Academic adversity and faculty warriors: Prevailing

0 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
Promotion lies in the hands of those further advanced in the promotional ladder. .... then know that the President or Regents would not be tumed off by politicians or communigr groups that were in a position to talk to the president or Regents ...... were incompetent yo-yos. . . . what motivated me was rearizinghow stupid and.
ThePoliticsof Survival in Academia Narcativesof Inequity, Resilience, and Success

Eorrno sy Ltta JacoBS,JospCrNrRoN, ANDCecn E. CeNroN

R O W M A N & L I T T L E F I E L D P U B L I S H E R S I. N C . Lanham.Boulder. New york. Oxford

ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD

PUBLISHERS. INC.

Publishedin the UnitedStatcsofAmerica by Rowman& Littlefield publishers,Inc. A Membcrof the Rowman& LittlefieldpublishingGroup 4720 BostonWay, Lanham,Maryland20706 www.rowrnanlittlefield.com PO Box 317,Oxford,OX2 9RU,UK Copyright@ 2002 by Rowman& Littlefieldpublishers,Inc. All rights resemed.No part of this publicationmaybe reproduced,storedin a retrievar system,or transmittedin any form or by anymeans,electronic,mechanicar, photocopying,recording,or otherwise,withoutthe prior permission of the publisher. BritishLibrarycataloguingin pubrication InformationAvairabre Library of CongressCataloging-in-publication Data Thepoliticsof survivalin academia : narratives of inequity,resilience, andsuccess / editedby Lila Jacobs,JosdCintr6n,andCecilE. Canron. p. c.m.- (Immigrationandthetransnational experience) Includesbibliographicalreferences andindex. ISBN 0-7425-2368-3(atk.paper) - ISBN 0_7425-2369_t (pbk. : alk. paper) l. Minority collegeteachers-united states--{ase studies.2. Discriminationin highereducation-united States-casc studies.3. Minorities-Education (Higher)_ united statcs-{ase studies.I. Jacobs, Lila. II. cintr6n,Josc,1953- III. ianton, cecil E.1946- IV. Series.

LC212.42 .P652002 378.1'2'087-dc21

2002069690

Printedin the United Statesof America /^n

(7 Thepaperusedin thispublicationmeetsthe minimumrequirements of American Nationalstandardfor InformationSciences-perrnanence of paperfor printed Library Materials,ANSI/NISO Z.39.48-1992.

Chapter Six

AcademicAdversityandFaculfyWarriors: PrevailingamidstTraumar ChalsaM. Loo and Maria Chun

I receiveda letter from the-chancelrorstatingthat I'd been given a terminar appointment of one year. I felt that I had a terminal disease. I had one year in which to live or die. -Female professorat a stateuniversity who overturneda negativetenuredecision

Introduction As I enter the twenty-first century, inequitiesfor faculty of color in institutions of higher education continue (Turner, Myers, & Creswell, 1999). problems in the retentionof faculty of coror remain, leadingTurner et al. (1999) to conclude that the academicworkplace is a difficult work environmentfor racial minority group members. In the interestof preparing minoriry faculty for the possibility of a denied tenure or promotion at their academiclnstitutions, and informini majority faculty members about the difficulties facing minority faculty, this chapterpresentsthe casesof eight racial minority facutty who fought a denial of tenure or promotion at their academicinstitutions and won. These .,warriors in an ivory tower" succeededin overturning negative decisionsor secureda large monetary settlement. This chapter attemptsto capturethe functional strategiesused to overturn a denied promotion or tenure decisionsas well as the psychologicalreactions stemming from an experiencedassault on the person's worth. This approach conveysthe messagethat the battle, while external,has an emotional impact and that the effort of academiccombatis as much functionalas emotional. These casescenter largely on events that were initiated in the mid to late 1980s,one of which was not resolveduntil the I990s. Accordingly,these cases 95

I I I

96

ChalsaM. Loo andMaria Chun

might be viewed partly as a reflection of the times. To what extent the experiencesof these faculty of th€ l9g0s reflect the reality today is a mission for another study. Before the case anaryses,I include a brief descriptionof the academic structureand promotionalprocedures.There are severalpromotional steps in the academicarena.Generaily,a professorbeginsat the assiitantprofessor revel and is evaluatedevery two years (via a merit review) for each oithree steps.Some instirutionshave mid-careerevaluations,a precursorof the tenure decision.The biggest hurdle is tenure when one gains the title of associateprofessor. Tenure essentiallymeansthat faculty have a permanentposition with that universiry and cannot be fired. After tenure,the processof evaluationcontinues.The promotion steps normally come every two years and continue for another three reviews until one attainsthe rank of full professor.Throughout one's academiccareer as a professor, accelerationsare possible, which means a faculty member can be advancedto a higher steplevel at a quicker rate than normal. Teaching, research,and service are generally the three areas upon which promotion and tenureare based,with the more prestigiousinstitutionsgenerally having higher academicstandardsfor researchand publication. The phrase "publish or perish" refers to the expectation that if piofessors fail to publish original research,they can expect to be denied tenure, which equatesto rosing one'sjob. Promotionlies in the handsof those further advancedin the promotional ladder. A professor's career,determinedby promotions and tenure. lies in the evaluationsof faculty with higher rank. Full professorsdeterminethe academic fate for associateprofessors,and both full and associateprofessorsdeterminethe academic fate of assistantprofessors. Higher in the academia hierarchy are deans,the vice presidentor vice-chancelror,the presidentsor chancellors-who have the power to considerappealsand overturn a lower decision. The sampleincludedAsian American professorsof both genderswho occupied tenured or tenure-trackpositions at institutions of highei educationin the United States.Each of thesefaculty were administereda structuredinterview by the senior author. Excerpts are included from either interviews, written appeal material in their file, or from data containedin the structuredinterview schedule. A fictitious name has been given to each faculty member in order to honor anonymity and confidentiality.

Shattered Beliefs in a Meritocracy Asian Americans have been taught to believe that academicachievementis the ticket to success.Therefore,after achieving their ph.D. and earning covetedpositions in academic institutions of higher learning, a denial of tenure or a promotion can be a shattering experience,especially for those who believe in a meritocracy. Two professors explained the crumbling of these basic beliefs:

AcademicAdversityandFaculty Warriors

97

"What you feel you have accomplisheddoesn't mean anything. I would have expected people to acknowledge my work and accomplishments.""l had assumed my record spoke for itself. Instead,what I had done for the university was being questioned."Dale Minami, an attorneywho representedseveralAsian American professorsin discriminationcases,made this observation: The academicinstifutionis not immunefrom politicalconsiderations in tenure decision. . . amongmy AsianAmericanclientsin thesesituations; I havenoticed a commonattitude.Invariably,theybelievein the merit system:If you work hard,you will be duly rewarded.Whenfacedwith an adversedecision basedon somethingotherthanmerit,theyhavedifficultyaccepting thatrealify. All too often,theyneverunderstand thatpoliticsandracismmay haveasmuch to do with a particulardecisionasmerit.(Minami,1990,p. 85) The following eight casesconvey various functional methods by which each professor successfully sought to overturn negative academic decisions, despitecommon emotionalreactionsof distress,anger,hurt, and shock.

The Case of Owen: Ethnic Studies, the President, and Vice President Owen was a tenured professorand chairpersonof Ethnic Sfudiesat a stateuniversiry. In the late 1980s,his promotion to full professorwas denied at the level of the vice presidentof Academic Affairs. Owen's strategywas to convince the president,who could overturnthe vice president'sdenial,of doingjust that. Owen saw "absolutelyno [rational]justification" for his promotion to be denied.The evaluationfor his promotion had been "unanimouslypositive all the way to the vice presidentof Academic Affairs." Lower level support is generally sustainedat the higher administrativelevels. "What was so shocking about the denial was that I thought my political baseshad been covered,with my community service and all." The threat of denial generateda "senseof vulnerability . . . that what you feel you've accomplisheddoesn't mean anything." Owen experienced "a lot of distress,a drain of energy,and anger at the arbitrarinessof academic decision making." His informal appealto attain his promotion lasted five months. The president eventually overturnedthe vice president'sdecision. This casedescribeshow that positive outcomewas achieved. Owen knew that his publications would be at issue,but he found the vice president'scriteria for promotion to be deviant from the precedentused for Ethnic Studies."Ethnic Studiesdraws on oral history and community studies,which tends to deviate from the scientific realm from which the Vice President'scriteria was apparentlybased." the weak link {but Il definedthe standard The Vice Presidentcalledresearch reacheda broader differently. . . I had starteda new curriculum,catalogue, journals.Suchcriteria audience. I had a lot publishedbut not a lot in refereed

98

Chalsa M. Loo and Maia Chun had been draftedmuch earlier and the institution had alreadyapprovedofthese criteria. so the Vice Presidentwas going againstan alreadyexisiing criteria for promotion. I discussedthis with my staff. I went through this [informal appeal] becauseI was pissed.I felt it was unfair, arbitrary. Ttiis was a small town. I wondered-was there a personalagendaon the Vice president'spart? was I being punishedfor going around proper channels,getting resourcesfrom the outside, from statelegislatorswho had previously been involved in the program, whom I had helpedin many ways?or was it retributionfor my criticismsoi his work?

