Crisis in the Retention of Black Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty at SDSU

April 6, 2005. A number of Black tenured and tenure-track faculty have left SDSU under President Weber's and Provost Marlin's administration. Since there were so few Black tenured and tenure-track faculty to begin with-- losing several Black faculty year after year did cause some alarm. So, someone created a committee to investigate the "problem." Nevermind that several people on the committee are horrid when it comes to equity, fairness and an inclusive environment. The committee sent a questionnaire to Black faculty who have left SDSU in recent years.

Below is my response to their questionnaire.

Pat Washington, Ph.D.
Hired 8/96; Fired 5/03

QUESTIONS

1. Why did you choose to come to SDSU?

During the formal and informal interview process, the Women’s Studies Department offered an ideal “package” for me as a newly minted PhD looking for my first tenure-track position: clear and attainable written guidelines for tenure and promotion, assurances that “everybody Women’s Studies supported for tenure, got tenure,” indications that my work would be valued and that I would be able to design new courses that fit my research interests, the promise of an informal mentoring system that would allow me to learn the culture of the department and the campus from someone committed to my success, implications that once I was tenured and promoted I would be the next department chair, the outward appearance of inclusion, assurances that there was a good deal of collaborative work between WS/Africana Studies and Sociology (the field in which I was trained), assurances that it was okay to be an out Lesbian in the department and on campus, the great weather, etc.

2. Could you please describe the treatment you received during the recruitment process? In particular, could you describe what was positive? Also, could you describe what was negative?

I don’t recall the recruitment process, aside from the fact that I had a checklist of about 20 items and WS/SDSU fared so well in matching those items that I cancelled my remaining job interviews as soon as I got an offer from SDSU.

From my perspective, the process used to recruit me was sound. However, you should be aware that every woman of color hired by Women’s Studies since 1996 (four) has had to go through a formal, competitive search process, while every white woman hired since 1996 (3), has simply being appointed (anointed) to the department without benefit of a search. This gives the impression that women of color need to be “vetted” to ensure that they are “good enough,” whereas white women don’t need to be vetted because they are intrinsically “good enough.”

3. Please describe the kind of support you received from your department and college while you were a faculty member at SDSU.

Mixed. There is a high degree of institutional and individual racism within the department, the college and the university as a whole. It’s a very wonderful place if you are the “right kind of Negro” and emulate white norms and culture, “put your ethics in your pocket” (advice given me by my “mentor”), give good grades to the white students connected to White WS faculty who advocate for them, and speak up only in adulation of the power bloc. It’s a very bad place if you speak out against disparate treatment of faculty and students of color, or have the audacity to question “the way we have always done it.” In my experience, the college and the university administration does little, if anything, to assist Black faculty who are encountering problems in their departments. They assume that “you” are the problem—typically referring any concerns you report to them back to the department for a response. Even those offices that are supposed to “check” discrimination are rendered powerless by institutional racism—either because their livelihood depends on keeping the boss happy or because they are willfully blind. For instance, how in the world could the black director of equity and diversity nominate President Weber as grand marshal of the Martin Luther King Day parade, when there has been such a heavy loss of black faculty and black students under his administration?

Having said this, I did find pockets of support and sustenance throughout the campus. Over time you learn who has any kind of commitment to fairness and equity and who doesn’t.

4. Did you have a mentor while at SDSU? If so, please describe how you were mentored.

Mixed. I received some mentoring within the department, but, for the most part, it was hazardous to my survival as a junior faculty member—e.g., being given “opportunities” by my chair to write book reviews and encyclopedia entries that she knew didn’t count toward tenure; having my senior “mentor” try to get a book editor to drop one of my articles; being discouraged from working with a senior colleague who could have given me research and publishing opportunities, as well as course “buy outs,” only to learn that the “discouragement” stemmed from professional and/or personal jealously; “mentored” to “put my ethics in my pocket” and to ignore inappropriate advances from another senior colleague, etc. Additionally, my “mentor” was not an active researcher and had not written or published anything (not even a book review) since 1991 (I was hired in 1996). Her strength as a “mentor” lay in “knowing where the bones are buried,” “orchestrating” from behind the scenes, calling in favors, and otherwise upholding the good old (white) boys and girls networks. This approach is great if you are committed to maintaining “the master’s house” with the “master’s tools,” but it can chew you up if you are truly committed to leveling the playing field by providing equal access and equal opportunity to all—not simply the “anointed.”

