An African-American associate professor of Biological Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has vowed to go on hunger strike if he does not receive tenure, alleging that it was denied because of his race.
James Sherley has been appealing the school's decision for nearly two years, and plans to camp outside the Provost's office starting on February 5 until he receives tenure and Provost L. Rafael Reif resigns. If neither occurs, "I will die defiantly," he said in an Email to colleagues. "I will go as far as I can because [racial bias] is not just a problem at MIT," Sherley told The Scientist.
A statement from MIT asserts that the school has a "well-established procedure for reviewing and granting tenure to faculty," and officials are "confident it was followed with integrity in this case." The statement adds that an independent review by senior faculty members reaffirmed the decision.
Less than half of junior professors at MIT receive tenure, according to a spokesperson for the university. Last January, Provost Reif launched a committee to improve MIT's retention of minority faculty.
During the strike, Sherley said he plans to spend mornings protesting in front of the office, and tending to his research in the afternoons, "unless they bar me from campus." He said he will hire a physician's assistant to "make sure my electrolytes don't get wacky too fast."
Sherley's appointment ends on January 31. He has offers at other institutions but said he has resolved to make his point at MIT.
Though history tells of several tenure controversies attributed to race, gender, or religious discrimination, Sherley's choice to go on hunger strike is likely a first, according to Jonathan Knight, director of the American Association of University Professors' program in Academic Freedom and Tenure.
Since joining the department in 1998, Sherley said he felt he was treated unfairly as its only African-American member, citing delays in funding allocations and smaller lab space than his junior faculty peers.
When his tenure case came up for review in 2004, he said that Biological Engineering division head Doug Lauffenburger handled the case improperly, in part due to conflict of interest -- Lauffenburger is married to Linda Griffith, a colleague with whom Sherley has sparred on scientific grounds. Sherley said Lauffenburger told him that his race was a factor in the decision. In a letter to colleagues announcing his hunger strike, Sherley also cited his prominent stance on embryonic stem cell research as a reason he was unduly denied tenure.
Lauffenburger and Reif did not respond to requests for comment, and Griffith declined to comment beyond MIT's official statement.
A senior faculty member in Biological Engineering called Sherley's claims "factually incorrect," and said Sherley's research was "well-received" by MIT. "This has been just terribly painful for everyone," he said, "[but] some people get [tenure] and some people don't."
Last fall, Sherley received the prestigious $2.5 million Pioneer Award from the National Institutes of Health for "highly innovative research." Sherley was one of the first to demonstrate evidence of the immortal DNA strand hypothesis -- the theory that adult stem cells minimize mutations in their genomes by dividing asymmetrically. He has since worked to expand adult stem cells in culture by suppressing this asymmetric segregation. Since joining MIT in 1998, Sherley co-authored eight other original research papers.
Some of Sherley's colleagues have signed a petition to protest his tenure decision, and rallied to his cause. Harvard Medical School's George Church has been sending letters of support to top administrators since 2004, calling Sherley "a leader in mammalian adult stem cell division" and "a great lecturer and mentor."
Dennis Discher at the University of Pennsylvania, who does not know Sherley personally, said that his work in the "new" and "controversial" area of asymmetric stem cell division has important basic and applied research implications.
"MIT has a history, when confronted with difficult issues, of facing and meeting the challenge," Paula Hammond, chair of MIT's Committee on Minority Faculty Recruiting, wrote in an Email. "I have every confidence that the Institute will find a way to address this important issue as well."
Ishani Ganguli
iganguli@the-scientist.com
Links within this article:
James Sherley
http://web.mit.edu/be/people/sherley.htm
L. Rafael Reif
http://web.mit.edu/provost
American Association of University Professors
http://www.aaup.org
Douglas Lauffenburger
http://web.mit.edu/dallab
Linda Griffith
http://web.mit.edu/lgglab/index.html
Sherley, JL "Embryos aren't essential to stem-cell research," Nature, 423:381, May 22, 2003.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/12761520
Merock, JR et al., "Cosegregation of chromosomes containing immortal DNA strands in cells that cycle with asymmetric stem cell kinetics," Cancer Res., December 1, 2002.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/12460886
Lee, HS et al., "Clonal expansion of adult rat hepatic stem cell lines by suppression of asymmetric cell kinetics (SACK)," Biotechnol Bioeng. September 30, 2003.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/12889016
Petition: Appeal Tenure Case of Professor James Sherley
http://www.petitiononline.com/JLSMIT05/petition.html
George Church
http://www.hms.harvard.edu/dms/bbs/fac/church.html
Dennis Discher
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/discher
Paula Hammond
http://web.mit.edu/cheme/people/faculty/hammond.html
Advertisement
Rate this article
|
The News |
|||||||
Register for FREE Online Access
- »Current issue
- »Best Places to Work and Salary surveys
- »Daily news and monthly contents emails
Subscribe to the Magazine
- »Monthly print issues
- »Unlimited online access
- »Special offers on books, apparel, and more
[Comment posted 2007-01-12 02:41:17]
Put another way, there are plenty of mediocre or less qualified white professors who get tenures all over the country. So, how can this be in a supposedly the most colorblind society in the world?
