This paper examines the legal and ethical dimensions of academic tenure and post-tenure review in higher education. It traces the origins of tenure as a protection for academic freedom, reviews key case law and the role of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and outlines the procedural requirements for post-tenure evaluation under Texas Education Code Section 51.942. The paper then applies these frameworks to a scenario involving a tenured faculty member accused of professional misconduct — specifically, an inappropriate relationship with a student — and argues that such conduct warrants tenure revocation and termination. The analysis draws on Texas law, institutional policy, and relevant court decisions to support this conclusion.
Tenure has become a civil-service-style protection for academic faculty, providing "legal contours, including property and liberty interest as well as contract principles and procedural rights" (Olivas, 1997). Over the last decade, however, as public interest has focused on accountability, post-tenure review processes have become a widely debated topic. Several court cases have helped shape the process of accountability in post-tenure reviews, both for the faculty member and for the institution. Some argue that tenure adds burdens to institutions and creates environments of mediocrity, while others contend that teachers need freedom to grow and require intellectual and didactic latitude to accomplish demanded tasks (Hill, 2010).
Tenure was designed to give teachers academic freedom — the freedom to conduct research and publish results, as well as the freedom to discuss their subjects in the classroom, subject to adequate performance of duties (Academic Freedom, 2013). Once a teacher completed a required probationary period, they became eligible for tenure, which provided indefinite job security. Academic freedom, the fundamental principle underlying tenure, awarded the teacher the right to conduct research, publish results, and discuss subjects with students without fear of reprisal. The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure states:
"Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition" (Hill, 2010).
Case law, such as Perry v. Sindermann [408 U.S. 593 (1972)], formalized and legally defined tenure (Hill, 2010), providing legal guidelines for the property and liberty rights of faculty. The most significant institutional voice regarding tenure is the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The AAUP has become the foremost advocate for professors in matters of post-tenure review legality, even though it does not hold direct legal authority.
Where institutions and administrators argue that tenure adds burden and fosters mediocrity, others contend that tenure is necessary for the professional development of faculty and serves to attract new students and colleagues (Hill, 2010). Still others feel that tenure is being weakened by the replacement of full-time faculty with part-time faculty; more than half of all full-time faculty are now hired into non-tenure positions (Lasko, 2006). Some ethical dilemmas have arisen from the historical tolerance of a degree of misbehavior or incompetence among tenured professors, given that the costs of prevention were perceived to outweigh the benefits. Professors bear special obligations in their communities, where their profession is judged by their actions and words. With growing public pressure for accountability, several states have adopted post-tenure review policies for institutions of higher education.
"Texas law requirements for post-tenure evaluation"
"Applying review process to a misconduct scenario"
Euben, D. R. (2005, August). Post-tenure review: Some case law (2005). Retrieved from AAUP: http://www.aaup.org/issues/post-tenure-review/some-case-law
Hill, J. (2010). The weakening of tenure and post-tenure review: An issue analysis. Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters, vol. 87, 111–120.
Lasko, J. (2006). Two cheers for tenure. Juniata Voices, Bookend Seminar, 75–83.
Olivas, M. (1997). The law and higher education: Cases and materials on colleges in court. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
You’re 37% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.