| Tenure and academic freedom are two of the most misunderstood concepts in higher education. Being denied tenure is, in effect, tantamount to being labeled as a failure. Without tenure, academic freedom is essentially a non-existent privilege. Over the last 100 years, there has been a rise in expectations of employment by higher education faculty, however, courts state that a mere expectancy does not give rise to a constitutionally protected property interest in a teaching job (Perry v. Sindermann, 1972; Board of Regents v. Roth, 1972). The purpose of tenure is to ensure due process for those threatened with loss of a property interest in employment. In addition, tenure promotes academic freedom by permitting professionals and the institution to operate without pressure of intimidation or termination of employment. Professors are in place as educational leaders and trainers of the student-customers in order to communicate and develop learning in their fields without restriction (Richardson, 1999). While legally representing nothing more than a procedural requirement prior to an adverse employment action, tenure has a societal benefit in protecting those in the academy from undue political pressure.; This qualitative study is an attempt to decipher the legal concept of tenure in higher education and delve into its implications. This study analyzes court cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Federal District Courts, and state appellate courts to determine possible patterns in court decisions and the ramifications. The cases were briefed and the holdings examined to provide data analysis and establish some guidelines for higher education administration standards of practice. Additionally, this research analyzes court cases related to tenure and academic freedom in higher education. The study seeks to determine the role played by the Federal and state courts of the United States in defining tenure and academic freedom of higher education. |