owen wondered whether the denial represented some antagonism toward Ethnic Studies. "lt wasn't difficult for me to imagine that other faculty on campus might be hostile to Ethnic studies and perceivethe program as overzealous.. . . After all, Ethnic Studiesis a field devoted to an analysis of institutional and social discrimination." Owen soughtsomeexplanationfor this shockingevent. owen's advice on how to successfully cope with academic adversity contains significant lessons for the faculty warrior. First, it is very important to detach emotionally and psychologically from the situation-to objectify it. To step back from it and look-at whal's happening.I asked myself-if this dossiercame before me, how would I judge it? . . . I would sit down to consciouslylook at it in a detachedway, which allows you to sct sclf-doubtto rest,which then allows you to fully utilize other strategies. Second, get an honest assessmentfrom colleagues-make sure they be_ lieve this was unjust to tum down. Third, take a look at the organizationalchart. Where does the penon who has attacked your record fit in the sfucture? what are his strengths or weaknesses?How vulnerableis that person?Assumethat he will not changehis mind. In my case,the Presidenthad the power to overtum the Vice president.. . . Go after the President,not the Vice President. Fourth, locate those who could impact the president-my Dean, the [Board of] Regents,the Governor's office, politicians who knew our program, then know that the Presidentor Regentswould not be tumed off by politicians or communigr groups that were in a position to talk to the presidentor Regents directly (such as JACL, Okinawan groups,anti-eviction groups).In the past ten years, I had developedclose working relationshipswith the community through my community work. Fifth, I had to convincethe Presidentthat it was worth entertainingthe appeal and antagonizingthe vice Presidentunder him. I had several long discussions with the President,one lasting one and a halfhours. The president indicated it would be very difficult for him to overtum the Vice president.He was already having trouble with this man . . . so the Presidentdid not want to use my case to punish the Vice President.But he also knew I had good relations with state legislators.so, the Presidentformed another {review] committee of five persons. They came back in favor of promotion, but they were divided

AcademicAdversityandFaculty l(arriors

99

(threeto two). The Presidentsaidthis wasdifficult. What I soughtto determine was-Who werethesepeople[on thecommittee]andwho selected them?The wouldnot disclosetheirnamesor who appointed President them,but I infcrred that the Vice Presidentwas involved.I wantedus to go throughthe list. I remindedthePresident thatEthnicStudieshadmadea lot of enemies. I suggested that if he couldnot tell me who wason the list, I will namehim fifteensenior facultywho areswom enemiesof EthnicStudies.The TenurePromotionReview Committee(TPRC)policy allowsfacultyto submitsucha list of persons who you believecannotbe fair in evaluating you. I statedthat if any of these peopleareon this committee,thenlet mc suggestthatthis processis tainted.I readhim a dozennames,andthenaskedhim ifany ofthesenameswereon the committee. The President said,"Yes,there'sone."I saidto him, "l don't know what you're going to do aboutthis." Not long afterthis, the Presidentoverturnedthe Vice President's decision.In addition,I hadpeople,includingRegents,periodically checkingin to seehowthecasewasgoing. Owen noted the importanceof understanding"the mechanismsof the processbecauseit is importantin showing evidencethat points to bias in the process." Owen relied on emotional and political support "within Ethnic Studies, colleagueson c^mpus, family, and parts of the administration.It was very helpful when people indicatedthey believedin what I was doing. People'swillingness to mobilize, talk to people, organize some means of appealing-people's loyalty becamevery important. Emotionally, what was most supportivewas my family, the program, th€ outrageat how they [the university] could do this, someonearticulatingthe ouffagefor you, and validation,your paltnerneedsto expressthis." Owen believed that his experiencewas a lessonin the "continuouspossibility of arbitrary injustice" that should never be under€stimated,and that "this kind of thing can happen and [one must not] be prey to cynicism [becauseit happens]."

The Case of Marge: Three Reviews Marge, a tenured Asian American female professor in the Departmentof Psychology at a state university, was denied a merit increase(promotion) for the 1978-1980 period. She was the only ethnic minority faculfy member in her department.Her promotion battle began four years following the denial and ended three years later-"an incredibly long time for a pittance promotion." With no statuteof limitation on appeals,Marge evaluatedthe prospectsof obtaining a fair appealdecision,given the compositionof who was in power. Until the arrival of a new vice-chancellor-four years after her department denied her promotion-she had not believedjustice would prevail. Thus, there were four years of "hiding my hurt and anger followed by three more years of feeling my hurt and anger." Marge filed an appealto the new Vice Chancellor.This casechronicles the processby which this negative decisionwas eventually overturned.

100

Chalsa M. Loo and Maia Chun

Over this seven-yearspan of time, the position of chair of her department thrice changed."The first Chair, who was in power when my promotion was denied.would not listen to reason."The secondchair put in writing material that Marge's attorneyeventuallyused to demonstratebias and a violation of the university's procedures.The third chair, who held this position at the time the denial was rescinded,was "perhaps the only decentman in the department." In the process of securing material for her appeal, Marge uncovered a lengthy history of bias. Evidence that pointed to a pattern of discrimination helped her win retroactivepay, retroactivepromotion, and a workers' compensation claim. What is most notable about this case is the thoroughnesswith which Marge challenged every procedural error, every erroneous accusation, every statementthat reflected bias, and at every opportunity, presentedcontradictory evidence to the department'sfalse conclusions-all of which together laid the legal foundation for a successfulappeal.As her attorney once said to her: "You were your own attorney." [The denial] especiallyafter I was alreadytenured-was very unexpectedand I learnedthat tenuredoesnot meanyou're out of the markedlydistressing. wasextremelystrong.lt woods.My recordfor the periodunderconsideration causefor a denial.I cameto realize was a shock.Therewas no reasonable Prejudiceis blind to throughit all thatracialandgenderbiasis not reasonable. reality.Racismis blindto fact. Going into the promotion review, Marge was confident about her research and publication accomplishments.In the fwo-year period coveredby the review, she had been awarded a large, coveted three-yearresearchgrant from the National Institute of Mental Health, a study intendedto test a number of social science theories and to provide groundbreakingdata relevant to public policy. In that two year span,she had publishedtwo articles in professionalpeer-reviewed journals, had given ten presentationsat professional conventions' and was awarded fellow statusby the American PsychologicalAssociation for "significant contributions to the professionof psychology." Despite this record of accomplishment,and by a mixed vote, the tenured faculty in her departmentdenied her a step promotion. In her efforts to overturn the denial, Marge secured an attorney and the assistanceofthe ombudsperson.She filed an appealand requestedher confidential personnel file. Following subsequentactions, Marge asked the second department chair to rectif the underpromotion, she secured support outside of the departmentand university, and ultimately filed a workers' compensationclaim. In her appeal,Marge cited sectionsof the AcademicPersonnel Manual that the department had violated. First, the department had failed to evaluate all the work ihat she had submitted. Marge submitted evidence from the department's administrative analyst demonstratingthat two articles and one awarded grant proposal that had been submitted for this review had not been reviewed and had nevir been submitted for any previous review, contrary to the claim of the de-

AcademicAdversityandFacultyLYarriors

t01

partment chair. When Marge brought this matter to the chair's attention,he refused to acknowledge any error. Second, the departmenthad violated a sectionof the personnelmanual by failing to establishthe role of the candidatein any joint authorship.Marge had coauthoreda chapter with a historian.She suspectedthat when the review committee statedthat Marge's work was of questionablevalue to the field of social sciences,the departmentmistakenly assumedthat the historical portion written by the historian had been written by Marge. In the appeal, Marge challenged every statementby the department that was false or reflectedbias. Marge had been given an authorizedleave ofabsence (for grant one year and one quarter) from teaching on campus because her research punished for not Uougtrt out her salary for that period. "l felt that I was being my approved had bein-gon campus when the departmentchair and university leave to be off-campusto conductresearch." The chair's summary statedthat Marge had shown "less than expected conscientiousnessin supervisingstudentsin individual study." In the appeal,Marge assertedthat she had canied two studentsin independentstudy, one as a favor to the studentsince she was on authorizedleaveofabsenceand thus not required to take on any teaching responsibilities. since that left only one student who could stuhave made such a complaint, Marge argued that elevating the opinion of one reasonable. or objective not was letter the chair's given in dent to the importance criticized for limited service to her university and department,Marge protreatment vided evidenceto prove the statementfalse while pointing to disparate promale based on race and gender in regard to departmentalservice.A white penalized fessor,who had performed no servicefor the department,had not been for nonservice when he came up for promotion. The department chair's summary assertedthat Marge "had irregular attenthat dance at department meetings." In her appeal, Marge provided evidence meetdepartment all when she was not on authorized leave, she had attended punished for not attendingdepartmentmeetingswhile on authorized ings. Being -*entirely unreasonable."The coordinatorof academicpersonnelwrote lelve was in responseto Marge's requestfor informationon this matter: hasdemthat if a [department] The privilegeand Tenurecommitteeassumes thiir supportof a facultymember'sgrantby givingthema-leavethat onstrated they cannotexpectthat faculty memberto servethe departmentduring that tim". tr, in fact it is felt thata facultymemberis not carryinghis/herweightin the departmentthen the departmentshouldnot havegranteda leavein the first place. he The vice-chancellorconcludedthat proceduralerrors had been made, and read instructed the department to conduct a rereview. In the meantime, Marge through her confidential personnel file and discovered what she and her attorney When perceived to be a pattem of discrimuration beginning from her first hire' at a hired it4urg. was hired, .shehad a Ph.D. and two publications;yet she was

