Contact: Maggie Allington, Ph.D.
Communications Chair, Pat Washington Support Committee
(619) 582-5383
Website: http://patwashington.org

For Immediate Release – May 12, 2006

SUBJECT: Academic and Social Justice Groups Step Up Support for Black Professor in Wake of Appellate Court’s Denial of Petition for Rehearing

San Diego, Calif.—Attorney Dan Siegel filed a “Petition for Rehearing” with the San Diego-based Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of Washington vs. the California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees on April 28, 2006. The petition was denied on May 11, 2006 by the same 3-member panel of justices who denied Washington’s original appeal to allow a trial jury to hear the evidence supporting her discrimination and retaliation claim against San Diego State University (SDSU). Dr. Pat Washington, who was successfully employed for seven years as an assistant professor in SDSU’s Women’s Studies Department, was fired in 2003 after she complained of race discrimination and
retaliation. Washington’s firing under these circumstances set off an avalanche of protest among academic and social justice organizations across the U.S., including the American Association of University Women’s Legal Advocacy Fund, We Advocate Gender Equity (WAGE), Feminists Against Academic Discrimination, the Women of Color Caucus of the National Women’s Studies Association, the Lambda Letters Project, California National Organization for Women, the For Chicano/a Studies Foundation, the San Diego Branch of the NAACP, the San Diego County Concilio on Higher Education, and others.

Despite a limited timeframe to do so (7-10 days), many of these organizations weighed in with amicus letters in support of Washington’s appeal. However, due to a highly contested technicality regarding the formatting of the letters, the Court refused to consider the perspectives offered by these organizations, many of which questioned the legality of the Court’s standard of review, provided important data regarding the nature of academic discrimination, and addressed the deleterious impact the Court’s decision would have on other employees of educational institutions. For instance, the Lambda Letters Project amicus letter noted that the Court of Appeal “strayed from its duty to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Washington and, moreover, overstepped its authority by behaving as a trier of facts, rather than as an assessor of whether such facts were presented.” The amicus letter of the California Faculty Association noted, “The outcome of this litigation will directly affect the ability of faculty of color, particularly women of color, to obtain tenure on campuses throughout the California State University System.”

Washington supporters have vowed to sustain their commitment to Washington as she proceeds to the next level of legal recourse—the California Supreme Court. Says Patrick Velasquez of the San Diego County Concilio on Higher Education, “The recent court rulings do not reflect a lack of merit in Dr. Washington’s claims. Rather they reflect the political/legal culture of San Diego, as well as developments that, if left unchallenged, portend badly for the achievement of gender and ethnic/racial equality and justice in California and elsewhere. To not challenge these judicial
actions is to allow them to define us in ways that do not serve our organizational interests, institutional credibility, or the principles of justice and equity.”

For Washington vs. CSU Board of Trustees case information and updates, please visit: http://patwashington.org.

# # # #