James Sherley, a biological engineering professor at MIT and a Harvard grad, was recently denied tenure. He's going on a hunger strike in February if the decision isn't reversed. So reports Inside Higher Ed yesterday.
I won't weigh in on the merits of either side, since I know only what this article tells me. Just pasting a blurb, leaving the link above and two more below, and noting that I wonder how this'll turn out. It has all the trappings of a highly discussable story: race, science, an elite instutution, power structures, stem cell research, ethics everywhere. Here's some of the story:
Sherley, who is black, says that he is a victim of racial discrimination. He has been a controversial figure at MIT, however, not over issues of race, but of the science of stem cells. Sherley does work on adult stem cells, but is very critical of studies with embryonic stem cells.
In the last two years -- while his tenure appeals were going through various reviews -- Sherley won a number of awards. In September, the National Institutes of Health gave him a Pioneer Award, a $2.5 million grant for "highly innovative research." He was among 13 scientists nationally, and 2 at MIT, to win the honor. That same month, he was named a 2006 Trailblazer -- an award from Science Spectrum magazine for top minority scientists. Last year, MIT named him one of three winners of Martin Luther King Leadership Awards. An MIT announcement said that Sherley "was nominated by students and colleagues who cited his enthusiastic commitment to education and science and his exemplary work as a scientist, teacher and laboratory head who has fostered an inclusive and supportive environment."
Two other links, for those wading through: one from lifenews.com, the other, an interview with Sherley at this site.
Should you have an angle on the story, all seven of you holiday week readers, by all means, comment away below.
- Log in to post comments
I don't know anything about hte merits of his claim, but a hunger strike doesn't seem like it would be an effective way to make his case at MIT. At Berkeley, maybe...
LIke begging on the street, wearing a sign that reads: "Will teach for food."
Or, "grant me Tenure, or I shoot this embryo!"
I sympathize with his ultimatum, however, and wish him luck. It would not, however, be a good precedent. Where might it lead? "Renew my postdoc, or I'll douse myself with gasoline and light a match"?
"Change that F to an A or I'll let all the chimps out of their cages"?
"Make me coauthor on that paper, or I'll accuse you of rape and, far worse, plagiarism"?
Boy, talk about "Publish or perish!"
There are so few details on this case, it's hard to form an opinion. On the other hand, getting tenure from assistant/associate professorship at a top university is hard enough without having to drag in accusations of discrimination and controversy...
It's stories like this that call strongly for a reform of the tenure process. Full disclosure, please!
Is he also going to hold his breath until he turns blue?
Why is he waiting until February 5th? Does he have an incredible stockpile of holiday leftovers he can't stand to miss out on?
Weird. With that kind of CV, why starve himself? He'd be a hot prospect on the job market, I would think.
Unless everyone thinks he's the kind of loon who'd have a temper tantrum every time a faculty governance issue didn't go his way...
Given my caveat above, about knowing no more about the case than the three links given in the post offer me, I will add...
There do seem to be an abundance of unanswered questions. I'm surprised Sherley hasn't himself said more about it, given the hunger strike threat. And of course MIT is a difficult place to get a job and then get tenure (probably goes without saying), so the decision against him must have to do with rules of MIT of which I don't know the details.
Does anyone know what it takes to get tenure at MIT? I actually know of another guy, an anthropologist, who was denied tenure a few years back for no discernible reason (discernible here meaning, as evidenced by his academic record). I also know of cases at my old institution, where professors *did* get tenure who were widely preceived to be sub-par scholars.
Without conjecture, we can say -- we do know, as academics -- that the process is as political as any other. I don't think it can be reduced to "it's all who you know," but the relevance of unquantifiable things like personal interaction would certainly come into play. Chad just went through this, right? -- over at Uncertain Principles, and he came out on the up side, maybe he has insight here.
If a department does not feel that the colleague is a positive contributor to the atmosphere of that department, maybe they use the ternure review process as the final filter. Again, I don't know if that's the case here (wow, a three-caveat post), but I do know that unquantifaible aspects are part of the review proces. And it is inside the merits of those unquantifiable aspects that Sherley's hunger strike threat is being made.
*IF* the spin we're hearing here -- awards for forefront research, lauded justly as a leader in teaching with a great committment to education -- then his not getting tenure is a horrible joke, whatever the reason. It's the worst sort of University politics and/or tenure insanity that gives those of us without tenure nightmares.
