## Facts

- Robert E. Beitzell was an assistant professor of history at the University of Maine at Orono (a state university) on successive term appointments beginning in 1967.
- Department tenure review began in the history department’s Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), composed of tenured faculty and chaired by William H. Jeffrey.
- The PAC made tenure recommendations to the department chair; an unfavorable recommendation was typically followed by tenure denial, though favorable recommendations could be reversed by higher administrators.
- University tenure procedures were described in part in a faculty handbook and reflected common multi-level academic review practices.
- In 1971–72 the PAC considered Beitzell for tenure, discussed performance and collegiality matters, and at one point a member raised Beitzell’s alleged drinking; Jeffrey ruled the topic out of order and stopped further discussion.
- After an open discussion, the PAC unanimously voted against recommending tenure.
- The university denied tenure and issued Beitzell a terminal appointment.
- Beitzell pursued internal grievance procedures without success and then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging denial of due process based on (a) a property interest in tenure/continued employment and (b) a liberty interest based on allegedly stigmatizing rumors harming reputation and employability.

## Issues

1. Whether a non-tenured public-university professor had a constitutionally protected property interest in tenure or continued employment based on university rules, practices, or understandings.
2. Whether allegedly stigmatizing statements connected to the tenure denial implicated a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest requiring due process, including a name-clearing opportunity.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed judgment for the university officials.
- The court held Beitzell had no protected property interest in tenure or continued employment beyond his existing contract.
- The court held Beitzell did not establish a protected liberty interest because he failed to show public dissemination of stigmatizing accusations or a concrete foreclosure of future employment opportunities.
- Because neither a property nor liberty interest was shown, the tenure denial did not trigger procedural due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- A property interest protected by due process exists only when state law, rules, or mutually explicit understandings create a legitimate claim of entitlement, not a unilateral expectation of a benefit.
- Discretionary, multi-level tenure procedures and advisory recommendations—even if formalized in a handbook and consistent with common academic practices—do not, without more, create an entitlement to tenure.
- A liberty-interest claim tied to employment action generally requires (1) stigmatizing charges of a serious character and (2) public dissemination by the state in a manner that meaningfully damages reputation or forecloses employment.
- Internal discussions during tenure deliberations, without proof they were published or communicated to prospective employers and without demonstrated employment foreclosure, do not amount to a constitutional deprivation of liberty.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that denial of tenure at a public university, absent an entitlement to tenure or proof of publicly disseminated, employment-foreclosing stigma, does not constitute a deprivation of property or liberty requiring due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.


Beitzell v. Jeffrey, 643 F.2d 870 (1st Cir. 1981)