Academic Freedom and Tenure: Meharry Medical College (Tennessee)1

Academe, Nov/Dec 2004 by Poston, Lawrence S, Bloch, Earl F, Soslau, Gerald

In the late afternoon of June 30, Professor Russell was presented with yet another contract, replacing the previous ones. Unlike the contracts issued on June 1 and June 24, both of which expired in a year's time, the June 30 contract ended on December 31, 2003. An accompanying memorandum from the dean stated that the June 24 contract, although signed by Professor Russell and her interim chair, was "in error" in that Professor Russell had not responded to the dean's request for a revised time-allocation proposal. Professor Russell immediately made an appointment to meet with the dean at the tatter's "earliest possible convenience," which was July 10, to discuss her own recommended allocations of time. Faced with a July 1 deadline, she signed the contract hut stated that she was doing so under duress and protest. When told by the dean that the contract could not he validated with that qualification, "as neither the institution nor I have applied any pressure for you to accept or deny this ofTFcr of employment," Professor Russell resubmitted it with her signature and that of her interim chair, Professor Hill. Professor Russell did this, she told the investigating committee, because she had continuing obligations in the department and assumed that the contract would ultimately be extended. The events that followed immediately thereafter were to show that her assumption was unwarranted.

On July 2, when Professor Russell and other faculty members who had received six-month contracts were notified that they had been placed on administrative leave until the end of the six-month contract and needed to vacate their campus offices no later than July 30, several of these faculty members decided to consult with a Nashville attorney, John Norris, who indicated that they could file an injunction for a restraining order to prevent their forcible removal from the campus. After further consultation, and Mr. Norris's notice to Mcharry's general counsel of the action contemplated, the outside counsel retained by the college advised Mr. Norris that the affected faculty members could stay on campus and carry out their duties.

Also on July 2, Professor Russell forwarded an addendum to the grievance statement she had previously submitted, describing the circumstances in which the June 30 contract was presented to her. She pointed out that, although she apologized for any misunderstanding about how the time allocation on her contract should have been written, "the Dean did provide an earlier contract that 1 signed, and my failure to meet with her does not seem to warrant a change in my contract from one year to six months with the same time allocations." She stated her belief that the subsequent requirement of removal from campus was a violation of applicable college policy, which called for a deferral of such action until a grievance could be heard.

During the summer, while additional legal steps were being taken by five Meharry Medical College faculty members, Professor Russell's case was pending before the appointments, promotions, and tenure committee/ Professor Russell wrote again to the committee chair on August H, providing additional documentation and information, including an account of the funding secured rbr research by the Department of Microbiology dating back to 19S9, when she became chair, and evidence of student performance on subject board examinations. She broadened the grounds of her original grievance to include her December 31 termination and her placement on administrative leave. Professor Kusscll alleged that the action against her was not based on adequate consideration or evaluation, and that the issuance of the termination notice immediately following her removal as chair and associate dean was an abridgment of her right to free speech and academic freedom. She further claimed that termination in the middle of a contract year constituted a dismissal, and that such an action should therefore be taken only in cases of adequate cause or financial exigency, and that being placed on administrative leave and ordered to leave the campus on July ß prevented her from carrying out her academic responsibilities, not justified by any showing that her continuance was a source of harm to anyone. Professor Kussell advised the Association's staff at this time that despite the fact that her grievance was still in process, she was experiencing repeated efforts by the administration to change her duties. An attempt had been made to remove her as principal investigator of her two training grants. She had been accused of being insubordinate to Dean Coney, of interfering with the duties of the interim chair of microbiology, and of "making derogatory comments about the administration to students." With respect to this last charge, Professor Russell informed the investigating committee that she had never initiated any discussion of these matters with students, but that the publicity surrounding the turmoil at the college made it impossible not to field questions from them when they asked. In only one instance, she stated, did she take the initiative in telling a student that her services were being terminated.