Tenured Case Study

Introduction

Freedom of speech is a luxury afforded to every American citizen, however oftentimes that particular freedom may come with a cost. Both Roth and Sinderman were professors at institutions of higher education who spoke out in regards to their dissatisfaction with their institutions and in return, their contracts were not renewed for their positions. Their former places of employment did not directly link the actions of their employees to the termination; however, both Roth and Sinderman believed that speaking out led to the cause of their termination.

Both of these cases introduced a clearer definition on what it means to be a tenured and non-tenured employee as it relates to the 14th Amendment. The term tenured can vary by the place of employment. Oftentimes it represents individuals who have been employed at the institution for a number of years. One of the privileges of being tenured is that it allows the employee certain liberties. According to Cameron (2010), “tenure is the basic concept that

Roth and Perry v. Sinderman case set the president for defining what the 14th Amendment meant to untenured employees. According to the National Education Association, tenure is simply defined as “a right to due process” (www.nea.org). The case of the Board of Regents v. Roth provided background information for the Perry v. Sinderman case. In the Roth case, he was employed with the college for a year. His contract was not renewed the following year and he believed that it was in relation to his comments made about the college and the board of regents. Roth believed that he did not receive due process in regards to his termination and in addition, he believed that his 1st and 14th Amendment rights were violated. It was ruled that the university did not violate any rights by deciding to not rehire Roth, however they courts ruled that Roth was owed an explanation by the university. (Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564