Ending Mandatory Retirement for Tenured Faculty (original) (raw)

The Impact of Uncapping of Mandatory Retirement on Postsecondary Institutions

Educational Researcher, 2013

he Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act passed by Congress in 1986 eliminated mandatory age-related retirement at age 70. After a hard-fought battle, resting on the argument that "mandatory retirement was needed to maintain a steady inflow of young faculty" (Ashenfelter and Card, 2002, p. 957), and to increase opportunities for diversifying the faculty through the hiring of women and underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities, postsecondary institutions were given a temporary exemption from this Act. In particular, and as quoted by Ashenfelter and Card (2002, p. 959), the exemption stated that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit compulsory retirement of any employee who has attained 70 years of age, and who is serving under a contract of unlimited tenure (or similar arrangement providing for unlimited tenure) at an institution of higher education (as defined by Sec. 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965)." To determine whether this temporary exemption should lapse, Congress requested the National Academy of Science/National Research Council (NRC) to analyze the likely impact of uncapping mandatory retirement on higher education. The report, based on this review, and edited by Hammond and Morgan (1991), persuaded Congress to allow the exemption to expire, which it did on December 31, 1993. Accordingly, full-time tenured faculty at postsecondary institutions, which receive federal funding, would, as of December 31, 1993, be subject to the same Age Discrimination in Employment Act passed for federal institutions in 1986; they would no longer be subject to mandatory retirement for age after December 31, 1993. Under some university bylaws, including the one under study in this paper, an additional consideration allowed some faculty not to be subject to mandatory retirement even though they turned 70 before December 31, 1993. In particular, because tenure rights contractually terminate at the end of an academic year, on August 31, any full-time tenured faculty member who turned 70 on or after September 1, 1993, was not subject to the mandatory retirement rule. That is, in such cases, mandatory retirement 497993E DRXXX10.

Faculty Retirement Policies after the End of Mandatory Retirement

2001

As the average age of faculty members at colleges and universities in the United States continues to increase, retirement policies and programs in higher education are playing an increasingly important role in maintaining and enhancing the productivity of faculty members of all ages. This issue of Research Dialogue summarizes the results of a 2000 survey of higher education institutions regarding their programs and policies that affect faculty retirement. In addition to analyzing survey data regarding early retirement incentive arrangements and other programs designed to help faculty make the transition to retirement, the authors also review and discuss the experiences of the surveyed institutions following the elimination of mandatory retirement.

No Longer Forced out: How One Institution Is Dealing with the End of Mandatory Retirement

1999

Why should academic institutions or their faculty care about the end of mandatory retirement for tenured faculty, which became effective in January 1994? From the perspective of an individual tenured faculty member who wants to continue her career beyond age seventy, the elimination is a welcome event. In the past, faculty members who wanted to remain active after reaching seventy had to negotiate their status with institutions that were under no legal obligation to allow them to continue. Now, however, tenured faculty members have the legal right to continue indefinitely in their tenured appointments. From the point of view of an academic institution, the elimination imposes two types of costs. First, to the extent that some faculty members at an institution postpone their retirements, the flow of new faculty into an institution will diminish. Fewer new hires means fewer faculty with fresh perspectives and ideas. Fewer new hires also reduces an institution's ability to diversify its faculty along gender, racial, and ethnic lines. And fewer new hires can make it difficult for an institution to shift faculty resources into exciting new areas of inquiry. Second, retirements generate funds for salary increases for continuing faculty, because most full professors are replaced by lower-paid assistant professors. The difference between the salary of a retiring full professor and that of his replacement can be distributed to other faculty members in the form of salary increases. Postponement of retirements at an institution reduces the amount of such funds available in a year, and the institution must either make up the difference with other funds or reduce the salary increase that it provides for its faculty.

Retirement Plans for College Faculty at Public Institutions

Financial Services Review, 2008

This study provides a base line cross sectional analysis of defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) retirement plans based on the largest four-year public institutions of higher education in each of the 50 states. The focus is on types of plans that are being offered and an evaluation of their risk and return. Findings pnwide comparative analysis on the broader trends in DB and DC plans offered by other public and private plans.

Cornell Confronts the End of Mandatory Retirement

[Excerpt] In July 1995, the first author of this paper was appointed vice president of academic programs, planning and budgeting at Cornell and, at his initiative, a joint faculty-administrative committee was subsequently established, with him as chair, to look into how the university should respond to the elimination of mandatory retirement. In this chapter, we discuss the environment in which the university found itself when the committee was established, the recommendations of the committee, faculty reactions to the recommendations, and the actions that the university ultimately decided to pursue.

Faculty Emeriti: Retirement Reframed

2010

With the graying of the professoriate continuing and the massive number of baby boomers entering retirement age, universities and college administrations need to adequately prepare for retirement. This is beginning to cause some staffing shortages in the faculty pipeline as well as the loss of institutional history and professional knowledge. Unlike many employing organizations, most institutions of higher education provide some sort of opportunity for its retired employees to remain connected to the institution. For retired faculty, this often comes in the form of the emeriti status rank. The overwhelming majority of faculty retirement research is focused on how institutions will manage the economic implications of retirement, particularly on retirement benefits and the financial costs to the institution. There has been little scholarship investigating the perspective of retirement from the individual and even less research in recent years. Recently retired faculty may have different expectations about retirement and the level of relationship they have with their former institution. This research examines this topic further. This qualitative study contributes to the higher education literature by providing an in-depth analysis of 14 faculty emeriti from a large, land grant institution who retired within the past two to five years, explored their relationship with their former institution. Using the literature about adult development and the professoriate, a semi-structured, in-depth interview protocol was developed. Data analysis was conducted using a grounded theory approach, with an emphasis on thematic findings. The resulting six main themes were: (1) the “nudge” toward retirement (motivating factors influencing the retirement decisions), (2) “no one owns your time”, (3) the unexpected (unanticipated events in retirement), (4) the continuity of scholarship activities, (5) new pathways in retirement, and (6) elements of the departmental and institutional relationship with the emeriti. With these findings in mind as well as the previous literature, two categories of faculty, the Attached and the Unattached, and their sub-types were identified which provide a better understanding of faculty emeriti and the level of involvement, if any, they may wish to have with their former institution and department. A new transitional phase model of faculty retirement was created which provides a reframing of previous transition models. Three types of involvement opportunities and several institutional exemplars are discussed that can foster emeriti involvement. The results may be beneficial for informing institutional policy, especially for human resource management, academic deans and department chairs. Lastly, there may be additional benefits for the retired faculty including greater satisfaction in retirement, improved mental and physical health, increased social networks, support for new endeavors and a continuation of their scholarship.