102

ChalsaM. Loo andMaia Chun

rank and salary less than a white woman in the departmentwho had had no publications and who had not yet attained her ph.D. In the next review after Marge was hired, the departmenthad apparentlyrecogaizedMarge for her achievements in securing a large researchgrant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development by recommending an acceleration,but the recommendation was disapprovedat the chancellor'slevel. The chancellor'sreasonfor the disapproval was becausean accelerationwould result in a "premature considerationfor tenure. . . ." Marge argued to the vice-chancellor that: "This rine of reasoning would make accelerationsimpossible to attain---obviously, an accelerationresutts in earlier considerations in future reviews,but if this is to be avoided,then no one should be granted an acceleration."clearly the university was granting accelerations to others in the department"but only to white males." The AcademicPersonnelManualstatesthat a committeeshouldnot hesitateto endorsea recommendation of accelerated advancement whenthereis evidence ofunusualachievement andexceptional promiseofcontinuedgrowth. As part of the appeal, Marge collected data on publications, researchgrant awards,number of citationsto publicationsin the Social ScienceCitation Index (the most objective reflection of the quality of scholarly research),length of employment and cunent step, comparing her record with the white and male faculty in the departnent. Marge's number of publications and grant awards were comparable to those of white males who had been acceleratedabove her. The number of citationsto her work in the SocialScienceCitation Index far exceededthoseof two other faculty who had been promoted above her and was comparable to a faculty member who had been promoted three years ahead of her. Thus, she argued that by the most widely used academic index of scholarly work, the data revealedthat Marge had beensubstantiallyunderpromotedand underpaid. The departmentcompletedthe first of what would become three rereviews and voted unanimouslyagainstgranting Marge a merit increase."My belief in a meritocracy,faimess,and justice had been shattered.I just couldn't believe it." The departmentoffered two reasonsfor denying the merit increase.First, they argued that Marge "could some time later requestan acceleratedmerit increase or promotion when the researchcarried out under the current grant proposal producesits findings and she publishesthem in a book or journals.,' Marge had demonstratedher scholarly worth for the two years in review; she felt there was no reasonablejustification for delaying her promotion with no guaranteeof future remedy. Second,the department claimed that new ground had not been broken by her researchgrant proposal,a criteria that had never been applied to the promotion of white faculty for a merit increasepromotion. Marge and her supporterstook exception to the department'srationale.The director of chinese for Affirmative Action, Henry Der, wrote to the university, specifically offering the argument that Marge's researchwas groundbreaking. Moreover, he questionedwhether the department had unfairly penalized her becauseof her researchin an ethnic minority community and her involvementin

Academic Adversity and Faculty Warriors

103

university affairs that promote ethnic minority studentparticipation. To this last point, the department chair had previously advised Marge that harm would come to her if she served on the division's Affirmative Action Committeewhose goal was the hiring of more minority faculty. Marge served on the committee, never believing the threat was real. Marge's attorney brought the caseto the attention of a member of the Board of Regentsand an assistantto the speakerof the stateassembly.He wrote: "Her fight revolves around both the unfair treatment accordedher and the granting of merit increasesand in the insensitiveperceptionsof Asian Americans. She has been denied merit increaseswith qualificationsmuch greater than white males who have received such increases.. . ." Meanwhile, back at the department,anotherwhite male replacedthe first as chair. Hoping to head off more conflict, Marge met with him to provide him with the comparative data and requestedthat the departmentaccelerateher in order to rectiry past underpromotions.Marge had also been offered a job elsewhere and she so informed the chair. The chair indicatedthat he personally felt she was a valuable colleaguebut that he neededto consult other senior faculty. Having consultedthem, he then advisedMarge to respondto a solid offer from elsewhereand stated that he could not recommendan accelerationbecauseof the "feelings" of some faculty. Marge's attomey suggestedthat she ask the chair to put this in writing, and he complied. Marge's attorneyused this document as evidence to demonstratebias on the part of the department. X hasbeen"very valuableto the [deThe Chair'sremarkthatwhile Professor partment]and campusin teachingandservice"but that it wouldbe "good for because some. . . facultyhave you to respondto a solidoffer from elsewhere policies."Feelings," violatespersonnel feelingsimpairingfull colleagueship" shouldhavc no place in an as emotionalreactionsand subjectivesentiments "informedand objectivejudgmentof qualificationsand performance"[AcaManual-I60 (la)]. By not restrictingits judgmentto criteria demicPersonnel and service-the departmenthad indicatedin the APM-teaching, research, violatedthe FacultyCodeofconduct... which statesthat "it is unacceptablc of facultymembersby criteria conductto evaluatethe professionalcompetence againsta performance" or to discriminatc not directlyreflectiveofprofessional facultymemberfor reasonsofrace, religion,sex,or ethnicorigin or for other arbitraryor personalreasons. Marge's attorney concluded:"Under the circumstances,I seriously question whether the Psychology [department]can be objective and non-biasedin judging Marge's performance." Marge believed that the chair of her merit review committeeinappropriately penalizedher for having secureda job offer from another academicinstitution. Marge had been asked how long she planned to remain and whether she would acceptanotherjob. "If I had been a white male and had received a job offer from another university, my value to the other faculty would have been enhanced. Instead, as a minority woman, a job offer was viewed as infidelity, thereby

104

ChalsaM. Loo and Maia Chun

decreasingmy value." Marge consultedthe coordinatorof academicpersonnel about this matter. The coordinatorrespondedby writing to the chair, citing the policies: "The policy for merit increasesdoes not addressfuture intentions to commitment . . . [only] demonstratedevidenceof what a faculty member has done in the last two yearsis applicablefor merit increases." Marge's advice to othersis to "solicit lettersof supportfrom scholarsfrom universities consideredequal to or superior to your university. They add credibility to your case and make more questionablethe criteria used by your department." For example,a letter sent to the vice-chancellorfrom the director of the Survey ResearchCenter at the University of Michigan (who knew the quality of Marge's work over the two years in question better than anyone in her department)referredto the department'sactions as "strangeand unbelievable," "by most standardsI would regard Marge as having achieved distinction, national recognition and scholarly accomplishmentthat year. . . She deserves very real congratulations."Such letters lay the foundation for suspicion about the standardsusedby Marge's department. Due to the distressMarge was experiencing,she was advised by her attorney to file a workers' compensationclaim. Three university administratorssent letters to her, alleging that she had breachedher contract by not continuing to teach there. Marge's attorneywrote to the vice-chancellorstating that if such a contractexisted,the universityhad failed in its responsibilitiesto Marge and had breachedthe implied covenantof good faith and fair dealing. From the number of reviews, the nature and extent of the irregularities and prior actions taken against her, her attorney maintained that the university's treatment of Marge deprived her of rights under stateand federal laws. The failure of the university to properly processand review her grievanceswas a sufficient basis alone to concludethat a breachhas occurred.But significantly, there is a direct relationship between her inability to teach in the upcoming academicyear and the irregularities in the review process.In other words, the university itself, through errors made in the processof review, had causedthe very situation it is now claiming as a breach of contract. By alleging breachesof contract as well, the university was only aggravatingher condition. The secondrereview vote was positive by a majority of the faculty. Finally,the promotiondueme was recommended, sevenyearslater,but even this victory was bittersweet. The summarycontainedinaccuratestatements, prejudicialomissions, discriminatory and criteria,andbiasedtone,terminology, biascdweightingof evidence. Thosefacultywho refusedto altertheir voteaditmittedto imposinga morerigorousstandard thanthepsychologyprofession They alsoignored selfusesfor acceptance ofan originalarticlefor publication. theevaluations of extemalreviewers who wereexpertsin herfield. Marge receiveda merit increase,retroactivepay, and retroactivepromotion. Her workers' compensationcase was found compensable,and the universify made a monetary settlement.

ro5 ,n".^,""ii^i|J;, *:;'::;;*Bu,,ies,, Mommy,you tell me who'sbadto you,andI,ll go kickthem. Holly was an Asian American woman, a differentialpsychologistemployed at a state university, the only Asian Amerjcan in her depart..ni. H., tenure had been denied.The quote, which introducesthis chapter,was hers.The ,,terminal illness" she refers to involved the emotional impact of ,,anger,depression, and anxiety" over the "loss of my careerand professionalidentityJ' Holly describedher case,which lasteda year and affectedher husbandand eight-year-oldson, besidesherself, as "markedly distressing."Her son,s desire to protect and comfort his mother was reflected in his statements to her: "Mommy, I don't know if you should go to school if they don't like you. They just don't know you." Holly saw "no justification" for the denial of her tenure.Just as owen had done, she searchedfor explanationsfor the denial. politically, she reasonedthat she "was not part of the departmentalnetwork." Her office, physically separated from the psychology department in another building, was a metapiror for her psychologicalseparationfrom the rest of the depanment. Holly was the only differential psychologist in her department.She based her appeal to the chancellor on grounds of "discrimination within the profession-one group of specialistswithin her professiondiscriminatedagainst and misunderstoodthe work of another group of specialists."Holly argued that the denial of her tenure had nothing to do with her accomplishmentsbut everything to do with reviewers who were incompetentto judge her work and antagonistito differential psychology. She also argued that the tenure committee had not followed the proceduresof the university'spersonnelmanual. one,thestrengths for whichI washiredarenow evaluated asweakncsses: Two, my researchwas evaluatedliom the viewpointof experimentar psychologyrather than from the viewpoint of my field (differentialpsychology; whereinAPM [AcademicPersonnel Manual]210-l specifies that..promotion to tenurepositionsshould be basedon consideration of comparable work in the candidate's own field or in closelyrelatedfields,"thereis considerable evidence thatthiswasnot followedin my case.The evaluation of my promotionto tenure wasnot basedon criteriaappropriateto the field in which I washired.In a departmentcomposedalmostentirelyon experimental psychologists, I am the only behavioralgeneticistand am also a differentialpsychologistDifferentialpsychology,with its focus on individualdifferences, is one subdiscipline of psychology;the other is experimentalpsychology,which focuseson generallaws underlyingbehavior.The long-standing differences with respectto philosophical foundations,theories,methods,goals,and substantiveconcemsbetwecnthese two orientationsare well documented.Thesedifferenceswere set forth in a presidential addressas well as a keynoteaddressto the Americanpsychological Association by the stanfordpsychologist Lee cronbach,"The Two Disciplines of scientificPsychology"(1957)and"BeyondtheTwo Disciplines of Sciintific

