The decision by Purdue University trustees to show Chancellor Michael Wartell the door after he has successfully led IPFW for the past 17 years draws attention to the university’s mandatory retirement policy and raises a new question: Have such policies outlived their usefulness?

When federal lawmakers first addressed age discrimination more than 40 years ago, they carved out exceptions, including one for top executives in both the public and private sectors. Purdue’s policy applies to that group – administrators in high policy-making positions, generally at the level of dean and above. In 1994, Congress made it illegal for universities to force faculty members to retire, even at age 70.

Mandatory retirement policies have also been disappearing in the public sector.

In April, the Indiana General Assembly eliminated mandatory retirement ages for trial court judges.

“(A)llowing judges to serve past 70 years preserves institutional knowledge,” said Sen. Jim Buck, R-Kokomo.

Neither are retirement policies common in higher education. Andy Brantley, president and chief executive officer of the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, confirmed that mandatory retirement policies for employees of any age, including top officials, have been eliminated at most higher education institutions.

But the policies persist at Purdue and at Indiana University, where a case similar to Wartell’s was settled in August. Annette Wyandotte, former dean of the IU-Southeast School of Arts and Letters at New Albany, filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2010 after the university refused to extend her appointment. She was previously granted an extension to complete a three-year contract.

“I was in the position of becoming dean for the first time at age 63 for a one-year interim term and then being appointed dean for a three-year term,” Wyandotte said. “I had given no thought to age when I ran for dean. Once it did come to mind and I looked at the IU policy, I was jolted. The policy seemed so unfair. I felt that I was just into really learning the ropes of that work when I would be forced to step down.”

Wyandotte went ahead and applied for reappointment. The IU-Southeast faculty voted 33-1 in support of her, but the vice chancellor of academic affairs had no choice under IU policy but to decline her request.

The EEOC found reasonable cause in Wyandotte’s complaint, and a conciliation agreement requires the university to pay her $25,000 and allow her to remain as interim associate chancellor through the end of this academic year and then continue for another two years as coordinator of academic programming for diversity and inclusivity.

In Wyandotte’s case, however, the policy should not have applied because she was not qualified to receive an annual retirement benefit of at least $44,000, as required by federal law. That provision does not apply in Wartell’s case. In fact, the chancellor could return next fall as a tenured faculty member, earning 80 percent of his current salary and benefits.

But Wyandotte said the fact that the EEOC ruled in her favor on the basis of her retirement benefit package did nothing to address the discrimination she felt.

“I can tell you that having no choice but to step down from an office wherein I was viewed as being successful by my colleagues and to which I was otherwise entitled to retain by virtue of an excellent review felt discounting and humiliating,” she said.

Like Wyandotte, Wartell received a nearly unanimous show of support from the faculty. At a meeting Wednesday, the IPFW Senate voted 41-2 in favor of a resolution requesting a two-year extension of his service.

Community leaders, including State Rep. Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale, also contacted Purdue officials on his behalf. Most noted the contributions IPFW has made to northeast Indiana under Wartell’s leadership, as well as the exceptions Purdue has made for officials who have reached their 65th birthday. Wartell turns 65 on Nov. 4.

At Ball State University, where no mandatory retirement policy is in place, trustees recently voted to extend President Jo Ann Gora’s contract for five years, and bolstered her salary by 10 percent – to $431,244 a year. She is 65.

Fort Wayne businessman Matt Momper, a member of the BSU board, cited the “measurable results” of the university’s strategic plan during Gora’s tenure.

The Chronicle of Higher Education looked last week at “The Graying Presidency,” noting the age of leaders at top research institutions. The presidents of the universities of Oklahoma, Miami and California at Santa Barbara all are age 70, with no plans to retire within the year. The presidents of the universities of Arizona and Wisconsin are 75 and 73, respectively. They both have declared their intentions to retire.

The Purdue board’s decision to stand by its retirement policy seemed apparent before Friday’s meeting.

“The senior executive retirement policy is a trustee policy,” Purdue President France Córdova wrote in a letter reply sent to the IPFW chancellor’s supporters. “It exists to ensure effective and efficient transitions at the highest levels of university leadership, and allows the institution and the individual to plan accordingly.”

But the Purdue board – and IU officials – would be well served to revisit their policies. The effective and efficient transitions of leadership Córdova cited take place routinely in most institutions and industries. Perhaps the Purdue president’s own contract expiration prompted the bright-line interpretation, but strong and effective leaders shouldn’t have to hide behind outdated policy to make tough decisions. If an institution’s leadership isn’t performing to expectations, its board should be prepared to say so.

Demographics also erode the case for mandatory retirement. By 2030, 20 percent of the U.S. population is expected to be age 65 or older, according to a U.S. Government Accountability Office report. Americans are living longer and continuing to contribute. Consider that six members of the 12-member Berkshire Hathaway board are 80 or older, including Chairman Warren Buffett, 81.

“I have heard the idea bandied about that one reason for forced retirement is to make room for ‘fresh blood,’ so to speak,” says IU-Southeast’s Wyandotte. “Which raises the question of whether age is an appropriate basis on which to presume the waning of productivity. … We have only to look at the U.S. Supreme Court justices as a measure of whether or not that is true.”