[Comment posted 2007-01-12 02:35:17]
A hunger strike is blatantly absurd for an intellectual and pouting does not a tenure grant. It is insulting to native Africans that starve every day and this man should be ashamed.
[Comment posted 2007-01-12 02:33:44]
[Comment posted 2007-01-12 02:27:18]
The Elephant in the Room
To be brought to such an extreme circumstance, a serious wrong has to have occurred. While it seems it is being easily brushed away by the present spokespersons at MIT, (due to any possible number of qualifying reasons in a ￂﾑfaith-basedￂﾒ well established tenure process; within a newly formed department?), one does not have to dig too deeply to come across the ￂﾑstuffￂﾒ that make conspiracy theorists giddy. It appears that much of the deciding players involved all are in positions of power and are all intertwined. Lets run through the present line-up:
Former Provost Brown, Dr. Lauffenburger and Dr. Griffith.
A quick search turns up that prior to MIT, former Provost Brown, and Dr. Lauffenburger were fellow classmates graduating from the same school, the same year, in the same PhD program. Brown comes to MIT and moves up the ranks and becomes head of the Chemical Engineering Dept. Here Brown will meet Griffith, whom arrives as a postdoctoral student and eventually becomes a faculty member. Brown becomes Provost of MIT, and in comes Dr. Lauffenburger, who quickly climbs from co- to head of the new department of Biological Engineering (BE). Dr. L. Griffith, apparently denied tenure in the Chemical Engineering Dept., executes a wonderful double gainer and lands herself not only the position as Dr. Lauffenburgerￂﾒs new wife, but also as a tenured position in the Biological Engineering Department. The stage is set.
Enter, Dr. Sherely. Recruited to the department, Dr. Sherely, standing by his principles as a scientist and a minority faculty member, seems to have had the unfortunate experience of butting heads not only with Dr. Griffith, but also with Provost Brown. Dr. Sherelyￂﾒs tenure decision, is determined by the Head of the new Biological Engineering department, Dr. Lauffenburger, friend and classmate of Provost Brown, new husband of Dr. Griffith (has it been mentioned yet, that Dr. Brown was the best man at the wedding of Lauffenburger and Griffith?).
The clear conflict of interest concerning Dr. Sherelyￂﾒs tenure case appears to be overwhelming, and that is not even touching upon underlying racial issues that Dr. Sherley brings to our attention. Who could Dr. Sherley argue his case, but to the head of the department, Dr. Lauffenburger, or even higher, Provost Brown. And then, discover that the current new Provost Reif upholds the former decision concerning his case, you can only imagine the position that Dr Sherely found himself. One has to admire the character and courage of Dr.Sherelyￂﾒs response to the gratuitous ethical and racial injustice with a nonviolent protest of a hunger strike. A protest, not for his tenure, but understandably against the way the system is run, to hopefully shed light and end future injustices from occurring. He is asking MIT to do what it will not do, admit that it was wrong, and that these issues exist. Unfortunately, it appears that MIT is an institution that seems to be relying more on reputation than dignity, and here we have a great scientist on a hunger strike.
This situation makes you wonder what information the public is not privy to, and what you would find if you were to dig a little deeper? There is somewhat a sense of relief one could have, to not have to work in this environment so many work hard to enter!
LINK
LINK
LINK
[Comment posted 2007-01-12 02:25:07]
Additionally, you also throw in the race card with NO support of its necessity whatsoever other than that Sherley is black and therefore must be facing discrimination against all odds.
I also disagree that Sherley's reaction could only come with an aggregious injustice. Tenure makes people at ordinary institutions a little bit crazy and tenure at a prestigious elite center such as MIT is enough to make people certifiable I'm sure.
I have also read the petitions and it is clear that he is a "nice man" and "great with the students" and his collaborators former students and associates support him. I also understand that the issue of tenure is not one to be care-free about and that we are talking about someone's livelihood here. However, as stated by Dr. Williams and the article, Sherley would be granted tenure at most of the institutions across the country so the situation is not as dire as one could easily be dissuaded to believe.
I also looked around on Pubmed at Sherley's pubs and could see cause for denying tenure (only at a prestigious research institute and its not that I am in a position to decide tenure at MIT). I don't mean to judge anyone's career but I am just trying to point out that there appears to be valid evidence of reasons for witholding tenure by those in charge. And again to not judge or misjudge anyone's career it appears to be more than satisfactory for a vast majority of tenured tracks throughout the country.