April 30, 2007

Hunger Strike Could Return to MIT

Last year, James Sherley vowed that he would go on a hunger strike — to death if need be — if the Massachusetts Institute of Technology didn’t award him tenure. MIT didn’t cave and Sherley went on a hunger strike in February, with his 12-day fast attracting widespread attention, much of it critical of MIT.

Looking for a job?

See all 237 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,501
Administrative: 1,715
Executive: 162
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

In the end Sherley agreed to end his hunger strike — with the professor and MIT jointly issuing conciliatory statements. On Friday, however, Sherley announced that he considers that MIT has not lived up to its commitments, and he announced plans (but no timetable) to resume his hunger strike and to either win tenure or die trying. While MIT officials could not be reached for comment, Sherley’s move comes following a period, in the wake of the first hunger strike, in which more faculty members have spoken out in defense of the tenure denial.

Sherley’s case is hard to classify. He is black and works in a field — biomedical engineering — in which there are relatively few black scholars. Sherley has cited racial discrimination as one reason he was rejected for tenure, and race has clearly become an issue with his dispute. Many of his defenders (including such prominent MIT figures as Noam Chomsky) have cited race as key to understanding the dispute. MIT announced during his first hunger strike that it plans to review the treatment of minority faculty members.

But Sherley’s views have also been controversial. He is outspoken in criticizing stem cell research — a stance that continues to earn him praise from anti-abortion groups and skepticism from many scientists.

In his statement and in letters to MIT officials released Friday, Sherley said that at the time he ended the hunger strike, MIT pledged to either grant him tenure or to appoint an independent panel to review his claims about his tenure case. According to Sherley, he agreed to leave MIT without protest if that independent review found his claims to be without merit. Now, according to Sherley, MIT will not talk about any process that might lead to his receiving tenure and is trying to schedule discussions on how he would leave the institute.

If necessary, he said in a statement, he said he will return to “sacrificing his own life by hunger strike if that is what it will take to improve the future for minority scientists in the U.S. academy.”

MIT’s public statements about its talks with Sherley prior to his ending his first hunger strike are vague and do not contain the explicit promise Sherley referenced Friday. The MIT statement said: “Professor Sherley’s protest has focused attention on the effects that race may play in the hiring, advancement and experience of under-represented minority faculty, and on ensuring that our grievance processes are comprehensive, fair and timely. MIT is fully committed to addressing these issues and will continue to work toward resolution of our differences with Professor Sherley.”

Via e-mail, Sherley said that he and his advocates received verbal pledges on the review of his tenure case. “Could any rational person really believe that I would end my hunger strike without a possibility for justice, which in this case means tenure?” he said.

Sherley is also trying to link his case to that of Marilee Jones, the MIT dean of admissions who resigned last week after the university confirmed that she had claimed academic degrees she never earned. “MIT’s leadership could have forgiven her for an error made long ago in her youth. An administration of greater quality and integrity would have accepted her apology and fostered similar forgiveness from the MIT community, which is ready to re-embrace Dean Jones in light of the many gifts she has given to MIT and the nation over 28 years of dedicated, brilliant service to college applicants and students,” wrote Sherley. “But no, this administration chose instead to hold her up in infamy, to oust her, while exploiting her moment of shame to proclaim, in an act of perfidy, their self-professed integrity.”

While MIT has not commented on the specifics of the Sherley case — except to say that he was evaluated fairly and without regard to his race — the last month has seen a more public defense of the tenure denial.

A group of senior faculty members in biological engineering released a joint letter to respond to “public misstatements” about the case. The letter says that conflicts of interest and examples of bias cited by Sherley are not true, and goes on to question his research productivity. The letter charges that only half of his papers submitted for tenure review were for work on which he was the lead author, that outside letters of review were not enthusiastic about his work, and that figures Sherley has cited to show his ability to win research grants included funds for projects on which he played a supporting role and others were the principal investigators.

