the rules of that contract or handbook.

Tenure is short for "appointment with indefinite tenure." That only means that your appointment doesn't expire automatically. It is still possible to terminate tenured faculty, but the procedure is more involved.

In my experience faculty are really naive about what tenure means and does not mean in general and at the school. Administrations are happy to take advantage of that naiveté. They often like to weaken faculty protections, and will try to slip in changes if the Dean of Faculty/head of Faculty Senate, isn't on their toes or seems to want to be conciliatory to maintain a positive relationship.

[Mercudenton]

Yes, so I guess my question is about the relationship between your statment

Tenure is short for "appointment with indefinite tenure." That only means that your appointment doesn't expire automatically.

and your statement

While the AAUP recommends certain standards, the employment conditions for faculty are determined by the institution's contract or faculty handbook. Changes in the contract or handbook are happen under the rules of that contract or handbook.

It seems to me that an institution could (and mine does) define tenure not as "appointment with indefinite tenure" but rather as "the promise of a contract each year."

Defining it like this allows an institution to offer a new, and possibly quite substantially different, contract each year. At each point a new contract is offered, that new contract itself could (a) remove academic freedom of speech; (b) drastically change the employment terms; or (c) remove tenure status itself (since tenure status only promises a new contract to an existing tenured faculty member; it does not seem to be able to stop that new contract offering reappointment as a non-tenured faculty member).

I guess my question is: do faculty who have tenure at institutions which, like mine, define it as "promise of a contract' rather than "indefinite appointment" actually really have tenure at all?

[lightning]

Yes, so I guess my question is about the relationship between your statment

Tenure is short for "appointment with indefinite tenure." That only means that your appointment doesn't expire automatically.

and your statement

While the AAUP recommends certain standards, the employment conditions for faculty are determined by the institution's contract or faculty handbook. Changes in the contract or handbook are happen under the rules of that contract or handbook.

It seems to me that an institution could (and mine does) define tenure not as "appointment with indefinite tenure" but rather as "the promise of a contract each year."

Defining it like this allows an institution to offer a new, and possibly quite substantially different, contract each year. At each point a new contract is offered, that new contract itself could (a) remove academic freedom of speech; (b) drastically change the employment terms; or (c) remove tenure status itself (since tenure status only promises a new contract to an existing tenured faculty member; it does not seem to be able to stop that new contract offering reappointment as a non-tenured faculty member).

I guess my question is: do faculty who have tenure at institutions which, like mine, define it as "promise of a contract' rather than "indefinite appointment" actually really have tenure at all?

Your place is pretty messed up, too.

[Caracal]

Yes, so I guess my question is about the relationship between your statment

Tenure is short for "appointment with indefinite tenure." That only means that your appointment doesn't expire automatically.

and your statement

While the AAUP recommends certain standards, the employment conditions for faculty are determined by the institution's contract or faculty handbook. Changes in the contract or handbook are happen under the rules of that contract or handbook.

It seems to me that an institution could (and mine does) define tenure not as "appointment with indefinite tenure" but rather as "the promise of a contract each year."

Defining it like this allows an institution to offer a new, and possibly quite substantially different, contract each year. At each point a new contract is offered, that new contract itself could (a) remove academic freedom of speech; (b) drastically change the employment terms; or (c) remove tenure status itself (since tenure status only promises a new contract to an existing tenured faculty member; it does not seem to be able to stop that new contract offering reappointment as a non-tenured faculty member).

I guess my question is: do faculty who have tenure at institutions which, like mine, define it as "promise of a contract' rather than "indefinite appointment" actually really have tenure at all?

Legally, tenure has no exact definition that applies everywhere. If there's a Union, the definition will be bound into the union contract. If the institution is public, some aspects of tenure might be part of state law. More broadly, tenure gets folded into employment law. In various ways, I would assume that revocation of tenure potentially creates all kinds of legal claims for the person fired-changing contracts might cause legal issues too.

Really, however, tenure is a customary right that can have legal protections and implications, rather than a legal right. Customary rights can have a lot of force. It's just that their protections depend on how various people would react to attempts to revoke or change them. At an elite private institution, or somewhere which wants to think of itself as elite, customary tenure protections are pretty strong because these sorts of schools are concerned with upholding their elite reputation and any attempt to substantially weaken tenure would risk that reputation. At other sorts of institutions those customary protections might not be as strong because state legislators are ultimately in charge, or because a struggling school may not have as much invested in academic reputation.

[Ruralguy]

Keep in mind that most schools will issue annual contracts anyway simply because the detailed conditions (salary, related teaching underloads or overloads) might change with time for either the faculty as a whole, a subgroup, or just an individual based on negotiations (say, a retention offer). Also, they want to know if you are actually returning, which is not a given at many schools!

Of course, for those with Union or even "just" an FHB (which may or may not be governed by the faculty), its usually the case that the details of the union agreement and/or FHB are implicitly part of the contract even if you just get a 3 line letter to sign.