Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 263–272 | Cite as

Qualifications for tenure: The legal definitions

  • Barbara A. Lee


One of the most important norms of the academy is the right, and the unique ability, of faculty members to determine whether or not their colleagues are qualified for promotion or tenure. This right has been protected by the U.S. Supreme Court. The national debate about quality in higher education has exacerbated the pressure caused by a limited job market in many academic disciplines to exert substantial pressure on institutions to make careful, appropriate tenure decisions, and on junior faculty to amass a record of performance that will be considered worthy of a positive tenure decision. Judicial responses to discrimination litigation have implications for the way in which promotion/tenure criteria are interpreted and applied by decision makers, the manner in which probationary faculty are nurtured and evaluated, and the faculty member's own strategy for building a record of high-quality performance.

Key Words

Faculty review rank and tenure criteria rank and tenure litigation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Banerjee v. Smith College, 495 F. Supp. 1148 (D. Mass. 1980),aff'd, 648 F. 2d 61 (1st Cir. 1981),cert. denied, 454 U. S. 1098 (1981).Google Scholar
  2. Bartholet, E. (1982). Application of Title VII to jobs in high places.Harvard Law Review, 95, 945–1027.Google Scholar
  3. Caplow, T., & McGee, R. J. (1958).The Academic Marketplace. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. DeLano, M. (1987). Discovery in university employment discrimination suits: Should peer review materials be privileged?Journal of College and University Law, 14, 121–151.Google Scholar
  5. Farlow v. University of North Carolina, 624 F. Supp. 434 (M.D.N.C. 1985).Google Scholar
  6. Gutzwiller v. Fenik, 645 F. Supp. 363 (S.D. Ohio 1986).Google Scholar
  7. Johnson v. Michigan State University, 547 F. Supp. 429 (W.D. Mich. 1982),aff'd, 723 F. 2d 909 (6th Cir. 1983).Google Scholar
  8. Johnson v. University of Pittsburgh, 435 F. Supp. 1328 (W.D. Pa. 1977).Google Scholar
  9. Kumar v. Board of Trustees, University of Massachusetts, 566 F. Supp. 1299 (D. Mass. 1983),rev'd, 774 F. 2d 1 (1st Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
  10. Kunda v. Muhlenberg College, 463 F. Supp. 294 (E.D. Pa. 1978),aff'd, 621 F. 2d 532 (3d Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
  11. Langland v. Vanderbilt University, 589 F. Supp. 995 (M.D. Tenn. 1984),aff'd, 772 F. 2d 907 (6th Cir, 1985).Google Scholar
  12. LaNoue, G. R., & Lee, B. A., (1987).Academics in Court: The Consequences of Faculty Discrimination Litigation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lee, B. A. (1982–1983). Balancing confidentiality and disclosure in faculty peer review: Impact of Title VII litigation.Journal of College and University Law, 9, 279–314.Google Scholar
  14. Lee, B. A., & Olswang, S. G. (1985). Legal parameters of the faculty employment relationship. In Smart, J. (Ed.),Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. I. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lieberman v. Gant, 474 F. Supp. 848 (D. Conn. 1979),aff'd, 630 F. 2d 60 (2d Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
  16. Lynn v. Board of Regents, 656 F. 2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1981),cert. denied, 459 U.S. 823 (1982).Google Scholar
  17. McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).Google Scholar
  18. Mitchell v. Baldridge, 37 Fair Empl. Prac. Cases 689 (D.C. Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
  19. Namenwirth v. Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin, 769 F. Supp. 1235 (7th Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
  20. Shudofsky, A. D. (1982). Relative qualifications and the prima facie case in Title VII litigation.Columbia Law Review, 82, 553–573.Google Scholar
  21. Smith v. University of North Carolina, 18 Fair Empl. Prac. Cases 913 (M.D.N.C. 1978),aff'd, 632 F. 2d 316 (4th Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
  22. Soble v. University of Maryland, 572 F. Supp. 1509 (D. Md. 1983),aff'd, 778 F. 2d 164 (4th Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
  23. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957).Google Scholar
  24. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981).Google Scholar
  25. Timper v. Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin, 512 F. Supp. 384 (W. D. Wis. 1981).Google Scholar
  26. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.Google Scholar
  27. United States Postal Service v. Aikens, 103 S. Ct. 1478 (1983).Google Scholar
  28. Waintroob, A. R. (1979–1980). The developing law of equal employment opportunity at the white collar and professional level.William and Mary Law Review, 21, 45–119.Google Scholar
  29. Wikman, K. A. (1984). Proving qualification in a university setting.Fordham Urban Law Journal, 12, 459–490.Google Scholar
  30. Zahorik v. Cornell University, 579 F. Supp. 349 (N.D.N.Y. 1983),aff'd, 729 F. 2d 85 (2d cir. 1984).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara A. Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Relations and Human Resources, Institute of Management and Labor RelationsRutgers UniversityNew Brunswick

Personalised recommendations