Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Firing Versus Not Hiring

by Michael Dorf

[Warning: Point 3 of this post repeatedly uses a mildly profane term. Do not read aloud to young children.]

My new Verdict column addresses the academic freedom issues raised by the recent decision of the University of Illinois board of trustees to disapprove a tenured appointment for Steven Salaita, in apparent response to his strongly-worded tweets criticizing Israel's military operations in Gaza. In response to charges that the university thereby violated Salaita's academic freedom, the university's defenders have drawn a distinction between firing a faculty member for his extracurricular statements and not hiring him in the first place. In turn, many academics have dismissed this defense as relying on a technicality. I argue in my column that the firing/not-hiring distinction is--in this context--not even a technicality. Under state law principles of promissory estoppel, Salaita probably was already de facto hired; and the First Amendment limits the power of a state university to engage in viewpoint discrimination, even at the hiring stage. Thus, the column concludes that the firing/not-hiring distinction does not provide even a technical defense of the Illinois decision.

Nonetheless, there certainly are factors that a university (or other employer) may legitimately consider at the hiring stage even though they would be illegitimate as a basis for firing. Here I want to say a few things about what those are and why. I focus on university employment because I know this context well, but what I say should also be relevant to other employment settings in which a contract or something else forbids firing except for good cause. Interestingly (at least to me), I think that some of the added protection against firing applies in the university setting even to non-tenured faculty.

As a preliminary matter, I want to be clear that I'm not now talking about the sorts of factors that are impermissible at both the hiring and firing stage. Antidiscrimination law singles out some such factors: e.g., race and sex. As I argue in the column, the First Amendment singles out another such factor for government employers: viewpoint. Some of these factors are only presumptively impermissible. E.g., sex (but not race) can sometimes be a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). Likewise, as I note in the column, viewpoint discrimination is sometimes permissible for positions in which the employee's speech will be attributed to the government.

So, what sorts of factors are legitimate at the hiring phase but not the firing phase? I want to consider three.

(1) Curriculum. This is perhaps the least controversial. Suppose that a history department is looking for someone in colonial-era American history due to retirements or departures that have left a big hole in the department's curriculum. Along comes a spectacularly well-credentialed scholar and teacher of ancient Roman history. Let's call her Jane. Jane is terrific but the department already has enough historians of ancient Rome. It's looking for American colonialists. Pretty clearly, the department can decide to hire a not quite as well-credentialed scholar of colonial-era American history--call him Peter--rather than hiring Jane.

But now fast-forward ten years and suppose that Peter has tenure. Suppose also that there is now an opportunity to hire another, even-better, scholar of American colonial history, called Amy. If the department hires Amy, it will have more scholars of American colonial history than it needs. Can the department fire Peter to make room for Amy? I think the answer is plainly no. In dire financial circumstances, universities are permitted to eliminate positions even if those positions are filled by tenured faculty, but that is not what is going on in my hypothetical example. Curricular need is a legitimate hiring criterion but not (absent extraordinary circumstances) a legitimate firing criterion.

(2) Quality.  In some departments in some universities, the scholarship quality standard for tenure is the same for hiring lateral faculty with tenure as for promoting junior faculty to tenure. In other departments or schools, the standards are somewhat different, at least in practice.

That brings to mind an anecdote by way of illustration. I once attended a faculty meeting (I won't say where) at which a then-colleague was making an argument for hiring a lateral candidate. Certainly this candidate satisfied our internal tenure standard, the then-colleague said. Another then-colleague objected: "A table would satisfy our internal tenure standard," he said, pounding the table for appropriate emphasis. There then ensued a discussion, in which there appeared to be general agreement that as a formal matter our internal and external standards were identical but that in practice the internal standard was somewhat lower. This discount was in addition to other factors that might be relevant to evaluating an external candidate but that would be irrelevant for an internal candidate, such as curricular fit.

Now obviously a table would not satisfy any tenure standard. In schools and departments that grant tenure more readily to their junior faculty than to lateral candidates (even if they do not officially say that this is their policy), the scholarship standard is more like this: Publish reasonably good quality work in reasonable quantities. Put differently, there is a presumption that the sort of person hired at the entry-level will, if she keeps her nose to the grindstone, get tenure.