106

ChalsaM. Loo andMaria Chun

Psychology" (1975). I will briefly cite someof Cronbach'spoints becauserlrey show that the most important criticisms of my researchare criticisms by experimentalists of differential psychology in general and hence are not criticisms of my work from the viewpoint of my field; Three, despitepositive external reviews,departmentalcriticisms reflected the experimental bias; Four, my primary researchfocus and its implications for method and theory in my ficld wcre virtually ignored; and Five, after the letters were rcceived, an important safeguardprocedure was violated-the department failed to provide me with a summary of the exffamural letter or the opportunity to respond to them after the department's first vote, which was damagingbecausemy departmenthad no specialistin my field to interpret the extemal letters.While a secondmeeting was convened in an attempt to correct this violation, I am concemed that the second meeting was viewed by some members as pro forma. The extent to whicb such an eror can be corrected by a secondvote is far from obvious. My colleagues' own research shows that impressionsonce formed are difficult to change.

Holly argued that "the department failed to conduct a fair and procedurally proper review." She framedher argumentacademically,using citations to scholarly works to inform the chancellorabout discriminationwithin her field. Holly also expressedcynicism that her casewould be treated with fairness when the original parties who were biasedinitially were being askedto correct their own error; she cites researchto show that "impressions once formed" are "difficult to change" in her challengeto the department. Pointing to an €ntrenchmentof bias in her department,Holly noted an increasing discrepancybetweenthe majority's opinion on the one hand and the opinion of extemal reviewerson the other hand. A seriousdiscrepancy existsbetweenthedepartmental majorityopinionandthe opinionofthe extemalreviewers, a discrepancy thatgrewevenlargerthis year with furtherexternalletterssolicited. Where there existeda discrepancybetweenthe opinions of external reviewers and that of one's department,she argued that the external reviewers who were expertsin her field, shouldbe given more credence. I believethat the judgmentsof expertswithin my specialtyshouldbe given to havcbeenthecase. moreweightthanappears Her responsepoints to pertinent teaching evaluationsmissing from the department's evaluation. "The chair's letter includes ratings for all my undergraduate courses except the course of my area of expertise in which I received the highest ratings." She arguedthat its absenceprecluded a fair review. A rereview was conductedand a new set of [external] letters solicited. In her letter to the vice-chancellor,Holly pointed out the flaws in the rereview.

AcademicAdversityand Faculty llarriors

107

Despitcfrrrtherevidence_of productivityandi'ther positivcassessments of thc qu{iry of my research'the vote of th. a"purtnent remainssplit, with a narrow majori-f againstmy promotionto renure.rhe rollowrig Q -fi;r;;;-,h; r---'-'' departnent'sre-revicwofmycase: l. While a n

providei;:lJ#il1:;ffiiifi :l',T';,ff T'j:ffi ill,,ll,lli,"il

particularlydiffrcult to changethc mindsetof somedeparrnintalcorleagueswhenthe candidate,s specialtyis uniqueto tt, Orprrurren!the acadcmicphilosophies,methods,and goalsoi *,, ,_Aalt"is subdisciplinc differ significantlyfrom thoseof her departmental ,oll""g.r", and when traditionaristsof the two subdisciplincshave historicaily tendedto strongly devalueeachothcr,s work, and *f,"o ifr. depart_ mentalprogram in which thc candidatewas hired has formaily Lcen climinatcd.andtherecruitnentstrategyin thedcparnn"ntt ^ clungcA. 2' In spitc of the effort to correct seieral proceiurar errors in the rereview,thereis no attemptto corrcctthc specificconceptual enor that my researchcontinuesto be evaruatedfrom the viewp-oint of experimcntalpsychologyratherthanfrom the viewpointof my field anOmy primary research its implicationsior methodand theory in f*r--*9 my fierd are stilr virtualry igpored.Thus,thc cvaruationor.y pro,'o, tion to tenurecontinuesto be basedupon criteria inappropriatc to thc ficld in which I washircd.

Holly reiterated the point that a rereview does not guarantee fairness. In fact, it can provide the.department with an opportunity to"..rt""n up;, it, pror"dural errors, thus affording the facurty of colorfewe, fiu*, upon *hi.h,"'*g"" that bias or discrimination occurred. Minority faculty are well advised to be vigilant to the possibitity that a re-review may not lead to a reversal of a previous decision In this case, the procedural ,rroi *u, corrected. Holly continued to point to inappropriate criteria used in both reviews that had not been corrected. writing to the vice-chancellor at her campus, this Asian American criticized the manner in which her chair handled the matter: ..The chair's discussionswith me about the department's review were intimidating, insulting, and abusive.,, She attacked the competence of the committee and rioted its ai'maging impact:

"the committeemisinterpTtl its promotionpolicy to my detrimentiy denigating my professionaland scholarlyachievemenb." At a conference,a legislativeaid, who knew of Marge'ssuccessfuleffort to overturna negativepromotiondecision,advisedMargeof Holly's tenuredenial. Both women spoke-Fbtlowing Marge's advice,Holly soughtthe help of chinesefor Affrmative Action. Henry Der's letter in suiport ir Hotty praisedher r9c9rd,notedthe apparentflaws in the review,and remindedthe deiartment of their commihnentto ethnicdiversity. It appears from our examination of therecordthatthedepartment by its own admission wasill-equipped to cvaluatethequalityof Hoily,swork . . . after solicitingan unusuallylargenumberof lettersfrom expertsin trersuuncta,

108

ChalsaM. Loo andMaia Chun departmental criticsignoredthe overwhelmingly positiveassessment of [her] work. . . . GivenHolly's outstanding recordand the questionable practicesin the tenurereviewprocess,CAA is puzzledandbotheredthatthe Departmentof Psychology hasvotedtwiceto denyhertenure.CAA takesnoticethatHolly is the only ethnicminority professorand one of very few femalesin the department.. . . In response to President Z's call to all Chancellors to reaffirmthe University'scommitment to achievingracialandethnicdiversityon eachcampus . . .you havethe opportunityto fulfill the commitmentto faculty ethnicdiversity.Holly deserves to bc grantedtenurenot becausesheis an Asian Americanbut because shehasbeenan outstanding AsianAmericanprofessorwith a strongrecordofpublication, research, andexcellence in teaching.

Even though Holly felt she did not need legal representation,she viewed an attorney's presenceas "psychological insurance,"akin to securing flight insurancebefore embarkingon a potentiallyhazardousplanehip. One year later, Holly was awardedtenure.Her son greetedher with glee in his voice: Mommy,Mommy,you wonl I'm so proudof you. You won at a gamewhere thebulliesteated you bad! This experience taught Holly "much about systems,how they work and don't work, about the importanceof networking, about being aware of important networks, about being a political person,and about subtle as well as overt discrimination."

