<p>
[quote]
A prominent Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor has resigned to protest the university's treatment of a colleague who claims he was denied tenure because he is black, school officials said.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In regards to James Sherley :"his faculty appointment expires June 30th but he said he will not leave until MIT agrees to re-examine his case."</p>
<p>Wow, that never would have occured to me.</p>
<p>I have no opinion on this (mostly due to lack of information) but I do find it interesting that Mr. Sherley had already protested by going on a hunger strike. I also find it interesting that his colleague feels srongly enough that he will leave his position. (especially if Mr. Sherley "stays" on) and lastly I find it interesting that the article felt a need to state that the colleague was also black.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.polarisventures.com/NewsEvents/NewsDetail.asp?pagesubsection=polarisnews&PressReleaseID=%7B64DBA474-83E3-46A6-AF70-FE5567312496%7D%5B/url%5D">http://www.polarisventures.com/NewsEvents/NewsDetail.asp?pagesubsection=polarisnews&PressReleaseID=%7B64DBA474-83E3-46A6-AF70-FE5567312496%7D</a>
Isn't Dr Douglas chairman of a pharmaceutical company that just received $15 million dollars in series A financing?</p>
<p>Its not like he resigned and will be living on the streets in protest.</p>
<p>IT is pretty tough to be granted tenure-colleges are cutting back all over.</p>
<p>The issue might be over what kind of research.</p>
<p>Or, his opinions of other scientists' research.</p>
<p>EK : nice find :)
Mini: interesting article which states it was partly funded by MIT
Garland: great additional info</p>
<p>Mini - I don't understand your comment. If you meant it was controversial because it is stem cell research, his research is on adult stem cells, which are not controversial, as opposed to embryonic stem cells, which are controversial. Or maybe you meant something else???</p>
<p>The politics are that universities want to be free to experiment with all kinds of stem cells (with which I happen to agree); what Sherley's research could be used for politically is the idea that perhaps they don't have to.</p>
<p>In the Boston Globe article, Sherley makes it clear that this is, in fact, his own position.</p>
<p>So you could argue it two ways: Sherley didn't receive tenure in denial of his academic freedom; or, Sherley didn't receive tenure because he attacks the academic freedom of his colleagues.</p>
<p>I wouldn't argue either. ;)</p>
<p>Thanks! That makes sense - I hadn't read the Boston Globe editorial by Sherley when I asked my question. It seems more likely that MIT has an issue with his opinions on embryonic stem cells than that MIT is racially prejudiced.</p>
<p>I recognize that there are cases where race is an employment issue ( where it is illegal, unlike discrimination because of sexual orientation which is legal depending on state)</p>
<p>However- I have also been aware of people- for example a local high school principal a few years back, making a big production about quitting their job because of empathy with racial issues.</p>
<p>( This particular principal, had lined up a big job with the Gates foundation at the time, again, while his statement got a lot of press, actions like that , take away from when someone actually * is * leaving their job because of a race based policy.)</p>
<p>I do also find it interesting that the article needed to state that Douglas was black- ( not as interesting as his side ventures however ;) )</p>
<p>
[quote]
So you could argue it two ways: Sherley didn't receive tenure in denial of his academic freedom; or, Sherley didn't receive tenure because he attacks the academic freedom of his colleagues
[/quote]
Third option: Sherley did not receive tenure because he is not a very good scientist. Since 2000 Dr. Sherley has 5 senior-author research papers, all in mid-tier journals. This a pretty modest record of productivity and does not get you tenure at MIT.</p>
<p>Sherley's publication record is [url=<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Sherley%20JL%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus%5Dhere%5B/url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Sherley%20JL%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus]here[/url</a>].</p>
<p>It's really not impressive for someone seeking tenure at a major research university -- I only see a handful of papers where he's last author (that is to say, that he's considered the principal boss of the research done in that paper) and most of them were published more than five years ago.</p>
<p>EDIT: Oops, crosspost with drb. :)</p>
<p>OK, I agree that I misspoke with the comment quoted above. I am aware that tenure is highly dependent on research productivity at a school like MIT. I should have said that it appears that MIT's reasons for not giving him tenure are unrelated to his race.</p>
<p>There was a thread about Sherley in the MIT board back when he was having his hunger strike. He didn't seem to have much in the way of recently published papers and Mollie wasn't impressed with a lecture of his. </p>
<p>As I said, I wouldn't argue either position. But I do think it is an "overlay" on the issue of research productivity, as Sherley contends that some of the research (that DOES get folks tenure) shouldn't be undertaken.</p>
<p>But let's not discount the fact that other associate faculty, such as an Asian fellow, support Sherley in his criticism of minoirty promotions at MIT. Doesn't mean that the school is guilty as charged but more than one minority faculty member is unhappy with recent hiring at the institute.</p>
<p>His work does not look even close to tenure level at MIT.</p>
<p>There could be problems in MIT's promotion process, but he looks so far below the standard that he is a bad test case.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I seriously doubt MIT would deny tenure because others disagree with his essentially political opinion about stem cell research. One professor, even at MIT, is just not that influential. I suspect most MIT faculty support stem cell research, but that they know, and don't care, that some do not. University faculty members take lots of controversial positions, often directly contrary to the interests of the university, and this rarely has any effect on promotion or tenure decisions. That's just the way it is in academia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On the other hand, I seriously doubt MIT would deny tenure because others disagree with his essentially political opinion about stem cell research.
[/quote]
I agree -- I don't think his position on stem cell research was a factor in his tenure review, but I don't think it made them particularly sad to deny him tenure, either. From what I've heard, he's made himself quite the persona non grata at scientific meetings -- he certainly doesn't hold his positions quietly. (But of course, as you say, there are a lot of disagreeable academics! Seems to go with the territory. ;))</p>