Is the process for firing endowed professors different from that for tenured professors?

Question

Tenured professors can be fired for a variety of reasons, the most common being incompetence, negligence, immoral/personal conduct, and financial exigency.

Several questions:

1. Do these four reasons also apply to firing endowed professors? I'm guessing financial exigency does not apply because the endowment covers the costs. The other three I am not sure about, since presumably the endowed professor doesn't have formal responsibilities (again since the endowment removes the need to teach/supervise/etc).
2. Between the donor, the department, and the university, which of the three sets the rules? For example, can the donor say "we require our endowed professor to do good research, and are opposed to termination for any reason as long as he/she is doing good research"? (I note King George V felt something similar about the Victoria Cross)
3. If the endowed professor can be and is fired, does the search for the next professor start immediately, following the standard process? I'm guessing yes since I don't see any reason why not.

Answer 1

There is no legal difference between a tenured professor and a tenured professor holding an endowed position. The latter is mostly a honorific, and in practice just means that they receive the proceeds of an endowment as part of their salary or for research purposes. As a consequence, there are really no legal aspects that would make a difference.

Some of the other premises in the question are also questionable. First, endowments do not have to be large. They can be $100,000 and yield $5,000 per year for research purposes. If the university is in financial trouble, then this endowment isn't going to save the professor: The university is still paying all or nearly all of that person's salary.

Second, not every endowed professorship is directly related to a person or entity that has an interest in who actually holds the chair. It may be that the money was given 50 years ago by someone who is long dead, or that someone gave the money to honor the legacy of someone who is long dead, but who doesn't actually have any connection to the field in which the chair is. Or it may be an entity that for whatever reason really doesn't want to be involved in telling the university what to do with the money (think about the regius professorships).

Finally, would the chair search start immediately? Who knows. If the university is in financial trouble, it may not be able to afford hiring someone right away. In that case, the position would simply be unfilled for a while. If there is a search, in all cases I am familiar with, the stipulations of the endowment make it clear that the entity in charge of finding and hiring candidates is the university or the department, not the entity that endowed the position. You cannot buy a position for a friend of yours by creating an endowment -- no university would accept such a situation. It will often happen that the university or department informs the donor if they have come to a conclusion about who they would like to hire, but it will not accept being told who to hire, nor offer the donor the right to veto.

Answer 2

From what I’ve seen in my old field…

As to your point 1, there isn’t a change in responsibilities. Endowed chairs teach, supervise, and research; it’s a honorific. So your premise is a bit shaky. As to 2, once the chair is established, appointment, etc, is handled by the department. I’m not familiar with special cases; it is conceivable that the donating entity/person suggests a first recipient. As to 3, there isn’t a search in the sense the term is usually employed. Endowed chairs (tend to) go to tenured faculty at the department.