The Case of Dave: The Misinterpretation of Criteria Dave was the program coordinator of Asian American Studies at a large state college. Facing a denial of promotion to full professor,this Vietnam veteranfelt "attacked" by a different "enemy" on a different battlefield. His experiencein academicwarfare was "considerablydistressing"as "it constitutesan attack on your integrity. It is "an illegitimate attack," reflecting "a lack of integrity" on the institutionor committee'spart. The denial was "very unexpected"because"l qualified for promotion and my record was quite good," Dave stated. Angered and stressedby having his "record and credentialsquestioned,he appealedthe decision within the requisite sevendays." Like the others, Dave felt "absolutely no justification " for being denied a promotion. "In my opinion, my record was far better than anyone else on the committee." However, his record was not a traditional one and those judging him were from traditional departnents. Beingan administrator of an EthnicStudiesunit, noneof thoseresponsibilities werc appreciated by this {review]committee.It is very easyfor Asian Ameri-

AcademicAdversitvandFacultv Warriors

109

can Studicsfaculty to presumethat othersthink as I do--that what I do has value becauseI value what I do-but one must be cognizantthat othersoften do not seethingsasI do. In retrospect, Dave reflected on preventative measures he could have taken-market yourself. Thcy [thc traditionaldeI couldhavedonea betterjobmakingmorealliances. partmentsl haveno ideawhatI [AsianAmericanStudies]do.You haveto market yourself.Get out thereas a professionalandeducatepeopleto inform them of whatyou aredoing,how it serves[theuniversity],how you'remakingcontributions,and how thesecontributionsare different.I am different,andthat's andrcsponwhy I cxist,but I don't wantto be seendifferently.[Our outcomes sibilitiesare] manifesteddifferently.lt's complex,and no one has explored thesequestions. Dave reminds us that the composition of the review committee: "is a crap shoot. Had I a strong advocateon that committee,this [outcome] would be different." it is easyto The Academicworld is supposedto be collegial.Consequently, but theydon't.Peopleactout thinkthatthingsoperatebyjustnessandfairness, Althoughthereis someintegrity,but what someoneelsedefines of self-interest. asintegritymaynotmatchyourdefinitionof integrity. and strengthofsupport" Dave was "pleasantlysurprisedat the steadfastness the denied promotion. in of on campus light from colleaguesand administrators treated.We're going that were beliefs "You unfairly their Others communicated " "knew the stanhim his appeal, who helped revise to help you. One colleague, of stanapplication to] the improper discover helped dards quite well [and] [him dards." Citing the RTP standardsat his university, Dave's rebuttal argued that the review committeehad misinterpretedthe criteria for promotion. Committeeandthe This letterappealsthe decisionsby the School'sPersonnel appealrestson the My to professor. for promotion me Deanto not recommend and improperlyapplythe University argumentthat they seriouslymisinterpret . . . Thercaretwo basiccriteria Tenure,andPromotionStandards. Retention, and(2) scholarlyor "(l) effectiveness in academicassignment, for evaluation: The committee'sbasicconcernof "scholartisticor professionalachievement." arshipand the relatedprofessionalactivity" ignoresthe critcria which doesnot andprofesin scholarship achievement mustdemonstrate statethata candidate in scholarlyor achievement sionalactivitybut thathe or shemustdemonstrate activitY. professional One word-'(6J"-1ryss pivotal to Dave's evidence that improper criteria had been used. In addition, he reiterated his record of accomplishments in

I l0

Chalsa M.LooandMariaChun

professional activities(asthe alternative to scholarlyachievement), a recordnot mentioned in thecommittee's report. In 1985,I organized.a sessionandpresented a paperto the prestigious AmericanHistoricalAssociation.I havebeeninvitedto presenta paper at the meeting of the organization. of AmericanHistorians,thi leading'organization in the field of AmericanHistory.Since19g4,I havepresented rJur o-therpapers,with anotherscheduled for March,andbeena discussant at threeothersessions. ,.. Have my contributions^b^een acknowredged? My work hasbeenrecognizedby electionas Directorof four.professionar organizations, five consuriantships, and numerouslectureinvitations.I chairthc outstandingBook e*.rJ co._ mitteefor a professional association. I participated in an NEH summerSemi_ nar,and won an MpppA Awardfrom [thisuniversity.]The Schoorcommittee did not seefit to mentionanyofthesein theirreport. Dave delineatedhow he met the other criteria-effectiveness in academic assignment-and how the committee ignored mentioning his achievementsin their evaluation. "Teachingis primary"statesAcademicsenatepolicy Fg7-r. . . . The School committeeentirelydisregards thisguideline.I askthecommittee to takea close look at my studentevaluations, which consistently placcme aboveuniversity norms.PleasenotethehighproportionofGE I teach,a categorygener"ou.i* ally more difficurtin which to scoreweil. Look croseryat . . . the"verytarge numberof different coursesthat I teach-and take note of the fact that everv semester I teachan overload!pleaselook carefuilyat my recordof serviceto studentsand this university.. . . I havebeena faculty ,ponro, for four student organizations. . . . I took a leadingrole in the committeewhich established the Division of cultural pluralismin the Schoolof social sciencesand was the prime moverin devero_ping its first course,curturarprurarisml, approvedby the Boardof Generalstudicsfor next falr. I servedon sevenuniveisity com1i,ttee1over the pastfive years.. . . upon the Dean'srequest,I createdthe School'sstudentAffirmativeActionTaskForcc.To characterize my performancein this categoryas "more thanadequate" is to damnwith faini iraise. A more appropriatecharacterization of my accomplishments in AcademicAs_ signmentmight bc "exemplary." I find the fairureof the committeeandDeanto folrowuniversitypolicies mostdisturbing.Are they implyingthat my professional achievcmenl'asweil as my performance in teachingandmy scrvicesto theAsianAmericanshrdics Program,the schoolof social sciences,the University,andthe rargersociety are not worth considering? I hope not. It appearsto me, howevei,that the Schoolcommitteeand the Deanhavearbitrarilyconstructed their own sct of criteriafor promotion. Dave's rebuttal concluded in this manner. It is evident,as this appealwill show,thatunderany reasonable interpretation of standards for publications, publicserviceandintemational reputation, I have

AcademicAdversityand FacultyWarriors

III

met suchstandards. Rej,ection on thesegroundsindicatesthatthe TpRC hasnot understood thenatureof my conhibution to theUniversity. Two months later, the denial was overturned. This wasa big growingexperience for me . . . I cannotassume thatthepieceof work speaksfor itself. I h-1veto lay the groundwork.. . . This was a reality checkof the poriticarworrd.No matterhow goodI am professionally, I stiil haveto pay particularattentionto thepoliticsof thematter.you have io make firm allianccswith thosearoundyou. Dave advisesother faculfy of color who battle academicadversity ..repeat to to [yourselfl over and over again-the expertisein your field lies with you. Lean on your authority. you know what you,re talking about. Then you need to communicatein a languagethey will understand." I haveto gainthoseailiances. . . . I stilrlive in a societywhereour performance is not goodenough.peoprerewardthosetheyhavean affinity for . . . I do not live in a world governedsorelyor principalryby meritocracy. . . . whire this appliesto €veryone,it is morc manifestfor ethnicminoritiesand women in non-traditional fields.You haveto persuade themthatyou,reoneof them.That you'rejust as much of a scholar.you haveto convincethemthat you,re advancingthe fierd, that you are at the cuttingedge.you must do this in their way.{Presentit as aJcommongoalrathertt,antt"t you areat odds.you areredefiningtheirworld. Dave galvanizedhis angertoward his objectives: In orderto do something,you reailyhaveto be angry.I wantedto humiliate thesepeoplejust astheyhadhumitiated me.I cameto the conclusion thatthese wereincompetentyo-yos.. . . what motivatedme was rearizinghowstupid and ignorantthesepeoplewere.I imaginedI hadan ax in my hand I wiote the [as appeal].I had to be very focusedin wriringthe appeal,and brankeverything elseout.I wenton theattack. Dave's advicefor life thereafter:" The bestrevengeis to live a good life.,'

The Case of Joe: The Sword of Damocles Joe is a professor in a marginalizeddepartment-an interdisciplinaryprogram called comparative cultures. He was denied a promotion during his midcareer review. His approach to overturning the negative decision lay in ippealing to the top administratorat his university and providing rebuttalto ttre committee'scriticisms of his work' Joe's caselastedtwo monthsbefore the denialwas overturned. Although not lengthy in duration, its effects were ..markedly dishessing.,'The

112

Chalsa M. Loo and Maia Chun

denial was "very unexpected.My publications were low but my teaching evaluations were excellent.Basically,their evaluationwas saying-'You suck! you're not doing anything right.' . . . I didn't expectit would be all negative!" Joe refuted the committee's "woefully understated evaluation" of his teaching. Besidesstudentevaluations, thereareotherindicationsof my teachingeffectiveness,suchas the increasingsizeof my Introductionto Asian American Studiescourse(from 2l to morethan80),the numberofgraduatestudentsfrom other departments that haveenrolledin my seminarsor in independentsfudies, andthe timesI havebeeninvitedby honorstudentsto participatein the Honors Convocation. . . in short,I contendthat my teachingis much betterthan "slightly aboveaverage." The decisionto denyme a promotionis neitherconstructive nor a positive inducement. Instead,the decisionis punitivein that it diminishesthe work I havedonethusfar. . . . The only message I get from this tentativedecisionis to dropdeadsincerefusalof promotionat this stageis tantamount to earlydenial of tenure. Insteadof being givcn an opportunityto resolvethis matterin a timely and orderlymannerduringthe academicyear,I mustnow probablywait several monthswith the swordof Damocles danglingovcr mc, beforea final decision is reached. Joe identified stagesto his emotional reactions:first, "shock; second,anger and shame;third, the desirefor revengeand mobilizationto action." First, I believedthat if you workedhard,it would get recognized. That went right out the window.Second,I believedthatthereis an objectivestandard of faimess.That was shattered. Third, I thoughtmy colleagueswere trustworthy, but I cameto realizethat I wasbetteroff arguingthis myself.One sidesays, "You're shit."The othersidesays,"You're doinga goodjob." It destroyed my belief in collegialitywith EthnicStudiesprofessors. Thesecolleaguesnever said,"l'll fight it." It was,"You fight it." Fourth,thisdenialshattered my belief in myself as an agentof change;it left me feelingpowerless, impotent.I felt alienationin theMarxiansense.An estrangemcnt from othersandmyself. His senseof security also "Went right out the window. I knew as a kid there was no justice, but it isn't until it hits you personally that it really sinks in." Joe's analysis was that "the institution has standardsthat do not reflect what people in Ethnic Studiesshould be doing." As he judged it, the standardswere "antagonistic." Joe experiencedsimilar reactionsto the traumaof a midcareerdenial. The parallels[of my experience in academia]to the combatsoldierareperhaps much strongerthanyou think. While the physicalintegity of professorsdenied merit increases or tenureis not endangered, their responses can simulatethe