On the other hand -- who really knows what's going on. There may be other facts that we don't know about. It may not be just political; there may be real issues. Hard to say.
If it is the former, I hope MIT gets roundly embarassed by this. If it is the latter, I hope the real story somehow gets out.
In the mean time, while my instinct is to line up completely behind the guy and rant on about how this is another example of how soulkilling the pre-tenure process is, wisdom suggests one should wait to learn more about the story before getting one's panties in a wad.
-Rob
I don't want to mention any names of professor, gender, or university here. But I know a professor with impressive research publications, national press coverage, popular with students, who was denied tenure.
Said professor won a lawsuit, and the judge forced the university to offer the previously rejected tenure.
The professor "won" -- but otherwise lost. Shunned forever after by all faculty, exiled to an office in another building, and never invited to any parties or official functions.
Colleges discovered some time ago that they can legally get away with de facto firing of tenured faculty by loopholes such as dissolving the department in question. "You're not really fired; you just belong to a defunded epartment that doesn't exist."
The U.S. Supreme court explicitly allows grad students to be kicked out with no due process, so long as it is for "academic cause" rather than "disciplinary cause." But the jusitices carefully avoided defining "academic cause."
I have a nasty tendency of telling the truth (i.e. "since you ask, I think that the dean is an alcoholic sociopath") hence am unlikely to ever get tenure, my 2,400 publications, presentations, and broadcasts, and student popularity, notwithstanding.
But it is not entirely sour grapes when I say that the whole system is broken.
The hunger-striking tenure case is just the tip of the iceberg.
The university system is, to continue the analogy, the Titanic.
Tenured faculty sail first class.
Other faculty, second class.
Adjunct, temps, instructors, postdocs, grad students -- third class.
Students are the ones locked in steerage.
The Nobel Prize is the blue diamond dropped into the sea after rescue in the overly-popular romance-adventure movie with the great special effects.
I knew there was a very good reason I got out of university well before I had to think about tenure...
Honestly, the day I stopped having to think about this sort of nonsense (and finally got a real job) was the best day of my life. I fully understand that someone can feel aggrieved at not being offered tenure - but I guess I am just too young to understand why you should have as your goal to get into a position where you never have to think about actually doing a good job any more...
> Why is he waiting until February 5th?
Possibly it's just because that's when the spring semester there starts up, when most of the faculty will be actually around unlike during the January intersession when many are away. (MIT's academic calendar is on their main website.)
A quick Google leaves me with the impression that Dr. Sherley has invested more time and effort in publicly badmouthing scientists involved in embryonic stem cell research than he has in his own position at MIT.
an example of feedback to one of his op-ed pieces:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/200…
Embryonic stem cell research is the current credo du jour.
Dr. Sherley should be glad that MIT is not hanging him at 10:00PM, instead of just not granting him tenure.
MIT is one of a group of schools at which it is almost impossible to get tenure from a junior fculty position (along with a bunch of Ivy League schools, the top California schools, and a few others). I've heard people say that the tenure process there consists of hiring a junior person in a research area that seems interesting, waiting to see if they produce good results, then asking around to find out who the very best person in the world in that research field is. If the answer comes back "The one you've got," then they give that person tenure, otherwise, they deny the junior person tenure, and spend millions to hire whoever they were told was the best person in the field.
That's an exaggeration, but MIT and Harvard and Yale routinely deny tenure to outstanding young scientists. They usually get hired directly into tenured positions at other schools, but it's a traumatic process.
It's faintly appalling, really. That doesn't mean that a hunger strike is a good plan, though.
Though Dr. Sherley is academically brilliant, clearly he lacks common sense. He probably benefitted from his race when being admitted to Harvard. He has probably also benefitted from preferential treatment for the purpose of statistics in other academic endeavors. Most certainly race has not hindered him in academia. For him to play the "race card" seems de facto evidence of what probably cost him tenure: A fundamental alienation from honesty.
Eric, That seems like an awful lot of speculation based on one story. Do you have any evidence to back up the claims you make? Ben
Eric, how do quantify that he is brilliant? Have you ever read some of his best stuff? My favorite is what he wrote in the Boston Globe about human stem cell research having about as much chance as "when pigs fly."
I guess the company I work for and many others must be watching pigs fly as we advance science and receive monies from those who are have clearly seen the benefits.
Frankly, I'd like to know how he even got a BS, let a lone a PhD.
Very glad that this is over now and MIT did not give into this type of tactic