Opinion ID: 2389156
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tenure vis-a-vis Compulsory Retirement

Text: Since the professor did not agree to be bound by the mandatory retirement policy, two questions remain. First, did the grant of tenure to the professor at a time when the college had no retirement policy limit the authority of the college from subsequently adopting a retirement policy? Second, even if the college had the authority to institute or change its retirement policy, can that new policy be validly applied to the professor? The delineation of the various rights and obligations which arise out of the award of tenure has only recently been subjected to detailed analysis. See Developments in the LawAcademic Freedom, 81 Harv.L. Rev. 1045 (1968); Van Alstyne, Tenure: A Summary, Explanation, and Defense, 57 AAUP Bull. 328 (1971). When the professor attained tenure in 1960, the college had no rules, regulations, or policy statement defining and limiting the nature and scope of that status. The 1955 questionnaire simply provided that: Tenure is contingent not only on satisfactory teaching with a normal load but also through evidence of scholarship, research, publications in learned journals, etc. Therefore, we must look to the custom and usage of the academic community to discern the common understanding of tenure. As we said in John F. Davis Co. v. Shepard Co., 71 R.I. 499, 504-05, 47 A.2d 635, 638 (1946), quoting Myers v. Sarl, 3 E. & E. 306: [W]hen it is shewn that a term or phrase in a written contract bears a peculiar meaning in the trade or business to which the contract relates, that meaning is, prima facie, to be attributed to it, unless, upon the construction of the whole contract, enough appears, either from express words or by necessary implication, to shew that the parties did not intend that meaning to prevail.' This principle is said to be especially true in the case of contracts in the academic community. Greene v. Howard University, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 88 412 F.2d 1128, 1135 (1969). Tenure in the academic community commonly refers to a status granted, usually after a probationary period, which protects a teacher from dismissal except for serious misconduct or incompetence. Collins v. Parsons College, 203 N.W.2d at 597; American Association of University Professors v. Bloomfield College, 129 N.J.Super. 249, 322 A.2d 846, 853 (1974); Rehor v. Case Western Reserve University ; Developments in the LawAcademic Freedom, 81 Harv.L.Rev. 1045, 1049 (1968). The primary function of tenure is the preservation of academic freedom. The 1940 Statement of Principles provides: Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) Freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society. The job security which tenure provides is thought to benefit society by encouraging a scholar to vigorously pursue and disseminate his research without fear of reprisal or rebuke from those who support the conventional wisdom. Van Alstyne, Tenure: A Summary, Explanation, and Defense, 57 AAUP Bull. 328, 330. With these principles in mind, we find it difficult indeed to hold that tenure precludes the imposition of a mandatory retirement policy under all circumstances. If the scope of tenurial protection is no broader than necessary to protect academic freedom and to provide enough job security to make the profession attractive to young men and women, then an academic institution should have the authority to institute a mandatory retirement program. As long as the retirement plan is adopted in good faith, the age chosen is reasonable, and the policy is uniformly applied to all faculty members, the essential functions of tenure will not be compromised. Rehor v. Case Western Reserve University . So far as we have been able to discover, Rehor is the only case in the country which has directly decided this issue. [2] The plaintiff in that case was granted tenure when the retirement age was 70 years. After the plaintiff's university merged with another one, the retirement policy was changed to provide for retirement at age 68, with discretionary annual appointments thereafter. The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the power of the university to make reasonable, uniform changes in its retirement policies and further held that the plaintiff had consented to this contractual change. We believe that the holdings present an inconsistency which undermines the rationale upon which the court in Rehor reached its ultimate conclusion. If, as the court said, a university's personnel policies are impliedly incorporated into a professorial contract, then the college's unilateral right to make reasonable alterations thereof must be denied. On the other hand, if the college has the inherent or reserved authority to make changes unilaterally, it is idle to speak of retirement as a contractual term to which pedagogical consent is a sine qua non. We believe the proper balancing of the prerogatives of the university and the rights of individual faculty members should be gleaned from the contract of the parties and from their reasonable expectations regarding university-wide regulations, rules, and policies. Many courts have implied some or all of the rules, regulations, bylaws, and policies of a university into faculty employment contracts. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Zimmerer v. Spencer, 485 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1973); Greene v. Howard University, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 412 F.2d 1128 (1969); Downs v. Conway School District, 328 F.Supp.. 338 (E.D.Ark. 1971); Brady v. Board of Trustees, 196 Neb. 226, 242 N.W.2d 616 (1976); Hillis v. Meister, 82 N.M. 474, 483 P.2d 1314 (App.1971); Zimmerman v. Minot State College, 198 N.W.2d 108 (N.D.1972); Rehor v. Case Western Reserve University . With the exception of Rehor, these cases concerned faculty members who were dismissed or not reinstated in a manner which, they claimed, was contrary to certain university-wide policies or procedures. Rehor interpreted this line of authority, incorrectly in our view, as holding that all of a university's rules, regulations, etc., are impliedly incorporated into faculty employment contracts. As we review the broad range of topics encompassed in the Providence College Faculty Manual (use of audiovisual aids, purchase requests, parking privileges, traffic regulations, etc.), we cannot subscribe to this all-inclusive incorporation. The effective management of our academic institutions would be seriously compromised if the contractual assent of every single faculty member was required before the college could, say, rewrite the procedures for borrowing a book from the library or change the discount rate being offered the faculty at the campus book store. Having in mind the purpose of tenure and the reasonable expectations of those who wish to pursue a professional teaching career at an institution of higher learning, we must reject Professor Drans's claim that his 1960 acquisition of tenure exempted him from the compulsory retirement program instituted by the college in 1969. He should have been aware that sometime during his teaching career his employer might see fit to install a retirement plan which would include some type of mandatory provision whereby a teacher would be required to forego any further classroom activities. The 1940 Statement of Principles recognized the need for institutional flexibility when it expressly provided for retirement for age as a permissible ground for the termination of tenured professors. The importance of this statement cannot be underestimated. Promulgated by a joint committee of the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges, the 1940 Statement, as with their other joint statements, was widely circulated and widely accepted in the academic community and, indeed, by Providence College. Browzin v. Catholic University of America, 174 U.S. App.D.C. 60, 64 n.8, 527 F.2d 843, 847 n.8 (1975). Furthermore, even in a nonacademic setting, tenured positions are thought to be subject to retirement for age. Maloney v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 122 U.S.App.D.C. 268, 270, 352 F.2d 936, 938 (1965); People ex rel. Bagshaw v. Thompson, 55 Cal.App.2d 147, 153, 130 P.2d 237, 241 (1942). Therefore, we conclude that the college had the power and authority, consistent with its outstanding tenurial obligations, to unilaterally institute a reasonable, uniformly applicable, mandatory retirement policy.