Nonprofit Mississippi News Two national organisations sent a joint message Wednesday to the Institutions of Higher Learning Board of Trustees, urging them to reverse changes to their tenure policies following a Mississippi Today report. PEN America and Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, both non-profits advocating free speech in higher education, have sent a joint letter to the Institutions of Higher Learning Board of Trustees. They claim the revisions were “untenable” as well as raising significant concerns under the First Amendment. Mississippi Today reported the changes that the board suggested without public input. The board adopted them without discussion last week. These changes grant the final decision to Mississippi’s university presidents and not IHL on whether tenure is granted to faculty. New language has been added to the revised policies that university presidents can use in deciding whether to grant tenure. This includes a faculty member’s “collegiality”, “effectiveness and accuracy in communications” and “contumacious behavior,” which was previously only part of the board’s tenure dismissal policy. The new language was included in three of the eight board tenure policies: Post-tenure review, promotions in rank and minimum standards for tenured employment. FIRE and PEN America are particularly concerned about the latter changes, according to Jeremy Young, PEN America’s senior manager for free expression and education. These new provisions are vague and “virtually sure to become a tool to sanitize campuses of viewpoints with which university Presidents disagree.” The letter states that tenure is a type indefinite job protection that is only available to higher education. It basically means that faculty cannot be fired without cause. This is a way for faculty members to publish research that might offend a powerful university donor, without fear of repercussions. IHL’s new policies, including the inclusion of a “definitionless concept” such as collegiality, are easy to misuse. This could result in presidents refusing tenure to faculty members they don’t like. The letter states that this is a subjective requirement that can be abused and could significantly compromise academic freedom. These threats are not speculative. “These threats are not speculative. Faculty have been disciplined or terminated for expressing unpopular views or criticizing their administrators.” FIRE and PEN America are both concerned that these policies could violate faculty’s First Amendment Rights. These changes could lead to faculty self-censoring their speech online, if they are successful. The letter states that the Supreme Court explained that “the mere dissemination of ideas — regardless of how offensive or good taste — on a state campus university campus may not be closed in the name of “conventions ofdecency The American Association of University Professors is also concerned by these changes,” said Greg Scholtz (director of the organization’s academic freedom department). Scholtz reviewed hundreds of faculty handbooks and bylaws on college campuses as part of his job. Scholtz called IHL’s policies both the new and existing ones “a little strange.” He specifically mentioned a line in IHL’s promotions policy that evaluates faculty for “effectiveness in interpersonal relations.” Scholtz stated, “This is very objectionable.” I’ve never seen it before, but it suggests a niceness factor. “I don’t know how to respond, that’s strange.” The board didn’t notify faculty that it was considering policy changes. It approved them without discussing the consent agenda at their meeting last week. The policies were discussed by the trustees at a retreat held in March at Mississippi State University’s Riley Center, Meridian. This is an hour and a half away from Jackson, where the board usually meets. The retreat was not live-streamed, unlike other IHL meetings. Scholtz stated that the IHL board appears to be only accountable to their political constituencies. They don’t appear to feel like fiduciaries or of trust… which would include having an interest in what professionals believe to be good and necessary.” PEN America, FIRE and FIRE asked the IHL board to respond to their May 11th letter.