AcademicAdversityandFaculty lltarriors

I 13

physicalreactionsof a combatsoldier.In my case,the immediatedesireafter preferablya person learningof my meritdenialwasto physicallyhit someone, involvedin the tenureprocess.During the first few days,I wasverballyabusivc in the hopesthat if obnoxiousenough,someonewould hit me, thenI could physicallywreakvengeance. It didn't reallymatterwhetherI won or lost this fight, althoughin my hcadtherewas little doubtthat total annihilatingvictory would be mine. All that countedwas that I could sink my fist into something tangible.This was similar to my brother'sbehaviorwhen he retumedfrom Vietnam.He would often provokepeople,daringthem to hit him, evenhis brothers. This pointsto a secondparallel. . . which for me was thc mostnegative effectof this incident.Until thismess,I believedin theintegrityof mostof my Afterwards,I trustedvery few colleagues,insideand outsideofthe department. of them,eventhosewho profcssedstrongsupportfor me. I felt, andstill do, that mostof themcouldn'tbc counteduponin a crunch.That'show my brother felt aboutmany of his fellow troops.. . . With regardto my brothcr,many a of his actionwouldbe I felt any questioning silencebecause time I maintained as a signof disloyalty.With themeritdenial,[my wife] occupied misconstrued that unenviableposition.I wasreachingthe point that I believedthatperhaps I hador of something shethoughtthe denialwasin somewayjustifiedbecause on paranora. hadn'tdone.Thishadto be bordering Writing the appealdiffusedJoe's anger. my energyawayfrom physicalactsof violence Writing the rebuttalredirected my faith the loyaltyof thoseclosestto me,but it neverrestored andquestioning or the institution.Trust is fragilcundcrthe in the integrityof my colleagues paper{hin.Ironically,although With stress,it becomes bestof circumstances. it alsomade the rebuttalpositivelydirectedmy emotionsandpsychicenergies, me morc fatalistic.First,the time and energyI usedto composethe rebuttal beneficialto my case.Secme from doingresearch anddiscouraged distracted as someonewho "bitcher," me as a rebuttal forever labels ond t believethe whineswhen the gameisn't playedmy way. For many,I was probablyalso What wascrucialto the rebuttalasa meansof seenas a potentialtroublemaker. thatyou arefightingback.Evenif you lose, the trauma was belief dealingwith thatyou didn'ttakeit lyingdown. thereis a certainamountof satisfaction .'The vice-chancellorfrom Heaven" oveffurned the denied promotion. But "the attack on the self, the humiliation, the loss of integrity" lead to fears of going up for fuhrre review: "I didn't want to go through it again," but three years later, Joe came up for tenure. Anticipating that there would be difficulties, he spoke with Owen at the Associationfor Asian American Studies(AAAS) annual meeting. "For me, the incident shows the importance of professionalties and having top ranked Asian American administratorsin the system." In addition, Joe obtained copies of the appealsof other Asian American faculty in order to assess"different tactics to fight back." He did achievetenure,but the university eliminatedJoe's department,and he now works as a faculty-at-large.

[i [:

114

Chalsa M. Loo and Maia Chun

The Caseof Marie: A Million Dollar Settlement Mariewasan AsianAmericanwomanon thefacultyin the Schoolof Architecnle at oneof thetop universitiesin ttrecountry.Her ten-yeartenurebattlerequired.,an army of attorneys."of all eightcasesdescribedin this chapter,Marie's casewas thelongestandfinanciallythemostcostly.Lookingback,shereflected: The bizarrebehaviorsthat [I] a 28-year-old,femaleAsian Assistantprofessor elicitedfrom her older white malecolleagues rangedfrom cool isolationto unwelcomeattcntions.It was a no-win situation,and I resolvedto ignorethis peculiar environmentand concentrate on my work. As an untenured Assistantprofessor,I wa^riawarebut uncertainof the potentialimpactthat my differential trcarnentin the Departnentof Architecturewould haveon my eventualtenure bid. Althoughthe tenureprocessdid seemto be a prettycut and dry systemof 'publish or perish," at a gut level,I sensedI would probablyperishdesiite publishing.At a logicallevel,I wasawarethat therewerethe loudly trumpeted,so callcd "safeguards"and "checksand balances"and 'lersonnel-manualprocedures"thatsupposedly wouldprotectthc outcomcof thi tenurereviewfrom race or gendcr-based bias.Supportingthe notion that thereweresafeguards, was the idealisticMandarinchinesechantthat had been drummcdinto all of us kids which went somethinglike-'vork hard, don't complain,and you wiil succeed."However,due to my sixthsense,by now well developed by the relentless belittlements of academicracism,if I had to bet my life, I'd bet that I would be deniedtenure.Still, I was curiousto know on what basisthey could deny me tenuresincerelativeto my peers,I hadostensiblyfulfilledtherequirements. In 1985, Marie was denied tenure. concurrently, she received information from the campus Title IX officer that the contentsof her file were those of a person who normally gets tenure.Marie found that all refereeletters were positive and that the departmentalad hoc committee's report unanimously recommendedtenure. She saw no [legitimate] reasonfor the university to have denied her tenure.Marie filed a grievancewith the campus committee on privilege and Tenure (P&T), wherein she argued: l. The procedurefor departmental votingon whetherto grantme tenurewas highlyinegularandunfair;the Ad Hoc andBudgetcommitteesof the university . . . and the ArchitcctureDepartmentalcommitteeswere not given access to my completetenuresubmission; I wasnot givena fair opporfunity to rcspondto concernsallegedryraisedaboutmy candidacy;and at cvcry level ofreview the proceduresemployedto evaluatemy candidacywere inadequateto permit the reviewingbody to comprehend the natureof my area of expertiseandaccomplishments within thatarea. 2. subsequently and secretly,the chairmanof the Departmenthad illegally solicitcdand encouraged lessthanglowingrcfereelettersfrom personson campuswho were not in [my] fietd of study [they werefrom the Schoolof Enginecring] and[theselettersweresolicited]afterthe facultyvoted.Thus, a file that was devoidof negativematerialwas infectedwith ambivalent

4cademic AdversityandFacultyWarriors

I 15

lettersin a way that was botha seriousprocedural violationand an intentionalsabotage. The department chair then refened to these "added" referee letters in his summary of her tenure case to the dean. Marie also argued that the department chairman had "ripped out a number of her articles from a bound package, thereby sabotagingmy submissionof publications,then later defendedhis 'editing' on the basisof savingon Xerox costs." Following the review of her grievance by the privilege and renure committee (P&T), its chair wrote to the Architecture Department chairman stating that they believed Marie's grievance raised sufficiently serious questions or procedural errors that they were requesting a responsefrom the departnent. After receiving the chair's response,the committee made clear its view that procedural errors had been committed but left open the question whether any of the errors might have been prejudicial to the outcome of her case.The committee found that the chair had inserted a letter from a faculty member outside of the deparfinent which contained comments critical of Marie's work, that Marie had been given no opportunity to comment on this letter, and was not informed at the time she requesteda summary of the confidentialmaterial that this letter had been added to her file following her receipt of a summary of the departrnentaldeliberations. The P&T Committee recommendedthat the procedural violations of the first review be remedied by sendingthe caseback to the departmentfor a new review, this time including the three external letters from the School of Engineering at the university and Marie's responseto the summaries of the three lettersnow being provided to her. The new departmentchair's summary letter of this new vote would replacethat of the former chair's summaryto the dean. An Academic Senate Committee ordered the Architecture Department to review Marie's case a secondtime. In 1987, she was reviewed again and again denied tenure.Marie wrote that "the secondreview was a mockery of due process with the Department strongly voting against [me] this time. There was absolutely no discussionof the merits of [my] scholarly work. Instead,there was protest from faculty members that Ul did not deserveto have a new review." The committee's memo to the vice-chancellorstatedthat the agreementfor a "normal" rereview was not carried out; however, they also statedthat they did not believe that Marie would have been granted tenure in the absenceof these flaws becauseher case "was an extremely weak one." Accordingly, they recommendeda negotiatedsettlement.Marie's descriptionof theseeventsfollows: This committeefound proceduralviolationsat multiple levels.The Committee Chaircondemned[my] academicrecordwithoutprovidingany evidence to refutethe overwhelminglypositiveextramuralreviewerswho wereexperts justification in this professor'sfield. . . . The Committeeusedthis outrageous for a tenuredenial. This secondCommitteeconcludedthat the procedural violationshad no impacton the outcomeof the tenurereviewand that there wasno discrimination.

