Tenure denial reversed in court - discuss?

[ciao_yall]

Hi all,

Drama at San Francisco State!

I started my EdD there. Lots of real jerks. They have an inferiority complex versus UC Berkeley across the Bay.

I didn't know the Dan Taylor mentioned in the article but I'm not surprised.

[tuxthepenguin]

The university opposed the motion on various grounds, including the lack of an available position. The trial court denied reinstatement at the time but required San Francisco State to periodically report on available faculty jobs.

This is one of those legal concepts that has never made sense. The university did something wrong, but they're not required to undo it, because they hired someone else to that position. They should have been held responsible for their bad behavior.

[marshwiggle]

The university opposed the motion on various grounds, including the lack of an available position. The trial court denied reinstatement at the time but required San Francisco State to periodically report on available faculty jobs.

This is one of those legal concepts that has never made sense. The university did something wrong, but they're not required to undo it, because they hired someone else to that position. They should have been held responsible for their bad behavior.

If they fired THAT person, to fix things, then THAT person could sue for wrongful dismissal, I imagine.

[Hibush]

The retaliation claim prevailed and the discrimination complaint did not. The former was well documented, and the university didn't follow its own procedure. Good combo for losing.


The faculty member involved was rehired after four or five years. The article doesn't say what she was up to in the mean time. That's a long hiatus!

One of the cudgels used by the bad administrator was student evaluations. A positive example in the story was how the professor was recognized for maintaining a rigorous courses with a lot of learning, despite this causing lower student evaluation. Over the years, improved pedagogy maintained the rigor while markedly improving student evaluations. I like that example of dealing with a common challenge for new professors.

[pigou]

I'm kind of baffled by the motivation to pursue this in court. Sure, to the extent that you can get a settlement or compensation, there are financial incentives for doing so. But why on earth would your goal be to get re-hired if you just got screwed by your department? Why would you want to continue working there?

My only explanation is that the people doing this couldn't get hired elsewhere. And that's not a great indication of merit...

[marshwiggle]

I'm kind of baffled by the motivation to pursue this in court. Sure, to the extent that you can get a settlement or compensation, there are financial incentives for doing so. But why on earth would your goal be to get re-hired if you just got screwed by your department? Why would you want to continue working there?

This has always been my question during really acrimonious strikes. When you're burning your employer in effigy, and calling him/her the AntiChrist, why would you want to go back to working for him/her for $2 more per hour?

[onthefringe]

I'm kind of baffled by the motivation to pursue this in court. Sure, to the extent that you can get a settlement or compensation, there are financial incentives for doing so. But why on earth would your goal be to get re-hired if you just got screwed by your department? Why would you want to continue working there?

My only explanation is that the people doing this couldn't get hired elsewhere. And that's not a great indication of merit...

Well, in this case her department and every other level up to the director of the school of social work and the campus-wide tenure committee appeared to have supported her tenure bid. It was at the Dean level that the previous decisions were overturned to deny her tenure. If I liked my immediate colleagues, and they liked and supported me, I could see still wanting that job (especially if I were tied to the area for family reasons or something and the Dean in question had retired, as this one has).

[ciao_yall]

We have several situations right now of adjunct faculty suing for permanent positions. Surprise, they are now full-time AND tenured! Now, will we even have assignments for them, even after bumping all the adjuncts in the related areas?

[ergative]

The university opposed the motion on various grounds, including the lack of an available position. The trial court denied reinstatement at the time but required San Francisco State to periodically report on available faculty jobs.

This is one of those legal concepts that has never made sense. The university did something wrong, but they're not required to undo it, because they hired someone else to that position. They should have been held responsible for their bad behavior.

If they fired THAT person, to fix things, then THAT person could sue for wrongful dismissal, I imagine.

That would actually work out pretty well. The person was hired under fraudulent circumstances for a position that should never have been open in the first place. So that person gets a nice settlement as compensation for getting jerked around, and the original professor gets her job back.

[Hibush]

The university opposed the motion on various grounds, including the lack of an available position. The trial court denied reinstatement at the time but required San Francisco State to periodically report on available faculty jobs.

