The Professor vs. The Institute

Astrophysicist Piet Hut says the support he has received from colleagues across the country is overwhelming. E-mails of encouragement pour in by the minute. And interviews by reporters, not meetings with physicists, are increasingly crowding his schedule.

For the first time in the Institute for Advance Study's 70-year history, the prestigious and removed think tank is bringing its internal affairs into the federal courts. And in an effort to expel one of its 22 tenured professors, the fortress of innovative research is in turn finding itself caught in a counter-suit.

On one side is Hut, who 15 years ago, at 32, was the youngest institute member to hold tenure. But now, Hut said he believes the IAS is attempting to curb his freedom to study outside his original interests, by creating a hostile working environment and coercing him into an agreement to leave.

It began in 1987 when, according to Hut's statement in a court document, he was approached by the institute's director, who hinted that it was time for Hut to "strengthen his ties outside the Institute."

Then, in 1993 an external committee conducting a review of the IAS faculty ruled that Hut's tenured position at the institute was "a real problem."

Following the review, institute administrators approached Hut and offered him financial incentives to resign within two years, according to court documents.

One year later, Hut's situation was openly discussed at a School of Natural Sciences faculty meeting with Hut present. Institute documents say that some faculty members voiced the opinion that "Hut's presence was having a detrimental effect on the scientific purposes of the School."

And in 1996, according to statements by Hut and the IAS, institute director Philip Griffiths and trustee chairman James Wolfensohn froze Hut's salary and delivered the ultimatum: Resign or face significant pay cuts.

Hut agreed, and signed a one-page memorandum that stated he would leave by June 30, 2001, according to court documents.

Hut said in an interview Wednesday that he felt coerced and forced to accept terms of resignation with which he did not agree.

For its part, the institute claims it seeks to dismiss a member who not only has been unproductive, but who has tarnished its reputation.

On the surface, the battle centers on the validity of the informal memorandum Hut signed in 1996. But the undercurrents of the litigation push the envelope of what academic liberties tenure really guarantees.

Reputation

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Since its inception in 1930, the IAS has housed hundreds of the world's top postdoctoral scholars in the natural, social and applied sciences. The combination of temporary members and tenured faculty have garnered more than a dozen Nobel prizes and have included ground-breaking scientists from Albert Einstein to John Oppenheimer and computer pioneer John von Neumann.

And how Hut ranks among the finest is coming under question.

Shortly after receiving tenure, Hut co-developed the Barnes-Hut tree algorithm, which is widely used in computer simulations of star dynamics.

Projecting that Hut's work would allow him to become "an outstanding astrophysicist," the IAS awarded him tenure in 1985.

Tenureship is generally seen as offering professors protection against dismissal.

But, according to statements by the IAS, institute officials believe Hut's presence on the faculty has become a liability.

"It is generally recognized within the Institute that Hut's presence on the faculty not only does not enhance the reputation of the Institute, but in fact damages it," court documents say.

Hut counters attacks with an impressive list of visiting professorships, symposia organized, conferences attended, articles and one book written in the past 10 years.

And many of his colleagues laud Hut's achievements, citing his increased research in non-scientific fields outside of astrophysics and his continual push forward with computational physics and computer simulations of the development of stars and galaxies.

But it is the unique nature of this work that Hut attributes to the Institute's attack.

"There must be some people in the trustees who don't like the direction of my research," Hut said. "But the court documents say it is 'well-regarded' and 'narrow in focus' of physics. That's a weak claim [on which] to fire somebody."

Hut said he believes his recent interest in seeking to explain the world through Eastern philosophy has led his superiors to question his science and attack his credibility.

"I have been interested in seeking general world views as long as I have been interested in astrophysics — but only in the past seven years have I been writing about it and attending conferences," Hut said. "But one person can be a scientist and also be engaged in scriptural and other studies."

Others, such as former Princeton astrophysics professor Robert Caldwell, believe that regardless of Hut's reputation and research interests, the institute's attempt to force him out on the basis that his work has changed focus threatens the freedom protected by tenure.

"On an absolute scale, sure he is not number one, but in any group you have different levels of engagement," Caldwell noted. "But the institute is changing the rules of tenure. I don't know of any cases where someone was kicked out for something like this."