A controversy has raged on the U Mass camus for the past four and half years, over the firing of Professor Freda Salzman. Many agree with the student newspaper [The Mass Media] that "the trustees have blatantly discriminated against Dr. Salzman on the basis of sex." The chancellor maintains that he was simply "tightening up" enforcement policy on close relatives.

      The story begins in 1965, when two physicists, Freda Salzman and her husband, George, applied for teaching positions at U-Mass Boston. The university was interested in hiring them; however, Dean Robert Gentile explained that the trustees did not permit tenured married couples to teach in the same department. Therefore, although both Salzmans had twelve years of post doctoral experience, George was offered the full-time tenured position. Freda was to teach only three-quarters time, with no chance of attaining tenure.

      This policy was clearly discriminatory. Part-time teachers cannot vote on many faculty questions; they are paid much less and are ineligible for health insurance, retirement benefits and sabbatical leaves.

      Freda Salzman and the other women in her position were also denied the job security that tenure guarantees.

      During their first three years at U Mass, Dr. Salzman and her husband were very active in campus politics. They opposed and helped defeat the administration's rigid system of required courses. George served on the Faculty Tenure [and] Grievance Committee and fought for the reinstatement of several professors he felt were unjustly fired. And as Freda puts it, "When we thought the administration was wrong, we weren't afraid to take our case to the rest of the faculty."

      By September of 1968, increasing faculty opposition forced the chancellor of U-Mass Boston to resign. On his last day of office, he notified Freda Salzman that she was fired, stating, "University policy quite clearly prohibits the contemporaneous appointment, within the same department, of close relatives."

      "This was completely false," Freda says. She points out that the trustees had approved the joint appointment when the Salzmans were originally hired -- and had passed no new directives on the subject since. Nor had her teaching suffered: her colleagues in the physics department had strongly recommended to the chancellor that she be rehired.

      Several groups have investigated her case. All have unanimously and unequivocally supported her: the U-Mass faculty, the Physics department, the Tenure [and] Grievance Committee, the U-Mass Boston Senate. One hundred and ninety female scientists signed a petition which "deplored" the firing of Freda Salzman and called upon the administration to "immediately effect her reappointment." The National Organization for Women has sent letters of protest. The student newspaper has followed the case closely, and published several editorials demanding her reinstatement.

      The administration has ignored all these appeals, citing a former dean's allegation that "the Salzmans conducted their affairs at the university exactly the way the trustees' policy on nepotism was designed to protect the university against." The president refuses to document this allegation, however; and the Salzmans are sure they could disprove it. "After all," Freda argues, "if our nepotic behavior was so flagrant, why would the physics department strongly recommend that I be rehired?"

      Finally, last December 28th, the trustees voted to repeal the discriminatory nepotism rule. But the administration still won't reconsider Freda's dismissal. As a Boston Globe article the next day stated, "After the trustees meeting, President Robert Wood said that the new guidelines 'would definitely have created a different situation' in Mrs. Salzman's case. However, Wood added, the trustees' ruling will not be applied retroactively . . ."

      Under the new policy, the Physics department can rehire Mrs. Salzman---but only as a new appointee. This solution is totally inadequate, she maintains. It does not recognize that an injustice was done---nor does it provide four and a half years' back pay or teaching experience. Worse still, in her absence, the administration has hired three new people in her field who will all be eligible for tenure soon; the department probably won't need a fourth.

      The Salzmans believe that "the President and the trustees are acting in bad faith; that they are engaged in a war of attrition" to force them to accept this compromise. As an example, they cite the trustees' refusal to consider the case at their November 10th meeting. "The Salzman matter is actively under consideration in the office of the president." was the reason given. However, a couple of weeks later, President Wood explained his lack of action, stating, "Mrs. Salzman's case is not considered to be pending at the moment."

      Concerned by these evasions, Freda called to check on the status of her suits at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. She was stunned to discover that both agencies had discontinued action. "The last time I spoke to them," she explains, "each assured me that they were about to take a decisive step on my case. MCAD had drawn up a 'letter of probable cause' and was ready to set a hearing date. HEW stated that mine was the very next case they would prepare." Both agencies had described her chances as excellent; one field representative said that she had never seen such a fully documented case.

      They why the delay? Mrs. Salzman alleges that her suit at MCAD is complete and ready for trial: all it needs is the commissioner's signature. But this he refuses to give. "He keeps bringing up petty objections that have nothing to do with my case." Freda says. "I can't believe that he's acting in good faith." MCAD declined to answer this charge, stating that "we can't divulge any information until the case is settled."

      At HEW, a field representative explained to Dr. Salzman that they thought she had agreed to drop action on her individual case---and was satisfied to be included under a general anti-discrimination suit against U-Mass Amherst. Dr. Salzman claims that no such conversation ever took place. HEW also argued that since the university had agreed to consider her for a new appointment, the Salzman case was effectively conciliated. Freda denies this too, pointing out that her suit demands reinstatement with back pay.

      HEW commissioner Robert Randolph explained his view to BAD. "I think the misunderstanding is caused by the delay in completing the U-Mass Amherst investigation. She thinks we're not trying to do anything for her." He maintains that HEW is not stalling: the two and half month postponement was necessary to "prepare a second draft of the report, reviewing it and correcting deficiencies. It will be finished in two or three weeks, no longer." he added.

      But Dr. Salzman is not convinced. "Both agencies stopped working on my case at the same time. And none of their explanations make sense. It's quite obvious to me that some kind of political deal has been made."

      Other women have reached the same conclusion. President Heide of the National Organization for Women charged in a recent New York Times article that there is widespread "collusion between the department (HEW) and the universities to delay enforcement of anti-discrimination requirements . . . "

      But whether Freda Salzman is the victim of political connivance or simply bureaucratic inefficiency, one thing is clear: her experience at U-Mass is another example of the job discrimination women suffer in the United States.