In May 2004, Indiana University of Pennsylvania health and phys ed professor Alan Temes had a disturbing meeting with his departmental chair. In that meeting, Elaine Bair warned Temes that if he continued his anti-war activities, he risked losing the department's support when he came up for tenure. Bair's warning came one month after she ordered Temes in writing to stop posting a tally of those who have died during the war in Iraq: "Hanging a body count is not an issue of freedom of speech, but one of using poor judgment and showing lack of sensitivity for students, faculty and staff in our office who have immediate family members who are themselves at risk of dying in Iraq every day," Bair wrote. Temes did not cease and desist; he continued to oppose the war in conversation, to update his body count, and to post anti-war literature around campus. One year later, Temes was denied tenure, just as Bair had predicted he would be.

Now Temes is suing the university--which is public--for violating his First Amendment rights. The suit names Elaine Bair, the ten other departmental faculty members who voted against his tenure bid, and the president of IUP himself for allowing the denial to happen. Temes wants the courts to compel IUP to award him tenure and to compensate him for lost pay and for damages. His case hinges on the manner in which Bair explicitly tied his tenure prospects to his political expression; Temes has always had positive performance evaluations, and hence it is possible for him to argue that the sole reason for his dismissal is the one laid out by his chair. The question now is whether Temes can document that Bair made the comments he says she made; he's got her dead to rights regarding her efforts to chill his political expression, but must now show definitively that Bair verbally connected his expression to his tenure prospects.

When asked to comment on the case, Jonathan Knight of the AAUP noted that this may well be the first time that a professor has claimed he was fired for opposing the war in Iraq.

Tenure review is a notoriously abusable process. Confidentiality prevents candidates who are turned down for tenure from knowing why they were turned down, and from knowing who said what damning things about them. Lifetime jobs can be created during tenure votes--but careers can also be destroyed with impunity and without accountability. The process is regarded as so special that it lies beyond the bounds of due process and the prerogatives of transparency. Corruption is easy, and some argue it is common. But it is the rare case indeed when corruption can be proven, and it usually has to do with someone somewhere leaving an incriminating email trail in his wake. This is what happened with Brooklyn College history professor KC Johnson--and it may have just happened again in with Alan Temes.

Thanks to Maurice Black for the link.

A practical question: aren't tenure votes confidential? Because I was under the impression that one would never know who voted for or against their tenure and was therefore confused as to how Temes named the ten people who voted against him in his lawsuit. Unless the department only has 10 people in it and he managed to annoy every last one of them.

Perhaps I'm reading the news article too closely but:

1) Jessica, I think he's suing everyone on the committee, not just specific people who (supposedly) voted him down.

2) The assertion "In that email, Elaine Bair warned Temes that if he continued his anti-war activities, he risked losing the department's support when he came up for tenure. Bair's email came one month after she ordered Temes to stop posting a tally of those who have died during the war in Iraq..." doesn't seem to be correct. The chronology is that Bair sent the email with the above quote, with no mention (in the article, anyway) of tenure considerations, and then verbally tied the issue to tenure a month later. It's not clear whether any witnesses exist to the latter event.

Error duly noted and corrected. Thanks.

This same thing happened at the university I used to teach at. One teacher was told by the president of the college if he continued to write newspaper editorials on a certain topic that he would not be granted tenure. Tenure there is determined by the president, VP, dean, and department chair. All the others voted for. But the president voted against. And he was denied tenure.

It probably isn't unusual. What is unusual is Temes has a paper trail to argue it.

A few questions:
Isn't someone being a royal pain in the posterior at work reason enough to deny someone tenure?

Does the topic really matter? If the Department Head asked me not to play Frank Sinatra music because the other faculty members and students hated Sinatra I would stop playing Sinatra at work.

It sounds like the person who was denied tenure does not play well with others and should have been denied tenure. If he was that hard get along with pretenure imagine how much worse he would be post tenure.

For what it is worth, I am a new tenure track assistant professor and the whole idea of tenure seems odd to me. Coming from a Fortune 50 environment, if it distracts from the purpose you don't do it.