Page 10
www.guilfordian.com
FORUM
Jan. 26, 2007
Greensboro. N.C.
Letters to the editor
A response to Adrienne Israel's comments
ji'ifr
Lisa McLeod
In the Jan. 19 issue of The
Guilfordian, Vice President
and Academic Dean Adrienne
Israel posted a response to
articles recently published in
The Guilfordian. Her response
contains misstatements that
require clarification.
The dean took exception to
my ■ contention that I had re
viewed "the tenure materials"
in my own and Dr. Branch's
cases, given that there are
confidential materials in the
Faculty Affairs Committee's
(FAC) tenure files. I had meant
to refer only to the documents
Eleanor and I had submitted
for our reviews; however, the
FAC also releases a letter that
explains, in detail, the reasons
for the FAC decision. This let
ter refers clearly, if indirectly.
to the confidential documents
contained in the tenure file.
The confidentiality of the ten
ure process - for all of its bene
fits - also, inevitably, serves to
conceal any unsavory aspects
of a decision. As every lawyer
knows, claims of racism in ten
ure cases are therefore awfully
difficult to prove.
In response to my claim that
the College has not meaning
fully addressed institutional
oppression in its tenure re
view process. Dr. Israel points
out that the college hired a
noted civil rights lawyer, Ju
lius Chambers, to examine Dr.
Branch's case, and that he found
that "race was not a legal or
deciding factor" therein. While
the college administration is
likely relieved to have been
advised that it will probably
not be found legally liable for
racially discriminating against
Dr. Branch, this is cold comfort
at best. The interpretation of
law by current U.S. courts has
little to do with whether Guil
ford is acting consistently with
its commitment to anti-racism
as a core value, and Mr. Cham
bers apparently was not asked
to assess whether Guilford has
addressed institutional racism,
or whether any form of racism
prior to tenure review might
have affected Dr. Branch. If Mr.
Chambers did comment more
broadly on the tenure process,
the college administration ap
parently holds the power to
make his report public.
Dr. Israel also took me to
task for "ignoring or dismiss
ing" her own training and ex
perience in the history and
manifestations of racism. The
dean's
Those same accounts hold
that every member of this
community has an interest in
whether the college is ac
tively pursuing racial justice
and hold that all of us are
accountable for our progress.
con
siderable ex
pertise and
experience of
racism do not
substitute for
the institu
tionalization
of policies
and practices
to confront
institutional
oppression. As I mentioned in
my first Forum piece, Guilford
does not require that members
of the FAC complete anti-rac
ism training, neither does it
take systemic,steps to account
for nationally-known literature
on the effects of (unconscious
and conscious) student bias on
the evaluations of instructors
of color - especially women of
color. This, it seems, would be
the very least we could plau
sibly do to improve the tenure
process in line with our stated
values. For a school whose fac
ulty, board, long-range plan,
and incipient capital campaign
have touted anti-racism, the
steps Dr. Israel describes are
minimal.
Dr. Israel accuses me of rac
ism for proposing a morato
rium on terminating faculty of
color without consulting the
untenured faculty of color who
would be af
fected by this
proposal. I
won't deny
my own rac
ism. On most
accounts of
anti-racism,
white people
cannot avoid
being rac
ist within a
white power structure, wheth
er they act or not. Those same
accounts hold that every mem
ber of this community has an
interest in whether the college
is actively pursuing racial jus
tice and hold that all of us are
accountable for our progress.
I have aimed to avoid putting
untenured faculty on the spot
in this discussion, hoping that
tenured faculty representing
several constituencies might
discuss it openly and honestly.
Tenured faculty have more se
curity in such a fraught con
versation, and it is disingenu
ous of the dean if she means to
suggest otherwise, especially
in light of the fact that all of
the untenured faculty of color
who have been active and vis
ible members of the anti-rac
ism team and/or the Cultural
Pluralism Committee have not
- for whatever reason - been
awarded tenure.
Finally, the students who
demonstrated outside the De
cember faculty meeting have
been dismayed by the college's
treatment of Eleanor Branch
and Shelini Harris, and as far
as I could tell, were silently
supporting these valued mem
bers of our faculty. Several of
the students commented on
how warmly most of the fac
ulty greeted them, with nods
and words of thanks, and sev
eral of these students have be
gun seeking ways to continue
a community-wide conversa
tion over the past and future of
Guilford's faculty review pro
cess. I wish the whole commu
nity well in that process, and
wish I could be on campus for
this conversation.
Lisa J. McLeod
Assistant Professor of
Philosophy (on leave)
An open letter
Community asks that Chamber's findings he made
public
Jonathan Malino
In the Jan. 19 issue of The
Guilfordian, Vice President and
Academic Dean Adrienne Israel
published a response to articles
by Lisa McLeod and me that ap
peared in recent issues of The
Guilfordian. Dean Israel's Guil
fordian piece had already ap
peared in the Dec. 15 issue of The
Beacon. In the Jan. 19 issue of The
Beacon, Dr. McLeod and I posted
a lengthy response to Dean Isra
el. That response concluded with
the statement, " ... no one has
satisfactorily explained why the
report by the civil rights expert
hired by the college regarding Dr.
Branch's case is being kept confi
dential, given that Mr. Chambers
(its author) has no objection to its
release."
Dean Israel has now provided
an explanation for keeping Mr.
Chambers' report confidential,
notwithstanding Chambers' writ
ten statement to Dr. Branch that
"Dr. Chabotar may elect to dis
close its contents." In her contri
bution to the Jan. 19 Beacon, Dr.
Israel comments that "confiden
tiality was the basis" on which
faculty and staff spoke to Julius
Chambers. Dean Israel's explana
tion is helpful. Yet it fails to ex
plain satisfactorily why only one
sentence of Mr. Chambers' report
has been released. It is hard to
imagine that the substance of
Mr. Chambers' report cannot be
shared with the community with
out violating the confidentiality
of those with whom he spoke.
I strongly urge Dr. Chabotar to
share the substance of Mr. Cham
bers' report.
Jonathan W. Malino
Professor of Philosophy
Comic by Brett McDonough