This is one of those legal concepts that has never made sense. The university did something wrong, but they're not required to undo it, because they hired someone else to that position. They should have been held responsible for their bad behavior.

If they fired THAT person, to fix things, then THAT person could sue for wrongful dismissal, I imagine.

That would actually work out pretty well. The person was hired under fraudulent circumstances for a position that should never have been open in the first place. So that person gets a nice settlement as compensation for getting jerked around, and the original professor gets her job back.

The School website shows seven faculty in the department, including Gupta and her nemesis the former director. The others have all been there a long time and are not THAT person.  (The former director is a pre-1979 PhD, and thus likely eligible for retirement.)

[tuxthepenguin]

I'm kind of baffled by the motivation to pursue this in court. Sure, to the extent that you can get a settlement or compensation, there are financial incentives for doing so. But why on earth would your goal be to get re-hired if you just got screwed by your department? Why would you want to continue working there?

Why wouldn't you want to? You could see the people that screwed you over every single day and smile at them and remind them that you won. I can't imagine a better ending. And you'd get to do it *every day*.

[Ruralguy]

I've enjoyed it (though my case never went to court).

Seriously though, after a few years, nobody cares anymore and after a few more years nobody even knows about it  save for maybe as an interesting tidbit of gossip over a beer, but even then I doubt some new faculty member, a generation my junior, really cares about my tenure case. That would be a little pathetic.

[marshwiggle]

If they fired THAT person, to fix things, then THAT person could sue for wrongful dismissal, I imagine.

That would actually work out pretty well. The person was hired under fraudulent circumstances for a position that should never have been open in the first place. So that person gets a nice settlement as compensation for getting jerked around, and the original professor gets her job back.

Unless there's some evidence that the person was complicit in her being denied tenure, (which is unlikely as he didn't have tenure himself), then he had nothing to do with the fraudulent behaviour, and may not have even been aware of it. His reputation has now been damaged, as being "not deserving" or at least "less deserving" of his status. That will stay with him for his career.  (Note: While she was apparently more qualified than he, it's not clear how good his qualifications were on their own. In other words, he might have been a really good candidate where she was excellent, in which case the blot on his reputation is especially undeserved.)

[mahagonny]

I'm kind of baffled by the motivation to pursue this in court. Sure, to the extent that you can get a settlement or compensation, there are financial incentives for doing so. But why on earth would your goal be to get re-hired if you just got screwed by your department? Why would you want to continue working there?

My only explanation is that the people doing this couldn't get hired elsewhere. And that's not a great indication of merit...

I've never been on the tenure track, but I can take a stab at this anyway, because of the reading I've done, and the many I've known and watch over decades.

She can work there because she never liked Taylor or his sidekick, and she never expected to. She doesn't like them any more or less now, but now she's protected. With luck she can even be their problem as much as they are hers. And starting over for tenure somewhere else is a long term goal, and she's not getting any younger. I see it all the time. People stay in departments where there's animosity that everyone knows about. It's one of the things tenure produces.

The university opposed the motion on various grounds, including the lack of an available position. The trial court denied reinstatement at the time but required San Francisco State to periodically report on available faculty jobs.

This is one of those legal concepts that has never made sense. The university did something wrong, but they're not required to undo it, because they hired someone else to that position. They should have been held responsible for their bad behavior.

If they fired THAT person, to fix things, then THAT person could sue for wrongful dismissal, I imagine.

That would actually work out pretty well. The person was hired under fraudulent circumstances for a position that should never have been open in the first place. So that person gets a nice settlement as compensation for getting jerked around, and the original professor gets her job back.

Heck, it's even better than getting a permanent spinal injury from an auto accident that wasn't your fault then collecting your settlement. With this there's no pain involved. Just a lot of inconvenience. (Actually personal injury awards are peanuts compared to these kinds of things, nowadays.)

[mahagonny]

fuller explanation in reply to pigou's excellent question

...Or she doesn't want to be anyone's problem, just wants to make a living and work. But the point is, people will accept working with colleagues they don't like or who don't like them, when tenure/long term security and/or research opportunity are the emphasis, and can't be had any other way. Or maybe people don't want to move to another part of the country. All reasons to stay put.