The reasons for a policy of this sort (even if informal) are pretty easy to identify. Junior faculty will be more at ease and more invested in the institution if they come in with the expectation that they will get tenure if they work hard. That, in turn, will make it easier to recruit top entry-level faculty.

The reasons for a contrary policy are also pretty easy to identify. A too-ready willingness to grant tenure to junior faculty who do passable work could end up leading to a faculty of mediocrities. In addition, knowing that faculty hired at the entry-level will almost invariably get tenure could chill a faculty's willingness to take risks at the entry level.

My goal here is not to adjudicate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches. I simply mean to identify quality of work as a factor that may be more relevant (or at least subject to different standards of evaluation) at the appointment stage than at the firing (i.e., denying tenure to an internal candidate) stage.

(3) The "No-Asshole" Rule. In his bestseller The No Asshole Rule, Stanford Management Professor Robert Sutton argues that firms and organizations can maximize their potential by adopting a rule barring the hiring of assholes. His paradigm example is a person who excels in his own work but is such a jerk to others that he undermines the enterprise as a whole. The demoralization cost to the organization outweighs the benefit of the asshole's individual contributions.

So now the question: Assuming that a no-asshole rule is legitimate at the hiring stage (as I believe it is), are there reasons to think it is illegitimate at the firing/retention stage? I think the answer is mixed.

Certainly it seems to me that a university could not fire a tenured professor for being an asshole, absent some conduct that would otherwise rise to the level of for-cause dismissal, such as committing a violent felony, sexually harassing students or colleagues, or repeatedly failing to show up to teach his classes. Just being an all-around jerk by, say, asking obnoxious questions at workshops, would not amount to cause.

However, I tentatively think that asshole-ness is a legitimate ground for denying tenure to an otherwise tenure-worthy junior colleague. Tenure typically turns on three criteria in descending order of importance: scholarship; teaching; and collegiality. Being an asshole can be relevant to teaching, but the more interesting case (and one that I have seen a few times in reality) involves someone who is generally a good or even excellent teacher but an asshole to colleagues and/or staff. This is admittedly not very common in junior faculty. People with assholic tendencies try to keep them in check before they have tenure. If someone nonetheless comes across as an asshole as a junior colleague, then he or she is likely to be a gigantic asshole once tenured. Accordingly, lack of collegiality could, at least in theory, be grounds for denying tenure to an otherwise tenure-worthy asshole.

I am nonetheless somewhat uncomfortable with that conclusion because of the vagueness of the collegiality category if it permits consideration of asshole-ness. Collegiality is usually measured by such relatively objective criteria as participation on committees and regular attendance at workshops. Now someone can do those things and still be an asshole. But the problem is that asshole-ness could then be used--either consciously or unconsciously--as a cover for more illicit criteria, such as political disagreement.

Of course, that could be true even at the hiring stage too. Suppose that Lawrence does exceptionally well-regarded work in Russian history and has excellent teaching evaluations, but holds controversial political views. If Lawrence is also an asshole--or even if there is some evidence that some people regard Lawrence as an asshole--then some people might say they are not hiring him because he is an asshole even though the real reason, or at least a big part of the reason, is that they don't agree with Lawrence's political views. The problem may be compounded by the fact that some people regard Lawrence as an asshole because of his political views.

Accordingly, although I am favorably inclined towards a no-asshole rule, I think that one must implement it very carefully.

17 comments:

Joe said...

Darn. Young children will be crushed. Maybe you can accept [naughty word] for them.

Can't deprive them from your column. Many a child falls asleep listening to your essays.

Michael C. Dorf said...

1) Joe: I take offense. Adults also fall asleep to my essays!

2) An offlist comment notes that "collegiality" is often denominated a subset of "service" as the third category. I agree.

3) In the column, I refer to a decision by the Board of Trustees at UI, but a couple of readers note that most press reports indicate that the university administrators decided not to submit to the trustees; the trustees themselves did not vote. Because neither side is talking publicly, this is difficult to verify, so I have a corrected version in the works that will write around the ambiguity. This will be posted on Verdict later today.

