Is Guilford’s tenure system broken? Renowned civil rights attorney Julius Chambers says yes. How do I know? Because in our last conversation during his “investigation” of my tenure denial, Chambers told me so; and in the aftermath of President Chabotar’s refusal to overturn the denial, Chambers has given me permission to repeat those comments.Chambers was hired to determine if race played a role in FAC’s decision to deny me tenure. During the course of his investigation, Chambers compared my file to that of Lisa McLeod’s. Lisa received tenure in the same round in which I was denied. Chambers found the files to be comparable in terms of meeting the criteria but when he asked administrators why Lisa received tenure and I didn’t, he was given the offhanded reply that Lisa was “exceptional in other ways.” This comment, among other things, forced Chambers to conclude that tenure decisions at Guilford are “subjective.” It should go without saying that subjectivity in the review process allows inappropriate factors to unduly influence outcomes.

Chambers also concluded that the tenure process at Guilford is “broken” and needs to be “fixed.” He asked how I would repair it; this is what I came up with:
1. Bringing Guilford’s tenure criteria in line with the institution’s mission
2. Clarifying the dean’s role in the review process
3. Clarifying tenure requirements
4. Developing criteria for reading student evaluations
5. Insuring the provision of aggregate data to faculty
(Data used to compare faculty performance should be provided without the candidate having to request it.}
6. Accounting for administrative or extra-departmental appointments
7. Requiring departmental participation
(Departments should discuss the candidacy of members up for tenure and offer departmental recommendations.)
8. Rethinking the contents of the self-evaluation
(Instructions for the self-evaluation should allow for discussions of collegiality and provide guidance about what is an acceptable length for this document and the kinds of proofs that best demonstrate meeting tenure criteria.)
9. Establishing the right to rebuttal (including access to the file in case of a denial)
10. Clarifying the appeals process
(The Faculty Handbook needs to provide operational definitions of terms like “procedural error.”)
11. Providing an opportunity for reconsideration once a denial has been conferred.
12. Formalizing a mentor program
13. Clarifying hire letters
(Offers of employment should identify the division of labor among teaching, research, advising and service and specify what form those activities should take.)
14. Developing tenure workshops
(The FAC should sponsor workshops to give faculty an idea about what to expect from the review process.)
15. Establishing an institutional task force to address these issues

These recommendations were accompanied by rationales based on my research into review processes nationwide and recommendations from the Anti-Racism Team’s draft report on the tenure process, which was created after Pat Callair was denied tenure in 2004.

Six years ago, I came to Guilford because I believed in the goal of helping students to become change agents. I remained in part because of Guilford’s commitment to anti-racism. That commitment has proven to be a lie in my case, although I have seen possibilities in the willingness of faculty and students to stand with me and against institutional failures that are antithetical to the values of justice, diversity, and integrity that Guilford espouses.

Most anti-racists will tell you that institutions must become accountable to people of color. In point of fact, if an institution is to be both anti-racist and anti-oppression, it must become accountable to all of its members and the broader community. Individuals in powerful positions may make choices with the best of intentions, but good intentions cannot guarantee transformative change. The only way to do that — to change the way a college operates on the most fundamental level — is to act collectively. This requires a willingness to engage issues publicly, honorably, resolutely, and across differences.

In my classroom, I often pose this question to students: if we cannot talk about race here, then where can we talk about it? I remind them that we do not live in a culture that teaches us this. Thus, such conversations are often wrenching because they call into question what we want to believe about ourselves — our better, truer selves. The forum on the tenure process that Clerk’s Committee is considering is one opportunity for Guilford to become better, and truer to its own commitments and values. It is a step in the right direction. And it comes none too soon.