Opinion ID: 396536
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mayberry's tenure prospects before exercise by him of the protected speech.

Text: 8 The actual course of Mayberry's career at the University, insofar as the record discloses, progressed, if not altogether without incident, still essentially quietly until sometime in the fall or winter of the 1971-72 academic year (the fifth year of employment, and, consequently, the year in which Mayberry was to be considered for tenure). 9 Nevertheless, the record compiled by Mayberry anterior to the asserted violation of his First Amendment rights did not justify a conclusion that, with a large measure of probability (let alone certainty), he would, during the critical fifth year, be recommended for tenure. 11 It was during that fifth year, 1971-72, that the utterances for which Mayberry has claimed First Amendment protection against retaliation were made. 10 As early as July 16, 1970, well before there existed any basis for claiming retaliation as punishment for free speech exercise, Fernandez, the chairman of the romance languages department, in the Annual Evaluation for Mayberry, prepared as part of the regular practice, 12 expressed doubts about tenure, pointing out that he (c)ontinues to conduct classes in English and refuses to follow my views concerning use of the language (Spanish) in class, being so opposed to my objectives for the Department. He further observed that Mayberry was given to complaining and not willing to compromise. There was evidence, independent of the Annual Evaluations, that Mayberry insisted that it should be done Mayberry's way, not the Department's way, insofar as instruction through the medium of English rather than Spanish was concerned. 13 11 Another faculty member's 1970 Annual Evaluation stated:I suspect that if there is a conflict between departmental program and personal desires, however, he will opt for personal desires. He is adolescent in his insistence on my personal freedom.... He is, however, lazy. 12 That academic evaluator concluded that he would recommend tenure only as a means of keeping the services of Mrs. Mayberry for the department. 13 The November 1971 Annual Evaluations are mixed. 14 One stated: 14 (D)oes not give impression that he works very enthusiastically or derives great satisfaction from teaching.... Potential probably limited, especially until he gains greater conviction concerning teaching profession.... He lacks a kind of strength that would make me recommend him for tenure with confidence that I was getting the best man possible for the position. 15 There were also evaluations in November, 1971, that recommended tenure for Mayberry. 16 Fernandez, in a May 26, 1971 Evaluation, unquestionably before the fall and winter 1971 utterances for which First Amendment protection is claimed, noted that Mayberry now says he agrees with my objectives, and concluded: If reduction in staff is forced upon us, would hesitate to give him tenure. Otherwise, would not object. 17 Under the administrative procedures of the University, Fernandez, as chairman of the department of romance languages, was delegated the responsibility, after such consultation with other faculty members of the department, and the dean, as he deemed appropriate or possible, of forming, and forwarding, through the dean, to the University provost, a recommendation as to whether tenure should, or should not be granted. 15 Responsibility for the final decision reposed in the chancellor, but, as a practical matter, it was unlikely that tenure would be granted in the face of a negative recommendation from the department chairman. Cf. Clark v. Whiting, 607 F.2d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 1979). 18