Mar. i6, 2007
WWW, guilfor di an. com
FORUM
Page 11
Greensboro. N.C.
Letter to the Editor: Transparency at Guilford
On Feb. 16, The Guilfordian pub
lished a letter to the editor from John
Teague, a Guilford graduate, in which
he leveled a number of charges and
asked for a public response to four
questions, many previously asked by
others and answered. In order to pro
vide the community with information,
I will also respond to John Teague's
letter.
1) Given the overwhelming support
ing data available, would Dean Israel and
president Chabotar admit that Guilford
remains at or below the already disparag-
ingly low national averages when it comes
to the recruitment, hiring, compensation,
and retention of women faculty of color?
Although some have devoted much
time and energy to improving the
recruitment, hiring, and retention
of international faculty and faculty
of color, only recently have these
efforts yielded significant results.
Nevertheless, Guilford currently
employs a higher percentage of fac
ulty of color than similar colleges
in North Carolina and nation-wide.
Although the numbers continue to be
lower than I would like to see, award
ing tenure to anyone simply to satisfy
diversity goals is not what racial and
gender equality are about.
As for compensation, according to
the most recent American Association
of University Professors (AAUP) study
of gender and faculty salaries, the
average salary for women faculty at
Guilford is higher than the average
salary for men in all ranks. The AAUP
does not reveal data on the compensa
tion level for women faculty of color
at Guilford; however, it is on par with
the compensation of other women fac
ulty at Guilford at all ranks.
2) Would Dean Israel and President
Chabotar agree or disagree with notes
civil rights attorney Julius Chambers'
conclusion that the tenure review process
at Guilford is "broken?"
Given that Julius Chambers did not
make this statement to me or to Kent
Chabotar, it is best that he respond to
your inquiry. Julius Chambers stat
ed on Monday, Feb. 19: "I expressed
to Dr. Branch my general observa
tion that every tenure review process,
including Guilford's process, would
do well to eliminate as much subjec
tive consideration as possible.
I recognize, however, that some
subjectivity exists any time promotion
decisions are made, and I did not find
Guilford s process to be 'broken' or
defective to the extent that race was or
could have been a factor in the tenure
decision.
I suggested, however, that the
College should eliminate as much
subjectivity as possible, and I made
some suggestions to Dr. Chabotar in
the context of the specific matter I
reviewed. I believe my suggestions
were followed." the decision not to
award tenure resulted from a process
that incorporated Julius Chambers'
advice.
3) Given that Julius Chambers has
no objection (in fact, he never did) to
make his complete report available to the
Guilford community, and that Dr. Branch
has stated that she has no objection to
this, would Dean Israel and President
Chabotar recommend that his complete
report be released for review?
In an extraordinary effort to
respond to Eleanor Branch's charges
of racism, the College retained Julius
Chambers to review the process as it
was applied to Eleanor Branch and to
inform the President whether the deci
sion resulted from race discrimination.
Mr. Chambers was given access to
whomever and whatever information
he needed to make this determination,
and, as you know and as has been pre
viously reported, he concluded that
race was neither a legal nor a deciding
factor the FAC's decision.
Everyone who spoke with Mr.
Chambers agreed to do so after the
President assured them of confidenti
ality. The President does not intend to
breach that trust. However, the college
community should be reassured that a
noted civil rights expert reviewed the
process and concluded that the deci
sion not to recommend tenure was not
racially motivated.
4) Would Dean Israel and President
Chabotar at least acknowledge that com
pulsory training for members appointed
to the FAC, which could include widely
regarded training programs for white
FAC members, such as Judy Katz's "White
Awareness: Handbook for Anti-Racism
Training," would no doubt have a positive
impact on Guilford's "broken" tenure
system?
As I have said before, I have enthu
siastically supported anti-racism
training campus-wide, have worked
to get it funded and institutionally
sanctioned, and in the late 1990s as a
faculty member joined the group who
approached members of the Board of
Trustees asking that the anti-racism
initiative be adopted at Guilford. I
recommend anti-racism training for
all faculty, staff, and students, those
who serve on policy committees and
those who do not. Each of us can help
dismantle racism.
Unfortunately, the last time the
College attempted to require such
training, some actively resisted partic
ipating. Current efforts to incorporate
anti-racism training into all aspects of
College life are clearly described in
the strategic plan and are supported
by me and Kent Chabotar.
