News

Harvard Law School Makes Online Zero-L Course Free for All U.S. Law Schools Due to Coronavirus

News

For Kennedy School Fellows, Epstein-Linked Donors Present a Moral Dilemma

News

Tenants Grapple with High Rents and Local Turnover at Asana-Owned Properties

News

In April, Theft Surged as Cambridge Residents Stayed at Home

News

The History of Harvard's Commencement, Explained

TENURE POT BOILS AGAIN AS 'UP OR OUT' TAKES ITS TOLL

Hire-Fire Fight Grew Out Of 1937 Walsh-Sweezy Row

By Spencer Klaw

Harvard's teaching tenure policy is as complicated as an income tax return and almost as incomprehensible as Professor Sorokin's accent.

Under the present "up or out" system in force since 1939, a teacher, if he is lucky, advances from annual instructor to Faculty instructor (a five-year appointment) to associate professor and permanent tenure.

No one stands still; the only alternatives are promotion or a "terminating appointment," which is an academic way of saying, "You're not fired, but you can't come back after next year."

This system grew out of the Walsh-Sweezy controversy in 1937. In that year two young Economics instructors--J. Raymond Walsh and Alan Sweezy--were dismissed. Their supporters immediately raised the issue of academic freedom, charged that they had been fired because they were "dangerous reds." What had appeared to be a routine housecleaning became a cause celebre.

Faculty Bigwigs Probe

A Faculty committee investigated the affair for a year, and reported that there was no evidence of anti-radical prejudice. But the investigators did find evidence of misunderstanding and administrative incompetency, and recommended that Walsh and Sweezy be re-appointed--a suggestion which President Conant turned down.

Almost a year later, in March, 1939, this same "Committee of Eight" issued a long report urging drastic revision of the University's hiring-and-firing procedure to prevent teachers from being fired by mistake. Among their proposals was the suggestion that the rank of assistant professor be abolished.

Dangling Assistant Professors

Assistant professorships are not permanent appointments. Under the old system it was possible for an assistant professor to be kept dangling on successive three-year appointments while the Administration made up its mind whether or not he was worthy of permanent status as an associate professor. If the verdict was No, the unlucky assistant professor might find it difficult to secure a post elsewhere.

What the Committee of Eight wanted to do was to make it impossible for a man to teach at Harvard more than eight years without being given permanency, or being sent packing while he is still young enough to get another good teaching job. The Committee explicitly stated that the rank of assistant professor should be abolished gradually, with due regard to existing commitments.

The Axe Falls

In the spring of 1939, after the Faculty had very briefly considered the Committee's proposals, the President accepted them "in principle." Shortly before Commencement the news leaked out that ten assistant professors, all occupying key teaching positions, had been given "terminating appointments."

When College opened the following fall, the storm broke. Undergraduate organizations, ranging from the Student Union to the Student Council, and led by the high-sounding "Committee to Save Harvard Education," campaigned for the retention of the ten assistant professors.

The fight was carried into the Faculty room, and for a time attendance at Faculty meetings tripled.

The issue boiled down to this: the Administration said the men had to be let out because of a shrinking budget, and the students and a large part of the Faculty held that the men could be kept without straining the budget.

The Administration argued that if the men were promoted to associate professors, they would subsequently have to be promoted to full professors, with an accompanying salary increase, and that the University's finances wouldn't allow this. The opposition rebutted with the suggestion that the men be promoted to associate professors, which would involve only a small salary increase, and that they not be promised full professorships, but be allowed to stay on as "frozen" associate professors.

Eventually the Faculty voted that in cases where teaching standards would otherwise be "seriously impaired," frozen associate professorships should be created, and that the ten assistant professors should not be excluded from consideration for these posts.

The Faculty breathed a sigh of relief, and began staying away from meetings by hundreds.

But none of the ten assistant professors got frozen associate professorships. One, Theodore Spencer, was given a regular associate professorship in the English Department, though it was difficult to figure out why the Department, too poor to keep Spencer only a few months before, now could affard the luxury of another full-blown old-style associate professorship. Most of the rest packed up and left last June.

Houghton and Potter Terminate

One of the ten, Walter Houghton, assistant professor of English, is rounding out the last year of his two-year terminating appointment. The man with whom he is at present bracketed in the History and Literature row is John Potter, assistant professor of History, who is not one of the original ten, but received his terminating appointment last year.

These two men can theoretically be retained if their departments find that their dismissal seriously impairs teaching standards in their fields. They can be retained as frozen associates, a procedure which does not violate the "up or out" policy adopted two years ago.

That they will be retained is very doubtful in view of the fact that the Administration has been very sparing in its frozen appointments, and has never openly reversed itself on a tenure issue because of student pressure

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags