next »

[fiona]

This is a strange story.

Discuss, or perhaps explain.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/tenured-faculty-lost-jobs-when-reassigned-to-defunct-department-lawsuit-says/38150?sid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en

The Fiona

[mouseman]

It's not strange, but university shenanigans in an attempt to circumvent tenure.  Basically, the two profs got tenure in a department, and over time they moved into administrative positions, leaving this department in the process.  The higher-ups at the university now wanted to fire them, but they couldn't because these two have tenure.  So, they were reassigned to the department in which they received tenure.  Because the department has since become defunct, the university said, "well, your department is has been closed, so now we can fire you".

This, of course, can be used to fire any tenured professor.  "Well, Professor Smith, while we liked having you in the English department, we have decided to assign you to the German department, since it is a Germanic language.  Oh, we forgot, we closed the German department three years ago, because of low enrollment.  I guess that means that you are in a department that has been closed down, and we can fire you despite your status as a tenured faculty member".  Simply reassign any tenured faculty member that you want to fire to a defunct department, and then fire them because they're in a defunct department.

I can imagine the discussion.  Higher-Admin:  "Well, Professor Smith, I have heard that your department has not graduated any students in the past year".  Professor Smith:  "that's because you just put me in a department that hasn't accepted students in the past five years".  Higher-Admin:  "your excuses don't matter, your department has not graduated enough students, so we are shutting it down and firing all the faculty".  Professor Smith:  "But Higher-Admin, the program has been closed for three years already.  In fact it was closed when you put me here".  Higher-Admin:  "I'm sorry, Professor Smith, the numbers don't lie, and the numbers say that your department has not contributed to the funding or to the teaching mission of the university, so you'll have to be let go".  Professor Smith:  "????"

[msparticularity]

It's not strange, but university shenanigans in an attempt to circumvent tenure.  Basically, the two profs got tenure in a department, and over time they moved into administrative positions, leaving this department in the process.  The higher-ups at the university now wanted to fire them, but they couldn't because these two have tenure.  So, they were reassigned to the department in which they received tenure.  Because the department has since become defunct, the university said, "well, your department is has been closed, so now we can fire you".

Actually, I'm afraid it's probably not this underhanded, but rather more a matter of a university that has been unable to adapt quickly to dramatically changed circumstances. I don't know the particulars of this case, but I do know quite a bit about what has happened at UNR over the past few years. They had a number of programs that were entwined with industries that have really died off--mining and gaming in particular. The enrollment in those departments began to shrink some years ago, and the faculty in them were, where possible, assigned to administrative roles elsewhere because, back then, the university as a whole was not facing financial exigency. I am guessing here, but I think these two may have been in that category.

Since then, there have been a series of truly draconian cuts to educational funding on a statewide level. Both UNR and UNLV have had to eliminate entire programs and colleges, and to terminate tenured faculty in the process. In the case of these two, I suspect that the administrative roles to which the had been assigned were really not essential, and there is truly nowhere left that needs their particular skills--and no funds to continue to support them in nonessential roles. Basically, they avoided getting eliminated earlier when their program was cut, and they're only now getting the ax because the administrative positions that had sheltered them are being phased out also.

In other words, I think this is yet another issue of the interaction between tenure and financial exigency. Even in the AAUP guidelines, there is room for the elimination of tenured positions when entire programs are cut, and when faculty cannot be appropriately reassigned. This may fall into that category.

[spinnaker]

Sometimes you decide to throw in a discrimination charge when your case is basically weak.

[monsterx]

It's not strange, but university shenanigans in an attempt to circumvent tenure.  Basically, the two profs got tenure in a department, and over time they moved into administrative positions, leaving this department in the process.  The higher-ups at the university now wanted to fire them, but they couldn't because these two have tenure.  So, they were reassigned to the department in which they received tenure.  Because the department has since become defunct, the university said, "well, your department is has been closed, so now we can fire you".

Actually, I'm afraid it's probably not this underhanded

I don't know anything about this case, but I have heard about a case where it was just this underhanded.  A department was created out of whole cloth, and several undesired tenured academics transferred to it.  After one year, the whole department was closed down, and all the staff terminated. 

[mouseman]

It's not strange, but university shenanigans in an attempt to circumvent tenure.  Basically, the two profs got tenure in a department, and over time they moved into administrative positions, leaving this department in the process.  The higher-ups at the university now wanted to fire them, but they couldn't because these two have tenure.  So, they were reassigned to the department in which they received tenure.  Because the department has since become defunct, the university said, "well, your department is has been closed, so now we can fire you".

Actually, I'm afraid it's probably not this underhanded, but rather more a matter of a university that has been unable to adapt quickly to dramatically changed circumstances. I don't know the particulars of this case, but I do know quite a bit about what has happened at UNR over the past few years. They had a number of programs that were entwined with industries that have really died off--mining and gaming in particular. The enrollment in those departments began to shrink some years ago, and the faculty in them were, where possible, assigned to administrative roles elsewhere because, back then, the university as a whole was not facing financial exigency. I am guessing here, but I think these two may have been in that category.