The letter, which is unusually detailed for faculty members to release on a tenure case, closes by saying that Sherley’s tenure case was handled “with the utmost fairness in a process with the greatest integrity, as free as humanly possible from bias and racism.”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

We should all be concerned about potential abuses related to claims of racism that can arise in cases such as Dr. Sherley’s denial of tenure. There is no question that the paucity of scholars of color in many fields within academia represents a real problem, but in Dr. Sherley’s case it appears that MIT may have had a fully justifiable reason for denying his tenure. Similar cases have arisen at other institutions in which an individual who is denied tenure advances claims of racism where those claims are doubtful. Perhaps the most problematic aspect of this is that in those cases that involve genuine racism, if previously spurious attestations of that unmistakable evil exist, than true injustices might be ablt to hide beneath the blanket of skepticism that has been brought into existence.

Concerned, at 8:05 am EDT on April 30, 2007

A brief linguistic point

Dr. Shirley is a stem cell scientist, and is critical only of embryonic stem cell research. It’s disappointing how often this distinction is lost in the media.

Anachronism, at 11:30 am EDT on April 30, 2007

hunger strike at MIT

The immedediate problem to be resolved is whether MIT has promised an independent review of Prof. Sherley’s tenure case and, if so, whether it has reneged. If promised, it must go forward; if not, well, Prof. Sherley goes hungry again.

The issue of minority promotion has now replaced that of hiring; it’s the next inevitable issue. Yet someone starving for his own professional advancement seems less admirable than Gandhi’s actions on behalf of India. It is difficult here to distinguish the racial from the personal cause.

David Eggenschwiler, professor emeritus at niv of Southern California, at 1:00 pm EDT on April 30, 2007

I don’t believe that hunger strikes are the way to solve employment disputes in the United States. We have courts for a reason and if race played an undue role in this tenure decision then that remedy is available. I don’t think a hunger strike “to the death” should be the first option in a nation of laws (it should be the very last option in my opinion).

Mike, at 1:00 pm EDT on April 30, 2007

Is a Hunger Strike the Way To Get What You Want

A hunger strike can be a good tactic to get media attention. But would this professor be getting any national media coverage if his tenure issue were not taking place at one of the most elite universities in the U.S.

If he does get his tenure at MIT I hope it is because the review board re-evaluated his talents and abilities as a scientist and not because MIT wanted to avoid a discrimination lawsuit.

Gail Casper, at 3:10 pm EDT on April 30, 2007

Is a hunger strike a sign of rational behavior?

I understand that Sherley has young children. Is a hunger strike a behavior that a rational adult should be using? What sort of example does this set for his young children? If he should die from a hunger strike, his young children are likely to be permanently traumatized, if they are not already.

It makes me wonder if he is truly balanced and if he should be working in any place where he has direct influence in the lives of young adults. I would not want someone who shows this sort of judgment teaching or working with my children.

I have to wonder if the reason he was not offered tenure was not because of his race, or abilities or intelligence, but because of his mental stability.

Alicia, at 3:15 pm EDT on April 30, 2007

Mentally unstable?

Alicia,

Dr. Sherley is not working with children; he is working with adult students in higher education. Questioning this man’s mental stability is inappropriate and, considering his academic field and place of employment. MIT did not deny him tenure because he has a psychological disorder; MIT denied his tenure because it suffers the same psychological disorder that most institutions of higher education suffer from-systemic racism. Sorry to those of you who want to pretend it doesn’t exist because you happen to have a minority colleague in your department.

The students at MIT, as well as Dr. Sherley’s own children, will no doubt, be better people because they have seen a man who is not willing to compromise his convictions. When Patrick Henry said “give me liberty or give me death,” his name was emblazened in our history books, but now we want to say that Dr. Sherley is mentally disturbed?

Fight the good fight Dr. Sherley.

Anonymous, at 4:25 pm EDT on April 30, 2007

Sherley’s hunger strike

A hunger strike is poorly disguised blackmail at best, and extortion at its most simple. Sherley deserves contempt for being unwilling to engage in meaningful dialogue or pursue rational alternatives. I applaud “Alicia” for her comments, for it shows only that the professor’s stability must be questioned, and that his arrogance is the problem.

