Question 1. Expert’s definition of tenure is of extreme importance for the Goucher college litigation strategy in the case. Opinions expressed by qualified scholars in the legal magazines were used to determine what tenure is in terms of contract between Krotkoff and the college. Since no definition of tenure has been included in the contract itself, and both parties recognized that they used the word in general meaning, the experts opinion helped to determine the nature of legal relations between Krotkoff and the college, and thusly the measure of their mutual rights and obligations.
Based on the assertion, that experts opinion and case law do not prohibit termination of tenure contracts because of financial difficulties of a university, the Court ruled in favor of Goucher college. Question 2. Most likely, there would be no difference in the outcome of the case if he college had not adopted the AAUP’s 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure.
This instrument has been used not to determine the nature of tenure, but only to clarify the experts opinion, which it has not contradicted. Although it includes additional bona fide requirement, this requirement has been met in the case, and its recognition or non-recognition by the court would not be important. Question 3. Inclusion of additional provisions concerning the termination of tenure due to financial difficulties into the college policies is desirable, although not mandatory.
Since satisfactory definition of tenure already exists in experts opinion and legal practice, and in case this definition is not subjected to alterations in the future tenure contracts of the college, the possible future litigations would follow the same model as Krotkoff case followed. Inclusion of definition is desirable in order to promote better understanding between the college and professors when making future contracts and in order to avoid new legal proceedings resulting from the same matter.