ll6

ChalsaM. Loo andMaia Chun

Meanwhile,Marie had filed an EqualEmploymentOppornrnityCommission (EEoc) complaintagainstthe university.universitycounselofferedher a monetarysettlementif she agreedto stop the ongoingEEoc investigation. Marie's attorneywrotebackthatthis wasunacceptable to her client. The chancellor'soffice andthe universityattorneyswantedher caseto go throughan "internalevidentiaryhearing""to determinewhethermultiple proceduralviolationsaffectedthe outcome."Mariebelievedthatthe purposeof sucha hearingwasto "further bankruptthe victim" by extendingthe lengthof time and requirements of an internalgrievanceprocedure,which might discourageher from suingthe university.Shenotedthat the lastgrievantto go throughan internal hearingprocessspent9120,000in legalfees.By thistime,Marieherselfhad incurredabout$150,000 in legalexpenses. While goingthroughthis [tenwebattle],I continuedto teach,waspregnant,. . . camedown with pneumonia, got threecrackcdribs, couldn'tstopwriting despitemy doctortellingmc to slowdown.It tookme oneyearto recoverphysically, . , , I felt hurt career-wise; it [my career]was destroyed. It was a real downeron my carcer. I had thoughtthat my recordcould standfor itself, but I was resentedfor my accomplishmcnts. Someoneadvisedme: "You shouldhave campaigned Ifor your tenure]." Procedural violationsthat literallybreakthe rulesandregulationsof the AcademicPersonnelManualarethetelltalesignsof discrimination. Procedural violations[were]merelythe symptomsof a basicproblemof biaswhcrcinat the department levcl,the qucstionof meritis pushedasidefor the issueof whetherthe femaleor non-whitecandidatcwill fit into the .,good old boy's club." They didn't want me in the club becauseof what I am-an AsianAmericanwomanwho'sprincipled.. . . It waspolitical,but on the part of the Chairmanof the department and othermembersof the faculty it was clearlymalicious. Considerthat additionalletters,from personsincreasinglyremotefrom the candidate'sfield are solicitedin batches.Theseletterscontinueto add to the file until oneor more letterswith evena hint of ambivalence is found.No matter how minutethe negativeor merelyambivalentreferenceis, the Deparhnent canthenblow it up to makea caseagainstthecandidate. The multiplereviewsystemis onewherea conclusion, evenonebasedon specious informationandconcocted speculation, couldbe replicated by passing it on to othercommitteeswhich rubberstampedit and augmentedit with additional speciousinformationandconcocted speculation, and fantasticrationalization. . . . The studentlctterswere largely glowing with praise.They werc dismissedasbiasedin my favor. It is very distressingbut this is an omnipresentreality at the University. First, therc is the personalambitionof faculty with administrativcpower who hunger for more administrativcpower or at leastwant to remain on thc good sideof the Administration. Second,thereis the fear of retributionand lossof acceptanceamongmost faculty for speakingout about wrongdoing by their own deparhnentcolleagues. With distressingregularity,individualsat *re

AcademicAdversityandFaculty llarriors

ll1-

Universityhave at bestbeensilentin public aboutthe wrong,which occurs thereandat worst. . . hayelied aboutwhat reallyhappened. The net effectis that thereis stonewallingof a complaintant and closingranksat all levelsof the University in treatinga tenuregrievantas an enemyto be vanquishedat all costs. I wentin with a cynicalview to beginwith. I didn'tbelievetherewasfairness.My perccptions ofpeopleasbasicallygoodwasnot shattered because basically,I think peopleare weak,andtherearepeoplewho are incrediblyevil and without integrity.The experience taughtme that therearc many fewer principledpeoplethanI thought. My attorneythoughtthat as soonas they [the administration]seethe facts, they wouldreversethe originaldecision.Whatmy attorneydid not realizewas the extentto which a universitywouldgo to blockmy tenure.I hadto hire an army of attomcys. Marie describesthe crucial role playedby her spouse. During my last semesterof teaching,the universityattomeystold the faculty not to talk to me. Students stopped talkingto me.Otherfacultytalkedaboutmy casein theirclasscs.No onewouldcometo my officehours.Othcrprofessors weresayinghow horribleI was.I felt ostracized. If I hadn'thadsomeone to go hometo who wasso supportive, I wouldhavecracked.I don't know if it would havebeenpossiblefor me to do this withoutthe financialsupportthatmy husbandgaveme. I couldnot do it if I.wasa singlcmother.. . . My husbandconvincedme it wasimportantenoughto fightandnotto worry. She reflectedon her experiencesand offers someadvice. After hearingthe horrorstoriesof individualsfightingthe academicGoliaths, many peoplerightfully would declareit is not worth the trouble.True, I've incurredabout$150,000in legal expenses thus far and spentsevenyearsin conflict with personswho haveno integrityand in institutionthat fi-ushating has no scruples.But for me, it was the right decision.I havethc satisfaction of vanquishingany doubtsthat racism,not my own failings,was the engine of my tenuredenials.. . . Most importantof all, I know that I am doing the right thing. Detachyour emotionsfrom what'shappening. Think of it as a principle andknow thatyou aredoingthe rightthing.You shouldnot takeit [thedenial] personally. It is the process.It shouldnot be seenas a personalissue.If it beginsto affectyou emotionally,look at it as a hobby.I told myself-I havea fttn andwonderfulfamily. I havea wonderfulpractice.I am a goodexamplefor my children.Followyourprinciplesifyou canaffordto do so. Although she admits that the money and time she expended on her case were "irretrievable" and was not awardedtenure.she did receive a tax-free settlementof one million dollars.

118

ChalsaM. Loo andMaia Chun

The case of charles: The Paralysis of professionarInvalidation For charles,an AsianAmericanprofessorin a schoolof Law at a stateuniversity, the denialof promotionwasdevastating. He describedtheexperiences as markedlydisfessing,paralyzing, a lossof total functioning,andexbemedcpression akin to the deathof someoneclose,an inability to recallthe incident,an unwillingnessto talk aboutit, paranoia,thehighestordcrof shess.A lossof selfest€em,self-deprccation, a paralysisin [one'scapacity]to [handle]professional responsibilities, angerandpermanentbinemesstowardindividualsregardingthe incident desiresfor revenge,[feelingsofl racialpersecution, and the dwelopment of a stoic and impenenable[persona]I becamea personwho would not engagewith othen.I developeda kind of scartiszue,the dcvclopmcntof cynicism,a total invalidationof my life, of whatI pursued,my activities.They made me feel like an inferiorperson.They weren'tjudging my competence, only what theythoughtwasrelevant. . . Theseweretotallyigaorantpeoplejudging me. charles believed the denial of his promotion was "probably maricious," possibly a covert way of deterring him from his work with Hawaiians. The same person [on the review committee] had been involved in the tenure denial of a minority activist in anotherdepartment.Despitethis attribution, chartes blamed himself "for not having protected himself better, for not having been better than the average white person, for not having figured out their standards,for not having doubled the number of his publications, for not being two times better than the averagegolden, fair-haired boys." To Charles, the Tenure, Promotion, and Retention Committee (TpRC) review appeared "terse. You couldn't tell whether they had read the application. They showed a low regard for the importance of community service. The way they viewed ttre world was narrow, so different from my own. This reconfirmed that a meritocracy was a fagade."He was angry to have to "dignify the act [of his denial] with a rebuttal and counter-argument." writing a rebuttal "required that the intense anger had to be converted into civil language"; which was very hard, so hard that he had to ask someoneto write his rebuttal becausehe was unable to respond in a coherentway. "I did not successfullycope. I had to rely on the kindnessof others." His departrnentcolleagueswrote lettersof support on his behalf. Nine months later the denial was overtumed. "It was hypocritical, wrong, insulting. I was unpreparedfor this. I retreatedinto a shell, a paralysis" that he believed lasted three years. "You have to really tune out how others appraise you and rely on your own evaluationsofyourself."

The Caseof Nick: InstitutionalGuerrilla Warfare Nick, a JapaneseAmerican male, was denied tenure at a prominent state university on the west coast. His battle representedan intenseand arduous political

AcademicAdversityandFaculty llaniors

I 19

and legal campaign. His case was notable for the wellspring of student and community support, which some considereda causecelebrein the struggle for Asian Americans in higher education.As his attorney wrote, "ProfessorNick's three-year fight for tenure is probably best describedas institutional guerrilla warfare-a classic David and Goliath struggle, pitting an emerging minority community and its allies againsta massive institution." Nick, a graduate of Harvard and Yale, was the acting director of an Asian American StudiesCenter and held a faculty position in the School of Education. He helped to found the oldest and most widely circulated scholarlyjournal on Asian Americans, the Amerasia Journal. He also served as one of the first presidents of the National Association of Asian American Studies,servedon numerous government commissions and boards of many community organizations, and was well respectedby many students. The School of Educationhad previously denied tenureto two Asian American faculty, and at the time of Nick's review, there were no tenured Asian American faculty in his school. Nevertheless,the denial of tenure was "somewhat unexpected" given feedback he had received from several colleaguesprivy to the internal review who relayed to him, "Don't worry about it. You have nothing to worry about." After severalpostponementsof meetingsto discusshis tenure file, a meeting was held at which time a secretletter opposing tenure was read to the faculty by the department chair. In a split vote, faculty voted for the denial of tenure. After Nick protestedthis procedural violation, a second vote was taken that resulted in a two-thirds majority vote in favor of tenure. The campus wide ad hoc review committee later overturned the favorable departmental recommendation, a recommendation that is rarely ovemrled. The attomey noted that Nick's teaching and service record were consideredby the departmentto be exceptional, and he had received outstanding letters from outside reviewers. However, the ad hoc committee criticized his work as "primarily descriptive." The ad hoc committee was split and a minority opinion was filed. The minority report described the reviewing aganciesas evaluatinghis work with "relentlessprejudgment." The file was then sent back to the department and a third departmental vote was taken.The dean of the school who was a vocal opponentof Nick's sat in on the departmentaldiscussionin an unprecedentedact, after which the faculty reversed its previous decision and voted to deny tenure. I knew the Deanwas opposedto me and was doing everythingin his power to it. To this day, makethe decisionas negativeas possible. . . and orchestrating I'm not surewhy he did it. I knewhim from the first day I got there.We served together.I didn't believehe had a personalanimositytowardme. on committees It wouldbc easyto sayhe wasracis!but to this day I can'tquiteacceptthal As part of the legal claim, his lawyers alleged that he was denied tenure for his outspokenrole in exposingadmissionsquotas againstAsian Pacific students at that campus. In addition, supporters suspectedthat his leadership at the Asian