The mentoring I received from my women’s studies colleagues was largely inimical to my sense of fairness and equity—e.g., “go along to get along” and “keep your ethics in your pocket.” For the majority of my time in the department, I was the only full-time junior faculty member. Departmental decision-making was supposedly “by consensus.” I quickly learned that this meant that the important decisions were actually made ahead of time. You might be given the illusion of “consensus building” by having an item listed on the agenda for discussion, but the chair would pre-empt any discussion about the item by announcing, “So-and-so has graciously agreed to serve as undergraduate director, serve on the College RTP committee, or … [fill in the blank]. Alternatively, an agreed-upon “cheerleader” might close off discussion of an agenda item by saying, “I trust the chair’s judgment on this.” To voice opposition to such pa-or ma- ternalism was seen as “uncollegial”—that great, racially coded “fourth bucket” of the tenure process that essentially translates into “not like us.”

Largely, the positive mentoring I received, I specifically had to seek out—e.g., going to the instructional technology department or the center for teaching excellence. I also sought out strong supportive mentors (usually men & women of color) in other departments both within and outside the College of Arts & Letters, as well as outside of the university itself.

5. Please describe the reasons for your leaving SDSU.

I was denied tenure on the pretext of not meeting “university standards” in the area of professional growth. The departmental guidelines in effect when I was hired (1996) stipulated a minimum of two scholarly, refereed journal articles for tenure & promotion to associate and a minimum of three scholarly refereed publications (articles) for promotion to full professor. The year after I was hired (1997), the minimum number of scholarly, refereed publications was upped to three for tenure and promotion to associate professor and four for promotion to full professor. On April 26, 2001—six months before I had to turn in my tenure application—the department changed its “guidelines” a third time. [Have you detected a pattern yet?] What had originally been “at least two refereed scholarly publications since appointment to SDSU,” and subsequently “at least three scholarly publications since appointment to SDSU,” suddenly, for the first time and for the sole purpose of denying me tenure—became “a consistent record of refereed publications …based upon original research.” In other words, the numerical references that had served so well to tenure and promote all the white women in the department were eliminated.

By the time I went up for tenure in October 2001, I had eight scholarly, refereed publications in print or accepted and an additional one out for review. Nonetheless, departmental colleagues who themselves had been tenured and promoted—even to full professor—on a very limited number of publications of questionable scholarly content and venue (e.g., appearing in non-refereed medical school newsletters and flash-in-the-pan women’s periodicals) were permitted to second-guess and outright dismiss the judgment of blind reviewers who had judged my articles as not only scholarly in their own right, but worthy of publication in prestigious journals recognized by the National Women’s Studies Association (the national professional organization for women’s studies) as scholarly journals in the field. Moreover, the departmental representative to the College RTP committee, whose own meteoric rise from lecturer to full professor was based on a grand total of seven articles (ranging from “Lesbian Vampires” and “Lesbianism 101” to several critiques of Victorian writer George Eliot)—hypocritically argued against my scholarship to college committee, saying I lacked a “coherent research agenda” and discrediting as “unscholarly” my publications on sexual violence against black women, homophobia in communities of color, and the efficacy of community based service learning in overcoming preconceived notions about people of color, poor people, LGBT people, and people with disabilities.

I am currently suing the university for racial discrimination and retaliation for complaining about a racially hostile environment (pre-dating the final change in tenure requirements and my first clearly retaliatory review). The university piously claims that such internationally renowned scholars (remember the “lesbian vampires”) and such exemplars of equity (white women who fight for white women’s rights can’t possibly be racists) could never have discriminated against me (that’s why it took going to the chancellor’s office to get someone to even take my complaints seriously). It also claims—knowing full well that my RTP process was tainted from the get-go—that I was denied tenure on the basis of an independent six-level review process (as if the power-brokers don’t talk to each other—and those chits my “mentor” referred to, as well as the “orchestration” she gloated about, don’t play into decisions about who goes and who gets to stay).

6. What could SDSU have done to entice you to stay?

It was not my choice to leave SDSU when I did. However, while I would have preferred not being denied tenure, especially at the 11th hour, I never intended to stay at SDSU forever. People staying forever is one of the problems. They think of the university (or the department, or the curriculum, or the decision-making) as belonging to them. Anyone coming in with ideas that challenge their (white) privilege is seen as an interloper (barbarian at the gate), at best, and a troublemaker, at worst.

7. SDSU wants to recruit more African American faculty members and retain them. What would your recommendations be for improving the hiring and retention of African American faculty at SDSU?

Probably the first step is to make sure that you don’t have foxes guarding the henhouse—i.e., if you have racists setting policy in student and faculty affairs, then in all probability, you will continue to be “bewildered” about the decline in black student enrollment, as well as the loss of black faculty.

