The legal meaning of academic tenure in Tennessee public higher education as influenced by state and federal court decisions

The purpose of the study was to determine the legal meaning and ramifications of academic tenure in Tennessee public higher education. The study was viewed primarily from the administrator's concern with the objective of preventing litigation or being able to successfully defend litigation should it develop. The study was also intended to inform faculty members of their rights, responsibilities, and restrictions surrounding tenured versus nontenured status.

Academic tenure in Tennessee public higher education, as in most states, is authorized through powers delegated to the governing boards by the Legislature. Tenure is embodied in governing board and institutional policies, constitutional provisions, and precedent established through custom. The ultimate interpretation of these provisions in conjunction with legitimate state interests rests upon the courts.

The legal meaning of academic tenure was sought through appellate court opinions from throughout the country. The topical method of legal research was used to compile a bibliography of cases concerning tenure. The search emphasized court decisions postdating June 29, 1972, when the United States Supreme Court rendered two opinions concerning faculty rights in institutions of public higher education.

ii

iii All cases were Shepardized to determine their status as relevant case law. Issues of relevant cases were grouped by subject and presented in narrative form.

The results of the study indicated that most tenure disputes from higher education are heard in federal courts and are based upon the First or Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The judiciary was supportive of the concept and general practices of academic tenure and justified the support primarily through the preservation of academic freedom, a special concern of the First Amendment. The judiciary viewed academic freedom as being absolutely essential for the continuity of our free society. The tenure status of a professor is irrelevant in a First Amendment litigous proceeding. The study recognized some problems inherent in tenure systems, but no effective substitute which would ensure academic freedom was found.

A pervasive concern of the courts in a proceeding contesting a termination by either a tenured or nontenured faculty member is the due process requirement and/or the due process hearing. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the property attribute of academic tenure be recognized and that an adequate hearing precede any deprivation of that property right. The liberty provision of the Fourteenth Amendment applies equally to tenured and nontenured faculty members and that protective mechanism is activated when the administration or governance restricts a faculty member's social or professional mobility through, for example, releasing disparaging information about the professor to the public. The basis feature of academic tenure is the property attribute recognized by the United States Constitution.