Judicial Influence on Academic Decision-Making: A Study of Tenure Denial Litigation Cases in which Higher Education Institutions Did Not Wholly Prevail

This study examined judicial influence on academic decision-making by identifying factors in the tenure process that have induced courts to rule against higher education institutions in litigation stemming from tenure denials. Many interdisciplinary legal and educational studies have been conducted...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Flood, Julee Tate (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Libro
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 2012
En:Año: 2012
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866319825
003 DE-627
005 20250122054901.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231019s2012 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866319825 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866319825 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Flood, Julee Tate  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Judicial Influence on Academic Decision-Making: A Study of Tenure Denial Litigation Cases in which Higher Education Institutions Did Not Wholly Prevail 
264 1 |c 2012 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This study examined judicial influence on academic decision-making by identifying factors in the tenure process that have induced courts to rule against higher education institutions in litigation stemming from tenure denials. Many interdisciplinary legal and educational studies have been conducted pertaining to tenure related litigation using qualitative, quantitative, and legal research methodologies. Empirical studies have been directed at varied issues, such as the peer review process; specific claims, such as discrimination; types of institutions; or time periods. Much of this scholarship has noted the importance of judicial deference to decisions made in academia. Unique to this study was the application of dual conceptual frameworks of shared governance and judicial deference as to decisions made in the academic tenure denial process. The study was also unique in that it was limited to tenure litigation cases in which institutions did not wholly prevail. Included in the study were published judicial opinions from the period of 1972 to 2011 from the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeal, and states’ highest appellate courts. The study sought to determine first, the policies and procedures employed in public and private colleges and universities that have contributed to federal and state appellate courts’ unfavorable rulings against institutions in tenure denial litigation; second, the remedies granted to faculty plaintiffs who prevail in tenure denial litigation; and finally, the steps that colleges and universities can take to minimize and mitigate tenure denial litigation. Complementary legal and qualitative research methods yielded evidence that courts were highly deferential to academic decision-making and that courts ruled against institutions’ tenure decisions when the decisions were contrary to law. Courts granted legal and equitable remedies when institutions infringed upon a professor’s rights, discriminated against a professor, or breached a contract with a professor. Based on the analysis of case law, this study proposed steps that institutions could take to avoid or mitigate tenure denial litigation. By gaining a better understanding of potential flaws in the tenure process and why courts have substituted judicial decisions for those of institutional decisions, this study contributes to our understanding as to how to decrease the influence of the courts on decisions made in academia 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/268765957.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4392964965 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866319825 
LOK |0 005 20231019043649 
LOK |0 008 231019||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE75168974 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw