University of Arkansas Faculty Members Sue Over ‘Controversial’ Changes to Tenure Policy

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Three faculty members of the University of Arkansas have filed suit against the school’s board of trustees after the approval of a controversial faculty-centered policy revision that allegedly violated their constitutional rights.

According to the lawsuit, the board in March 2018 voted on and enacted a revised university policy that is set to go into effect in July 2019. The revisions, which the board purported were “necessary for the changing landscape of higher education,” focused on changes to the school’s procedures concerning promotion, tenure, and dismissal of faculty, the case says.

In particular, the revised policy sought to redefine the grounds on which tenured employees may be terminated, the suit explains. While the previous policy defined “cause” for termination as “conduct that demonstrates the faculty member lacks the willingness or ability to perform duties or responsibilities to the University,” the revised policy appended an additional clause that reads “or that otherwise serves as the basis for disciplinary action.” Further on in the new document, the case continues, the board expanded on the examples listed in the original policy as “grounds” for dismissal, which, in sum and substance, allow for faculty members to be dismissed on “almost any ground,” according to the suit.

As a whole, the revisions are set to “effectively destroy the concept of tenure,” the case argues, and will allow the administration to retaliate against faculty members who challenge university policy or speak on controversial topics. From the complaint:

“By obliterating the fundamental safeguards provided by tenure, the Revised Policy puts all University of Arkansas System faculty at a much greater risk of being terminated, disciplined, or otherwise harassed based on an administrator's or trustee's disapproval of the content of a faculty member's teaching, research, service, or even statements made completely outside the campus setting.”

The plaintiffs argue that the new policy infringes on their First Amendment right to “speak openly and freely” concerning “politics, political decisions and the associated policy implications, and controversial issues, topics, and ideas without fear of termination.” In fact, one of the plaintiffs notes that the newly enacted changes have already produced a “chilling effect” among faculty, and have caused proposed class members to become cautious about what they say in the classroom.

The lawsuit argues that the revisions amount to a material change in faculty members’ contracts that were made both without their consent and for the board’s own self-interest. Though the initial draft of the new document received “overwhelmingly negative” feedback among faculty members, the board allegedly released a new draft that neither addressed their concerns nor identified how the public interest would be served by the proposed revisions.

The case claims the board has “no legitimate purpose” to justify the revised policy, arguing that it is merely a “consolidation of administrative power being used to insulate the Board from lawsuits and expand qualified immunity at the expense of the rights of the Class members.”