Arthur Ide, at 5:00 pm EDT on April 30, 2007

“Could any rational person really believe that I would end my hunger strike without a possibility for justice, which in this case means tenure?”

Would any *rational* person consider a hunger strike the best means not only to achieve justice in such a context but the best way to reflect nobly on his cause and the causes of others the would-be suicide would have us believe he stands for?

I can’t help feeling that appropriating the high-stakes pathos of a tactic that rightly belongs to political prisoners genuinely suffering under merciless regimes is morally tone-deaf in an American academic threatening suicide over the matter of tenure...and not a little offensive.

Steven Augustine, Morally Tone-Deaf, at 5:45 pm EDT on April 30, 2007

I will joing his strike...

I will probably join his strike — I will go on hunger strike if my manager will not give me a 50% raise this year — which I so deserve. Why should titles and raises be left to other people to decide. We should have the power to set our own titles, raises, salaries and bonuses!

And next time I’ll go to buy a car — I will go on hunger strike if salesperson is not willing to give me 80% discount!

Sam, at 7:55 pm EDT on April 30, 2007

The various comments about Professor Sherley’s choice of handling his alleged racial discrimination at the MIT make interesting readings. It is intriguing that some of the authors are denying the existence of racial discrimination with obtaining tenure positions in ‘God’s own country’ or indeed other parts of the world. Any honest academic in the United States or elsewhere will not deny that when it comes to promotions or obtaining tenure positions your race is a significant factor. It ought not to be but the reality is that it is. Furthermore to deny that racial issues at any level are political smacks of hypocrisy or at best monumental ignorance. As for the professor’s sanity, any sane person in a so called free world especially in academia will also acknowledge that to question Professor Sherley’s mental stability for taking his preferred option of highlighting this cankerworm in academia and in the ‘holier than thou George Bush’s America’ to say the least reinforces the erudite and honorable professor’s position. As for his children, I’m sure they will recognize that their dad is taking a heroic step and will be very proud of his courage, actions, impeccable character and achievements in academia which the powers that be at the MIT are bent on clouding with his color. I wonder why it takes Professor Sherley’s colleagues such a long time to write their very robust defense of the MIT tenure process. Well, the world cannot be fooled: many of them possibly benefit from the system at the expense of Professor Sherley. Where about are their honors!!!

Oduola, at 5:45 am EDT on May 1, 2007

James Sherley

To all:

As a scientist looking at Dr. Sherley’s credentials and accomplishments from a distance, it is strikingly peculiar to me that he was denied tenure. The man is internationally known for his research. He has advanced biological research with his evidence of an immortal strand of DNA in stem cells. For those in science, look it up, it will knock your socks off, and may extend your life a few decades because of its importance to stem cell research. This single advance is worth a 100 ordinary papers.

On top of this Dr. Sherley has 12 patents and is an NIH Pioneer award grant recipient. This Pioneer Award is only given to the most creative scientists and is $500,000 per year for the next 5 years.

He is Harvard graduate, with an MD and PhD from Hopkins. He is a Pew Scholar. He arrived at MIT as an ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR without tenure. He has been fighting this absurd tenure decision for two years past the time when most men would have given up.

While I believe that he is extraordinarily qualified, there clearly are other things going on. First, while the son of Baptist minister, his brain works. Quite well actually. NIH thinks so too. My belief is that he is in trouble because he speaks his mind on moral issues. And because of some peculiarities in the system by which MIT grants tenure. Take a look at it and you will see that it is highly susceptible to black balling (no pun intended). Second, James is NOT a shrinking violet. When he sees something wrong, he says so. I strongly believe and would put money on it that this is the primary source of his tenure problems, but please bear in mind that he was a mature and accomplished scientist and Pew Scholar when he arrived at MIT. I do not see why an Associate Professor should need to keep his mouth shut in an area when he is a world expert in that area.