Since then, there have been a series of truly draconian cuts to educational funding on a statewide level. Both UNR and UNLV have had to eliminate entire programs and colleges, and to terminate tenured faculty in the process. In the case of these two, I suspect that the administrative roles to which the had been assigned were really not essential, and there is truly nowhere left that needs their particular skills--and no funds to continue to support them in nonessential roles. Basically, they avoided getting eliminated earlier when their program was cut, and they're only now getting the ax because the administrative positions that had sheltered them are being phased out also.

In other words, I think this is yet another issue of the interaction between tenure and financial exigency. Even in the AAUP guidelines, there is room for the elimination of tenured positions when entire programs are cut, and when faculty cannot be appropriately reassigned. This may fall into that category.

It is the fact that the university transferred them to a defunct department and then fired them which makes it so sketchy.  They were, essentially, reassigned to non-existing jobs.  This is no different than the scenario that I described, and I find it hard to believe that this was not done intentionally as a way to circumvent the standard university procedures for firing faculty with tenure.

The discrimination charge, though, seems very weak.

[kaysixteen]

1) The discrimination charge could be weak, but we do not know the specs.

2) Reassigning someone to a currently non-existent job in order to provide pretext for their dismissal seems on its face a baldface attempt to get around tenure protections, racial discrimination or not.

[jackofallchem]

It is the fact that the university transferred them to a defunct department and then fired them which makes it so sketchy.  They were, essentially, reassigned to non-existing jobs.  This is no different than the scenario that I described, and I find it hard to believe that this was not done intentionally as a way to circumvent the standard university procedures for firing faculty with tenure.

The discrimination charge, though, seems very weak.

Usually, the way it works is that they were fired from their administrative post.  Because they still have tenure, however, they then revert to being faculty members.  Since they were from a defunct department, they were then fired again.  At many schools, an administrative employee who was first a tenured faculty member must be fired twice.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

The question is, what would have happened had they never become administrators?  If their departments were closed, would they have been made redundant/fired, or moved elsewhere?  (This is a matter of the particular institution's policies.)  If the former, then they have no leg to stand on; they should have started looking for other jobs when the departmental closure was announced, just as their still-faculty colleagues presumably did. - DvF

[mouseman]

The question is, what would have happened had they never become administrators?  If their departments were closed, would they have been made redundant/fired, or moved elsewhere?  (This is a matter of the particular institution's policies.)  If the former, then they have no leg to stand on; they should have started looking for other jobs when the departmental closure was announced, just as their still-faculty colleagues presumably did. - DvF

If that were the case, I think that UNR would not have needed to reassign them to a defunct department.  Interestingly, a quick perusal through the university policies indicates that the university may have been able to reassign them to an existing program, and fire them for curricular reason.  Evidently, even if only part of a department is cut, tenured faculty teaching the part of the program that was cut can be laid off.  Since their department was cut, it is likely that the field of these faculty was no longer included in the curriculum of the university.  It may have take a bit longer, but it would have followed the bylaws to the letter, and the two would indeed have no leg to stand on.  As it is, because the rule say that tenured faculty who are fired from administrative potions should be reassigned to appropriate positions with the institute.  The university can hardly claim that positions in a defunct department are in any way or form "appropriate".

[spinnaker]

What's the basis for assuming that an appropriate position exists, I wonder.

[larryc]

Wait, my dean just reassigned me to the Phrenology Department. Said I could be chair! Should I be worried?

[alleyoxenfree]

As a spin on this, the general rule is being used.  I know multiple faculty members who were limited in accepting grad students, then fired for not graduating enough grad students.  They graduated all they were allowed to accept!

Evidently, this is some great management principle being promulgated wherever administrators lay their heads at night.

[southerntransplant]

Wait, my dean just reassigned me to the Phrenology Department. Said I could be chair! Should I be worried?

Phrenology can at least be practiced. You're fine.

I was transferred to the Merlin Department of Alchemy. Can you say "high risk, high reward"?

[msparticularity]

It is the fact that the university transferred them to a defunct department and then fired them which makes it so sketchy.  They were, essentially, reassigned to non-existing jobs.  This is no different than the scenario that I described, and I find it hard to believe that this was not done intentionally as a way to circumvent the standard university procedures for firing faculty with tenure.

The discrimination charge, though, seems very weak.

Usually, the way it works is that they were fired from their administrative post.  Because they still have tenure, however, they then revert to being faculty members.  Since they were from a defunct department, they were then fired again.  At many schools, an administrative employee who was first a tenured faculty member must be fired twice.

Yes--this is exactly what I'm thinking may have happened. As tenured faculty, they were eligible to return to their departments when the admin positions were eliminated. However, their original department no longer existed, and they were not qualified for any other positions.

Tenure is not a guarantee of perpetual employment no matter what. It is a protection against being fired except in cases of 1) cause on an individual level, such as illegal or unethical behavior; or 2) the elimination of one's program/department and the absence of any other position for which one is qualified.