Alternatively, if you can’t get rid of the foxes, those of you with a modicum of power or influence should consider exercising it—not for your own self-interest and not as part of a never-ending cycle of “you scratch my back and ….”, but for the sake of what you know to be equitable and fair. At least raise questions and speak out when you see an injustice. This survey may be a good starting place…. But then, you are going to have to deal with the foxes and their double-speak.

Another good place to begin is to stop making excuses about why the university just can’t find any qualified African Americans. Even better, stop deflecting the issue by lumping race/ethnic minorities together and by counting white women as “minority” hires. Begin by being honest regarding the university brag sheet about diversity (issued in October 2003):

Since the 1999-2000 academic year, 34 percent of SDSU’s tenured or tenure-track faculty hires have been people of color. This is double the percentage of qualified applicants of color available nationwide. [Translation: no problem here. We are such inclusive people.]

TENURE/TENURE TRACK FACULTY HIRES (1999-00 through 2001-02)

During the 2001-2002 academic year, 52.7 percent of SDSU’s tenured or tenure-track faculty hires were women.

Despite the upbeat spin of the narrative, the above table shows that although African Americans have next to the highest availability in terms of qualified applicants for faculty positions (6%), they are actually hired at the lowest rate (other than Native Americans). How is it possible that African Americans can outstrip other groups of color in terms of availability, but members of those other groups are being hired a rates three to four times higher than African Americans? Look at your own stats and ask the hard questions, rather than trying to justify and rationalize. Go beyond “what makes us look better” spin.

If you have bothered to read what I have written about my experience, several other suggestions should come to mind:

(a) Recognize and make transparent to yourself and others the role of white culture and white norms (no matter who is exercising them) in the hiring and retention of black faculty. Recognize especially that white culture and white norms often masquerade as “excellence.”

(b) Come to an understanding regarding the value of diversity—is it simply cosmetic (look at all the brown & black skins we have in the mix), or is it truly an enhancement (in terms of introducing different ways of conceptualizing and actualizing). Again, look at your gatekeepers. Who are they letting in and keeping out—and why? Is the purpose of “diversifying” to expand, enlarge, enhance the university—or simply to make faculty of color “just like us.” If the latter, why bother?

(c) Examine or re-examine the nature of mentoring relationships. As the examples I have provided should indicate, not all mentoring is good. In fact, it can be downright caustic. Why in the world would you want to “train” a person to fit comfortably into a corrupt system and to emulate corrupt values? Why not, instead, try to eliminate the corruption—or at least say, “Look, this is how the corrupt system works. Be aware so that you can survive and, hopefully, make the system a bit less corrupt.” The glorification of the kind of power that rests on being an alpha male or female—“knowing where the bones are buried” and calling in self-serving chits—is probably inimical to fair-minded people of all colors, but is likely to have an especially chilling effect on people who have historically suffered at the hands of the good old white boy system.

(d) Acknowledge that informal relationships have as much—perhaps even more—influence on the RTP process as formally articulated requirements. Drop the pretense that there are six independent levels of review in the RTP process and educate candidates about the informal mechanisms that may impact their bid for reappointment and tenure. Once you are aware that there are conflicts between senior faculty and junior faculty, take steps to ensure that the RTP process is not used as a tool for retaliation. For instance, do not allow senior colleagues that you know have “axes to grind” with junior faculty to second-guess the “quality” of publications that are accepted by recognized scholarly refereed journals and books.

(e) Shifting standards and belittling of the scholarship of women of color are classic, well-documented, symptoms of exclusionary practices designed to preserve and protect status quo. Ensure that RTP decision-makers at all levels subscribe in both word and deed to the following joint statement about tenure issued in 2000 by the American Council on Education, the American Association of University Professors, and the United Educators Insurance Risk Retention Group:

“Tenure decisions must be consistent over time among candidates with different personal characteristics—such as race, gender, disability, and national origin. Protections in law and institutional policy against discrimination apply with full force to the tenure process. Consistency also requires that the formal evaluations of a single individual over time reflect a coherent set of expectations and a consistent analysis of the individual’s performance” (Good Practice in Tenure Evaluation, p. 2). (Available through www.acenet.edu/bookstore/)

This “good practice” was not followed in my case.

8. Do you have any additional concerns or input pertaining to African Americans at SDSU?

I remain cynical about the university’s commitment to recruiting and retaining Black faculty and students. I would love to be proven wrong, but am not holding my breath. Instead, I will continue to fight on my own behalf, as well as on behalf of other disenfranchised faculty, staff and students.