120

Chalsa M. Loo and Maia Chun

American StudiesCenter also stirred political opposition.This warrior had long been an advocateof Asian Americanson campus.The centerhad strong student and community support and took standson issues. As much as one realizesthat thingscango wrongor that peopleact in maliciousways,whenit doeshappento you,you'renot quiteprepared for it. For as long as I hadbeeninvolvedin fightinginstitutions, I hadneverbeentrainedto fight for myselfin this way.. . . Tenuregoesto theheartof powerin reference to changingwho is admitted to theuniversity. Supporters included alumni, communiry groups, labor organizations, students, center staff, and faculty outside of the department.Over time, Nick received support from state legislative representatives, local politicians, national and statewideorganizations,ethnic media, and Asian American Studies faculty at other institutions. Nick was cognizantof the symbolic meaningthat supportersattachedto his case.His tenure battle was waged at a time when Asian Americans were underrepresentedin the public and private institutions.The caserepresentedthe "glass ceiling." I had to accepta celebritystatusthat I didn't quitewant.I realizedwhat my casehadbecome.It helpedto me to realizewhatmy casehadbecome.I wasa symbol.I hadto endure. The case demonstratedhow a legal and political strategycan be combined to win a case.His attorney stated,"l achievedvictory becauseI was able to develop a sound legal argument as well as a larger political strat€gy, capable of mobilizing thousandsof alliesnationwide."Nick filed and won two grievances. The secondgrievancefocusedon misconducton the part of the dean and chair. The Committee on Privilege and Tenure made the favorableruling, stating that "you have also made a prima facie case with regard to your allegations conceming Dean X's conduct during and prior to the formal review of your qualifications for promotion and tenure," referring to what seemedto be "a deliberate attempt to deny you tenure." After lengthy negotiations,the administration agreed to a number of demands,including the removal of negativerecommendationsfrom the file, exclusion of the dean from participation in the departmentalmeeting, and an additional year of employment if the tenure decision were negative. "Winning the grievancesaccomplished several things, most important of which was to discredit the dean and buy more time to wage the political campaign." In a final departmentalvote, the largestnumber of votes were cast in Nick's favor. It was now up to the chancellor. Though organizing political support was ongoing, it was at this critical juncture that the weight of the pressurecould direct the outcome.A broad range of groups and individuals demonstratedtheir support in different ways. Nick summarizedsome of the supporthe received:

AcademicAdversityandFaculty Warriors

l2l

It was after over one hundredand fifty Asian AmericanStudiesscholarsfrom acrossthe nation had written lettersof support;after the Los Angeles Times, the Asian Americanpress-had New YorkTimes,andothermedia---especially done personalstorieson my case;aftermany membersof the Universityof afterthe entire CaliforniaBoardof Regentshadcalledthe UCLA Chancellor; delegationfrom Hawaii and Californiawrote Asian Americancongressional lettersto the Chancellordemandingtenure;afterthe RepublicanGovemorof California,at the urging of the SoutheastAsian communityin OrangeCounty, tenure;afterI hadwon two intemalcamdemanding hadcalledthe Chancellor aftertheAsianAmericancommunityhadsentoverthreethoupus grievances; of dollarswereraisedin tenure;aftertensof thousands iand lettersdemanding arrayofmajor civil rightsorganizaa legaldefensefund;afteran extraordinary and laborunionshad written chambersof commerce, tioni, bar associations, facultyhad and endorsedresolutionsdemandingtenure;aftermy department just the when Califorprior to tenure; and to votedfor a fifth time recommend bill to build a wouldholdup a sixty million-dollarappropriation nia legislature schoolat [theuniversity]' newbusiness Students played a very visible role in keeping the issue alive on campus, holding rallies,and integratingthe issueinto legislativelobbying activitiesamong srudeniactivistsstatewide.On the heelsof the redressmovementin the midst of empowerment movements among people of color, Nick's case resonatedfor many people.Nick atfributesthe successof his tenurecaseto the following: attomeys, It was everythingfrom filing intemalbriefsto hiring experienced havingthe good documents, to obtainnecessary usingproceduralapproaches fortuni of havinga numberof facultywho werewilling to deviatefrom confidentialityto testif on my behalf,receivingsupportfrom thc typesof constitucause' in my casebutthebroBder encieswho werenotjustinterested Nick had several advantages.Becauseof his position at a major center for Asian American Studies,he had the backing of many staff and students,many of whom were experiencedin social and political activism' Second,becausethis was a tenure case rather than a case of promotion, his case was able to attract greater attention. Finally, his case arose on the heels of the redresscampaign, organized movem_ents.The coniermitting him to tap into the support of these u"rg"n"" ofthese and other factors createdfavorable conditions for overturning the negativedecision.

Conclusion These casesrepresentan effort to documentthe functional means and the emotional costs bywhich negative tenure and promotion decisionswere ovefturned or settled Uy Llgnt racial minority professors.A report entitled "R.aceand Ethnicity in the American Professoriate1995-1996" by Astin, Antonio, cress, and

122

Chalsa M. Loo and Maia Chun

Astin (1997), which was basedon a 1995-96 nationwide survey of 33,986 faculty respondents,showedthat faculty ofcolor accountedfor about l0 percentof the professoriate,inching up from 9 percent in 1989. Nonwhites were found to be concentratedin the two-year colleges or in nontenure-trackpositions.Thus, faculty of color were still representedin small numbers in the 1990s as they were in the 1980s.I assumethis to be panicularly so for the casespresented,as all were employed at four-year colleges and all were in tenure-hackpositions. In addition, Turner, Myers, and Creswell (1999) found that respondentsin their Midwest survey identified racial and ethnic bias as the rnost troubling challengethey faced in the academicworkplace.One barrier to the retentionof faculty of color that Turner et al. (1999) delineatedwas isolation from the departments' informal networks, a theme reflected in severalof the casesherein presented,that is, the isolation or alienationeither within an establisheddepartment or marginalization of an Ethnic Studiesor interdisciplinary department. Turner et al. (1999) also describedanother barrier to retentibn for faculty of color: devaluation of "minority" researchor denigrationof their researchinterests becausetheir researcharea is not traditional. This theme is reflected in several casespresentedin this chapter,particularly casesin which the researchrecord was strong. Finally, Turner et al. (1999) identified racial and ethnic bias in tenureand promotion practicesand policies as a major barrier.All eight warriors perceivedtheir battleswith academiaas a reflection of bias, whether on the part of one individual or that of the departmentor institution as a whole. Thesecases demonstratethat, contrary to the notion that Asian Americans have no problems with discrimination, Asian Americans, like other minority group members,face a glassceiling in the ivory tower. On the issue of retention, it should be noted that winning tenure and promotion battles does not guaranteeretention. Not all the professors described herein remainedin academiadespitetheir victory. Three of the warriors eventually left academia, two by choice. Another moved to another department. While this may seem to be a loss to academiaand to generationsof studentsof color who could have learned from these warriors, it does reveal that for minority faculty, there can be another life outside of academia. Some of these warriors fought ttre good fight, then moved on to a less adversariallife. These eight casesspeakto the common theme of psychologicaldistressexperiencedby warriors, regardlessof the length of time required to resolve their cases.To this point, several spoke of the importance of social-emotional support. I believe it is important to indicate that it is not our pulpose to celebrate these cases, although victory over adversity is worthy of celebration. On the contrary, it is a tragic instancethat this chapterhad to be written at all, for no one but the victim can fully understandwhat each of thesefaculty warriors experiencedor the lasting impact their experienceshad on their lives. I present these casesin hopes of providing a larger network of support to those who, now or in the future, experiencethe door of the ivory tower shut squarely in their face. In the interest of and preparing those who would enter the

Academic Adversity and Faculty ll/arriors

123

thesecasesprovidea contextin which to underprofessorialranks of academia, of facultywho engagedin the respectivebattles minority experiences standthe in highereducation goal which the of racialdiversification without equity, for bleak. be would

Note l. I wish to thank a contributingauthorto this chapter,a junior faculty,who prefers to remainanonymousfor fear of addingherselfto the list of warriors.I am deeplygrateful to Franklin Odo, JohnLiu, Hsiu-ZuHo, Ray Lou, Don Nakanishi,Marcy Wang,WilliamsonChang,DeborahWoo, and PeterKiang,and alsoto the Associationfor Asian AmericanStudiesfor providingpartialfundingto conductthe interviews.