News
Harvard Quietly Resolves Anti-Palestinian Discrimination Complaint With Ed. Department
News
Following Dining Hall Crowds, Harvard College Won’t Say Whether It Tracked Wintersession Move-Ins
News
Harvard Outsources Program to Identify Descendants of Those Enslaved by University Affiliates, Lays Off Internal Staff
News
Harvard Medical School Cancels Class Session With Gazan Patients, Calling It One-Sided
News
Garber Privately Tells Faculty That Harvard Must Rethink Messaging After GOP Victory
A House-Senate conference committee yesterday agreed on a compromise version of the controversial Age Discrimination Bill, which includes a provision that would raise the age at which tenured faculty can be forced to retire from 65 to 70 years.
The bill, which Senate sources predicted will pass both houses within a month, has aroused concern among administrators at Harvard and other universities over its possibly restrictive effect on an already tight academic job market.
Grim
Peter S. McKinney, administrative dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS), said yesterday the bill would "obviously decrease the number of tenured jobs," but added that it would be only "a small perturbation in an already grim picture."
Edward L. Keenan, dean of the GSAS, yesterday stressed the financial burden for the University of paying professors who under the provisions of the bill would be able to draw a full salary for four more years, after reaching the age of 66.
"In the long run it's a lot of money," he said.
The bill would provide a three-and-a-half-year "grace period" for currently tenured faculty before taking effect and would also instruct the Department of Labor to conduct a study on the impact of the bill allows Harvard enough time to Another proposed study would examine the possibility of completely abolishing mandatory retirement.
Nancy Barrow, staff assistant to Sen. John H. Chaffee (R-R.I.), said yesterday Congress would probably amend the bill before the grace period expires, if the Labor Department study predicts harmful effects.
Michael F. Brewer, director of government relations, said yesterday he believes the bill allows Harvard enough time to study more closely the potential effects of raising the retirement age, and to "make a case for continued exemption" for tenured faculty.
Brewer added that regardless of the effect of the bill, he believes "decisions of retirement should be left in the hands of the University."
Dean Rosovsky said yesterday the bill would have a "minimal effect" on the Faculty, because Harvard professors generally teach a half-load of courses from the time they reach age 66 until they reach 70.
Although the present bill may not have a drastic impact on the University, many administrators expressed concern that if Congress ever completely abolishes mandatory retirement, the entire tenure system may be called into question.
Bruce Collier, assistant dean for financial affairs, said last month that if colleges could not be sure that professors would have to retire at a specified age, they might be forced to institute broad reviews of competence that could not legally be limited to faculty over age 65. Such a review could effectively destroy security of tenure, Collier said
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.