Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Higher Education Tenure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated hearing on HB 2348: proponents urge removal of tenure as a property right; universities, faculty and students oppose
Summary
House Bill 2348, which would state that tenure at public postsecondary institutions is not a property right, drew heavy testimony. The bill's author and a small‑group of proponents argued tenure creates a long‑term fiscal liability; university leaders, faculty groups and students warned of harms to recruitment, accreditation and research.
The Committee on Judiciary opened a public hearing on House Bill 23‑48, which would provide that an award of tenure at a Kansas public postsecondary institution may confer benefits but is discretionary and conditional and “does not create an entitlement right or property interest in a faculty member's current, ongoing, or future employment.” The bill drew substantial pro and con testimony.
Steven Lovett, who identified himself as the author of HB 23‑48 and as an associate professor at Emporia State University, testified as a proponent in his personal capacity and said the legislature can define property rights under state law. He told the committee the federal district court for Kansas recently found that tenured university faculty possess property rights invoking the U.S. Constitution's due process clause in a case in which Lovett said he is a named defendant. Lovett argued that declaring tenure a property right creates a long‑term, unfunded fiscal liability for the state and that academic freedom is protected by the First Amendment rather than tenure or administrative due process. He quantified potential liability: “In fiscal year 2023, there were approximately 2,834 tenured faculty members or tenure track faculty members employed by the six four‑year educational institutions governed by KBOR. Assuming on average that each of those faculty members has a gross compensation of $91,000 per year, the annual payroll liability for this unique employment status is $206,000,000 every year,” Lovett said, adding a ten‑year extrapolation of roughly $2.6 billion.
Lovett also said he had renounced his own tenure and that the bill would not abolish tenure but would remove a property‑right characterization. He argued the Kansas Board of Regents policy already treats tenure as a privilege granted for meritorious performance and that the legislature may clarify the legal status of tenure.
Opponents outnumbered proponents at the hearing and included university leaders, faculty groups, student representatives and education associations. Doug Gerard, chancellor of the University of Kansas, said tenure is foundational to research universities and to their ability to recruit and retain top scholars; he said KU's research enterprise creates significant statewide economic impact and relies on tenured and tenure‑track faculty.
Richard Linton, president of Kansas State University, testified that K‑State's research and extension missions rely on tenured faculty and presented figures for research expenditures and economic activity associated with tenured faculty. Blake Flanders, president and CEO of the Kansas Board of Regents, testified in opposition and urged the Legislature to work with the board on systemic solutions; he described recruiting and retention headwinds and said the board needed time to review the proposed statutory change.
Faculty and academic groups including the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and newly formed unions said the bill appeared designed to undercut an ongoing court case and would threaten accreditation, national reputation, recruitment and program stability. Ron Berkenzellis (AAUP co‑chair) said the bill “is specifically structured to address property rights … and rights of faculty members, which courts have consistently ruled are covered by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” The Washburn AAUP chapter, United Academics of KU, the Kansas National Education Association and student government leaders testified in opposition, citing threats to academic freedom and the quality of higher education in Kansas.
Committee members asked whether there already exists controlling precedent. Jason Thompson, the reviser, said there is Tenth Circuit precedent (Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, 1998) and a more recent federal district court order that has found tenure to be a property right, but he noted legal disagreement exists and subsection conflicts in the bill (the bill attempts retroactivity in subsection c while subsection e preserves constitutional protections) create legal tension.
Several members urged caution because the bill seeks to affect rights that are the subject of active litigation, and opponents said the author has a conflict of interest because Lovett is a named defendant in the pending litigation. No committee vote was taken; members asked for written materials and legal analysis before any further action.
Ending: The hearing closed after more than a dozen organizations and individuals testified in opposition; the committee signaled it would review written submissions and legal research before considering any motion on HB 23‑48.
