This fall, the Trinity chapter of the American Association of University Professors (TU-AAUP) brought the case of a colleague’s denial of tenure to the attention of the national office of the AAUP. In February 2025, Trinity President Vanessa Beasley broke established precedent by denying tenure to Assistant Professor of Religion Sajida Jalalzai against the unanimous recommendation for tenure of faculty in Jalalzai’s home department (the department of religion) and on the Commission on Promotion & Tenure. For tenure-track faculty, denial of tenure is equivalent to being fired, and because of Beasley’s decision, Jalalzai cannot return to teach at Trinity in the fall.

The national AAUP stands as the foremost defender of academic freedom at colleges and universities in the U.S. Indeed, the AAUP maintains a censure list of colleges and universities that have flagrantly violated academic freedom. On March 17, Mark Criley, senior program officer of the Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure and Governance of the AAUP, responded to the chapter’s concerns with a letter.

The letter confirms the TU-AAUP chapter’s reason for alarm. Criley underscored the “primary responsibility” of faculty (as opposed to administrators such as the provost or president) in determining questions of tenure. Criley cited at length the AAUP’s Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, a document jointly formulated with the American Council on Education and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. The statement delineates “those areas in which, by virtue of its expertise and duties, the faculty should exercise primary responsibility: curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status …” including “appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal,” such as Jalalzai’s case. Criley further quotes that in such cases, “faculty’s judgment should indeed be the predominant factor in the final decision and should be given special weight” and that “the governing board and president should … concur with the faculty judgment except in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail.”

In Jalalzai’s case, the circumstances are not rare and the reasons are not compelling. As mentioned, all faculty in both the religion department and the Commission on Promotion and Tenure unanimously recommended tenure for Jalalzai. Jalalzai had been repeatedly assured that she was on the right track to tenure during previous reviews. But Beasley contended that Jalalzai’s publication record did not contain enough double-blind review, in which both the author(s) and the reviewer(s) are anonymous. However, it is hardly “rare” at Trinity for publications that have undergone single- but not double-blind review (for example, chapters in edited volumes) to count favorably toward tenure and promotion. Furthermore, Jalalzai underwent favorable double-blind review with her book manuscript.

Beasley’s decision to reverse the faculty recommendation makes no sense unless it is explained as political. Jalalzai has been an outspoken defender of Palestine, an unpopular cause with some prominent alumni and donors. Her case makes faculty wonder if we can, as in the past, remain confident that career success at Trinity depends solely on our professional accomplishments. Many are now worried that our politics could get us dismissed. We are already losing one accomplished colleague who faculty unanimously agreed deserves to be here. How many valued faculty can we stand to lose to administrative fiat?

— Trinity Chapter of the American Association of University Professors