Site Meter

If You Want to Know What Your Colleagues Think About You, Take Their Deposition: Tenure Litigation at Michigan

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Kaimi says:

    Yeah, the papers are really something.

    And you’re right to point out some of the more problematic arguments. The religion / discrimination interaction is a doozy.

    The Plaintiff argues that colleagues who attend a Baptist church should, as a rule, not have their votes counted, because the Baptist church’s official position on homosexuality is that it is a sin. This sounds problematic. First, because there’s specific deposition testimony, such as that this particular faculty member doesn’t believe homosexuality is a sin.

    And second, even if he did, does that really preclude his ability to make decisions on employment? The vote isn’t for pastor, it’s a work-related vote. Limiting religious faculty members’ ability to vote, to people who would not be viewed as sinful, seems to discriminate on the grounds of religion.

    Plus, given the broad definition of sin, it’s almost certainly overbroad. After all, when it comes down to it, any failure to accept Jesus is going to be a sin for many Christian denominations. Does that mean that they should never be allowed to vote on any Jewish or Muslim or atheist colleagues?

    The bottom line, I think, has to be not whether a person’s religion has an official position on homosexuality, or even whether that person personally thinks homosexuality is a sin in a metaphysical sense, but rather, whether that private metaphysical judgment played a role in their tenure vote.

    (And I have wonder whether any of the favorable-vote faculty also belong to religions that officially prohibit homosexuality. If so, shouldn’t their votes be removed, too?)

  2. anon says:

    I would agree it is stupid politics, but I don’t think that Michigan’s contract defense was bad on the merits. When there is an express disclaimer, and when the plaintiff is a contract law professor, it actually is a pretty strong legal argument that plaintiff had no legally protected expectation here. The University of Michigan would not be the first public entity to lose a lawsuit because a good legal argument is forfeited by politics, but why should Peter Hammer be the beneficiary?

    And do we really want this case to be addressed on the merits? Tenure decisions are–and everyone knows this–making sausage. I would not be shocked if Peter Hammer lost votes because he was gay. I would be even less shocked if he also gained votes that he otherwise would not have received solely because he was gay. If we are going to put every faculty member under oath and ask them what they think about Lawrence v. Texas, which every ambitious lawyer knows–a public answer either way is Senate confirmation suicide, tenure fights are going to become even uglier than they are now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image