Dr. Sherley literally has NO choice except to hunger strike OR to abandon MIT and to quit trying to save MIT from itself. The numbers are clear. Look at them and think. Prejuidice- quite possibly racist or more likely religious in this case — are preventing the advancement of minorities. If you can find a more highly qualified tenure candidate than Dr. Sherley, then I would like to hear about them.

Finally, as for the comments that he is not concerned about his children, I think one needs to rethink that idea as well. He is doing this solely for his children so that they will NOT have to put up with this discriminatory bull crap when they are grown. I can not conceive of a better father or a better man. I would urge him to quit trying to save the folks at MIT. They do not seem worth it. He clearly sees something worth saving in them. I strongly suspect that it is the minority students that will not be granted tenure, if he does not get MIT to face up to their culpability, whether it be intentional or not.

This is all just so absurd on an objective level. Look up his record. What he is doing with a hunger strike is the only solution he has, i.e. appealing to public opinion. Trying to prove LEGAL prejuidice in an academic setting is almost impossible.

I say: “James Sherley, Go for it! I am with you in spirit. And I salute any man who trys to change the world around him for the better.”

Dennis Lubahn, Professor, Dept of Biochemistry at U. Missouri — Columbia, at 5:45 am EDT on May 1, 2007

I’M WITH SAM

I’m with you, Sam—I’m going on a hunger strike until the police start responding to the real dangers in my neighborhood instead of just giving out speeding tickets! Enough going through proper channels—I now see that starving is the true medium to express righteous outrage, thanks to the courage of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman and Dr. Sherley.

Hey do you think all those supermodels with anorexia are really hunger-striking against the overwhelming whiteness of haute couture? Nah they’re probably just protesting crimes of fashion....

Vivian, at 5:45 am EDT on May 1, 2007

The principle counts

Whatever the merits of his case for tenure, the very fact that Sherley has adopted the tactic of hunger strike changes everything. At this point, MIT has a moral obligation to deny him tenure even if he deserved to get it otherwise. Under no circumstances should such tactics be rewarded. To do so would be to undermine the whole process and principle of tenure. That he is black might have been relevant before, but is now irrelevant.

Angelo, Philosophy professor, at 11:05 am EDT on May 1, 2007

What about his record at MIT

Although one of the commenters above talks about his record before MIT, it is perhaps worthwhile to look at his record since then.

He has 23 hits in Web of Science since 1998. Of those, only five have more than a dozen citations—and eight of the remainder are either op-ed pieces or abstracts. That means in nine years of research, he produced on average less than two papers per year, most of which went largely unnoticed.

With that publication record, a decision to deny tenure at MIT is not actually all that surprising. Race really should be irrelevant in this discussion at this point—he was a researcher whose output didn’t match his potential.

MIT Alumnus, at 1:50 pm EDT on May 1, 2007

James Sherley

In response to the MIT Alumnus above, it would be interesting to compare Sherley’s publication list and citation factor to equivalent others at the same stage in his department of biomechanical engineering. I would be surprised if there is much difference. Or should the standard be 10 times higher for Sherley than it was for others in his department? Because when I look at Sherley’s work and his ideas, they strike me as 100 times more important and innovative than what is average in his department. This is what discrimination is all about—the people doing the judging unconsciously raise the bar 10 times higher for women and minorities.

Another MIT Alumnus, at 4:30 am EDT on May 10, 2007

Jobs Related to Hunger Strike Could Return to MIT

or search for jobs directly.

Assistant Professor
Georgia Institute of Technology

FACULTY POSITIONS IN THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY The Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Public Policy is seeking ... see job

Oceanography Adjunct Faculty Pool
Howard Community College

This posting is on ongoing pool for Oceanography. The department is currently seeking to fill vacancies for the Spring 2008 ... see job

Pharmacist/Samaritan
University of Kentucky

The University of Kentucky is one great place to work. UK’s agenda—simple—to accelerate the movement toward academic ... see job