I trust this letter responds to the
questions posed.
— Adrienne Israel,
Vice President for
Academic Affairs
Bryan Cahall
Adam Heffler I
Staff Writer
Contributing Writer
Under the heading, "Staff talk about
integrity," the Guilford College web-
ure denial, which took place on March
2, right before spring break. The
tenure appeal board met in April and
refused to overturn the decision as
finals approached before summer.
Julius Chambers, the noted civil
site quotes President Kent Chabotar rights lawyer whom Chabotar hired
as saying, "Guilford College believes to investigate Branch's discrimina-
in holding everyone accountable for tion allegations, released his report in
results. Decision making is transpar- early September 2006 after the sum-
Guilford’s practice
acknowledge r i i
the adminis- betore a break
- calls
into que|tion claims
of transparency.
ent and we usually
get an avalanche
of information.
Myths and rumors of making important
do not last very . ox
long here. " dccisions at times
the'l'aiues''p3ot-‘ whon much of the corn
ed here-transpar- munitv is distracted or
ency and account-
ability. Moreover, absent — often right
we
that
tration has taken
steps to imple
ment these values
by holding meet
ings and "open"
forums, etc. But President Chabotar is
overstating when he claims that such
conditions already exist at Guilford.
Chabotar has committed the error
common to many statements of value.
He has conflated the "is" with the
"ought." While indeed decision mak
ing ought to be transparent, more than
one institutional practice suggests that
it is not.
One such practice regards timing.
We see a troubling pattern in the
timing of controversial decisions at
Guilford. The trend is simple: admin
istrators at Guilford often make their
most profound and difficult decisions
when the broader community is most
distracted, right before a break.
The following list of instances is not
exhaustive. Nevertheless, it strongly
suggests the tendency on the part of
Guilford to diverge from its stated
respect for transparency. We do not
mean to imply this practice is neces
sarily deliberate. We also do not mean
to eliminate this possibility.
The effect, in either case, is the
same. The choice by Guilford's deci
sion-makers to act when everyone is
absent or distracted thwarts outright
any community response to controver
sial decisions.
In the most example, the principal
players of the "incident in Bryan
Hall" received their judicial decisions
on Feb. 28, during midterms, two days
before spring break.
Eleanor Branch, assistant professor
of English, and Shelini Harris, assis-
ant professor of religious studies,
received the latest reiterations of their
dismissal from Guilford by the board
of trustees on Feb. 28, during mid-
:erms, two days before spring break.
In Branch's case, the pattern is
obvious. On April 14, 2006, the
Guilfordian reported her initial ten-
mer s inquiry.
Chabotar waited
to make his deci
sion to uphold
the denial of ten
ure until October
11, 2006, during
midterms, three
days before fall
b/eak.
In mid Dec. 2006,
during finals, the
week before win
ter break, some
one made the baf
fling decision to
annihilate nearly
every artificial
structure in the woods and leave enor
mous piles of tetanus in their place.
The same week, campus life held an
open forum regarding changes in their
smoking, alcohol and social gathering
policies. Huge turnout for that one.
Similarly, on March 17, 2006, the
Guilfordian reported on Chabotar's
open forum discussing Guilford's mas
ter plan, held during midterms, the
week before spring break.
During fall 2005 and spring 2006,
a contingent of students mobilized a
proposal to introduce gender-blind
housing options at Guilford. The
proposal, supported by community
senate, was turned down at the spring
meeting of the Board of Trustees,
which was ... guess when ... during
midterms, right before spring break.
On May 12, 2005, SLRP committee
held an open forum regarding the
physical impact of the plan on our
beloved campus. That's days after
graduation, more than a week before
the summer term.
Such institutional practices are
overtly paternalistic. They allow for
claims to transparency while limiting
the participation and input of many
concerned parties. Open forums, for
example, have low turnout because of
poor scheduling choices. One is free,
however, to attribute this to "apathy"
and thereby to justify the elimination
of such forums altogether. Ingenious,
really, and pernicious.
It seems ridiculous that one must
actually state that, despite the pres
ident's claims, myths and rumors do
indeed last at Guilford. No time, space,
or point to listing them here. The
important thing is that these rumors
spread and maintain in large part
because of Guilford's own practices,
and integrity requires that we examine
these.