In 1965, George and Freda Salzman were offered dual appointments in Physics at the new UMass/Boston campus, his was full-time tenured, hers part-time untenured, the invariable discriminatory pattern in such husband-wife appointments. Administrative reluctance prevented the members of a couple from both being tenured in the same department. Freda's position was part-time to permit her to be employed on a long-term basis without tenure and without coming into conflict with the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) guidelines on tenure, which apply only to full-time faculty.

      The discriminatory nature of her appointment was not so evident at the time. The Salzmans were clearly given to understand by the administration that Freda had a long-term position. In fact the position appeared so secure that they turned down dual appointments with tenure for both at the Milwaukee campus of the University of Wisconsin (they had been recommended by members of the Physics Department at the well-established Madison campus to help develop the graduate program at Milwaukee). The responsible administrator at the University of Massachusetts, who recruited the Salzmans, agreed in writing with the following statement:

      "It was clearly understood that this [Dr. Freda Salzman's appointment] would
      be a permanent position, albeit without the possibility of formal tenure . . . "

Furthermore, "removal would, as in all regular faculty positions, occur only for due cause," thus indicating that the "nepotism" issue would never be a factor, per se, in her reappointment.

      Thus, because the Salzmans were led to believe that Freda's position was essentially equivalent to a tenured one, and because they were attracted to the Boston area, they accepted the dual offer. After three years, the difference between a position "essentially equivalent" to tenure and a tenured one became evident. The Chancellor rejected the department's recommendation for Freda's reappointment on the grounds that "University policy quite clearly prohibits the contemporaneous appointment, within the same department, of close relatives." However, a number of couples still hold dual appointments in the same department at the University of Massachusetts.

      The real reason for Freda's being fired appeared to be a desire to remove a vocal critic of the administration from the faculty. A recent charge by the administration that Freda created "turmoil" in the University is evidence of their displeasure with her opposition to certain administrative actions. This is exactly the type of action which tenure is designed to prevent. Its purpose is to protect academic freedom and to prevent punitive actions from being taken against individuals whose views are in conflict with the administration's. The administration has statutory power in personnel decisions. Even a unanimous recommendation that Freda be reappointed "as soon as possible," made on December 2, 1970 by the Boston campus Tenure and Grievance Committee failed to protect her. The administration rejected the recommendation.

      The history of this case indictes the mistake of accepting a position which depends upon the good-will of the administration. Freda accepted the position in good faith, expecting it to be a long-term appointment. the discriminatory nature of her initial appointment made her vulnerable. She ought to have been hired as an Associate Professor of Physics with tenure. Justice demands that the University reappoint her with tenure and with full compensation for loss of past benefits.

      A reappointment without tenure perpetuates the original discrimination. Furthermore, it no longer carries the commitment of a long-term position and leaves her again vulnerable before an increasingly hostile administration.