Bob Hockett said...

Thanks for this, Mike. For what it is worth, one other reason I can think of for going light on the firing for being an a-h prospect is this: informal sanctions by colleagues, of both the outright shunning and 'shut up, a-h!' varieties, probably suffice in most cases to neutralize or at least mitigate the harms a-h's are able to do qua a-h's.

Thanks again!
Bob

t jones said...

What's the deal with the chinese(?) posts to these comments pages, and why don't you block them?

Joe said...

spam and creative changing means of generating it

Michael C. Dorf said...

I have comment-spam-blocking enabled but the spammers are able to outfox it--and yes, they change their names repeatedly.

ann mosley said...

Wow really? I would've never thought someone can be fired just because they are “assholes”. Mostly because when I was studying about 30% of my professors were somewhat unfair to certain students (not necessarily me) and they always managed to get away with it. Of course I don’t claim it to be top-10 college US, I even managed to write my essays no plagiarism online and nobody suspected a thing. But still each professor of student somewhat represents the whole college. Anyway, I went a bit off-topic, thank you for your article!

Bill said...

While I agree that collegiality is a legitimate criterion, it is tricky even when factors other than assholeness are used. For example, in many universities, participation in committees is controlled by the deans, so a faculty member's participation may be more a measure of whether the deans like him than of his willingness to participate.

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

Emma O'Connell said...

If someone nonetheless comes across as an asshole as a junior colleague, then he or she is likely to be a gigantic asshole once tenured. Accordingly, lack of collegiality could, at least in theory, be grounds for denying tenure to an otherwise tenure-worthy asshole.
Cheap LOL Boosting  lol欧服代练 Buy LOL Boosting

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

高合金鋼 said...

有自信的人之外送茶莊所以會心想事成、走向成功,外送茶莊是因為他們都有著免費魚訊巨大無比的潛能等著去開發;援-交line消極失敗的心態之所以會魚訊使人怯弱無能、走向失敗,是因為它使人放棄潛能援交妹的開發,一夜情留言板讓潛能在那裏沈睡、白白浪費。我們台北一夜情大家都知道的人大腦台中援交擁有140億個腦細胞,台北援交但我們思維意識援-交line只利用了腦細胞的很少部分,外約如能將更多的腦細胞從指油壓外出睡眠中激活出來,人的思維意識將更加強大外送茶莊。如果我們都能充滿自信,就能創造人間奇跡,鐘點情人亦能創造壹個最好的自己。

aminos lahragui said...




Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot


فوائد الزنجبيل

فوائد الرمان

فوائد الحلبة

فوائد البصل

فوائد الزعتر

فوائد زيت السمسم

علاج البواسير

فوائد اليانسون

فوائد الكركم

قصص جحا

صور يوم الجمعه

علامات الحمل

تعريف الحب

حياة البرزخ

فوائد الزبيب

高合金鋼 said...

不必負責任一夜情只需付錢、指油壓不用太多麻煩的就是援交指油壓,另有附加艾曼紐外送茶莊新鮮價值,有點害怕又虛幻,外送茶你情我願一拍即合,指油壓好玩、新鮮、追求刺激、生理需求都有!發生找援交妹的原因每個人的援交情況都不一定,性癮症的人、寂寞、炮友追求這種高雄援交刺激又浪漫 ...

高合金鋼 said...

炮友【公告】想要快速搬家嗎?搬家秘訣看這裡~ 【活動】炮友相簿主打星 挑戰「特殊視角」多角度拍攝,徵稿ing~ 【指油壓外出活動】聚會餐廳選哪家 週休二日去哪玩 部落格行動版隨時指油壓外出提供最新情報! 【活動】外送茶坊分享你兒時最難忘的冒險趣事,送亨利.鮑思高新書按摩個人工作室《惡水

marly aaran said...

I'm now not sure the place you are getting your information, but good topic. I must spend a while finding out more or understanding more. Thank you for fantastic information I used to be searching for this info for my mission.
http://www.theschoolringstore.com |

amine lahragui said...

thanks so much for that great blog and thanks also for accepting my links thanks
طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه