Gaines
gMoses
|
Dr. Stanley O. Gaines, Jr., Archive:
Date: ?
Type: Statement
To: Media
From: Pomona College
Re: Dr. Gaines' Hunger Strike
Att: Dr. Gaines Replies, 7/11/00 $ 7/18/00
Date?
Pomona College Statement on Dr. Gaines' Hunger Strike
Facts: Stanley Gaines began teaching at Pomona College in 1992. Until his teaching contract expired on June 30, 2000, he held the title of assistant professor of Psychology and Black Studies.
Pomona College Position: In 1998, Stanley Gaines was considered for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor with lifetime tenure. As in every tenure case, the process involved an intensive review of Mr. Gaines' performance and the participation of a broad cross-section of the college's faculty and students. We know that Mr. Gaines is disappointed with the faculty's decision not to grant him lifetime tenure. However, there is no basis for his charge of discrimination, and the college's tenure decision is final.
The college is aware of news reports that Mr. Gaines has decided to go on a "hunger strike." We view this as unfortunate, and sincerely hope Mr. Gaines does not take any action that endangers his health."
Dr. Gaines Replies: Part One of Two, 7/11/00
REBUTTAL TO PREPARED STATEMENT BY POMONA COLLEGE
CONCERNING THE HUNGER STRIKE OF STANLEY O. GAINES, JR.
According to a story in the Inland Valley Our Times supplement to the Los Angeles Times (written by Tipton Blish, dated July 6, 2000), Pomona College released a prepared statement concerning my hunger strike. Here is the exact quote from the story: "'We know that Mr. Gaines is disappointed with the faculty's decision not to grant him lifetime tenure. However, there is no basis for his charge of discrimination, and the college's tenure decision is final,' the statement said in part" (p. 4).
In the present paper, I shall rebut the College's statement concerning my hunger strike. I shall preface my rebuttal by noting that the College has not sent me a copy of the full statement. Thus, I do not know what untruths the College has told in those portions of the statement that did not appear in the aforementioned newspaper article.
First, the College's use of the word "disappointed" to describe my current sentiment grossly trivializes the gravity of my situation. At a time when I am no longer receiving paychecks and have mounting bills, my hunger strike essentially is the only option that I have left to fight the College's immoral, unethical, and illegal behavior toward me.
Second, the decision to deny me tenure did not originate with the faculty. Rather, that decision originated with Dr. Robert Tranquada, who formerly was the chair of the College's Board of Trustees. Dr. Tranquada wrote me two years prior to my tenure review (dated September 27, 1996) and questioned my fitness for tenure, based on my criticism of the College administration regarding its handling of the contract renewal of a junior colleague. Here is the text of Dr. Tranquada's letter in part:
For a candidate for promotion to tenure, you have left something to be desired. In the first place, you have chosen to use the paid leave generously granted by the College to allow you to improve your chances for tenure, as a base from which to suggest to an "authority" that the College's accreditation should be withdrawn. That does not speak well for your judgment.
...Secondly, you have written your complaints to the president of the AICCU, which is an organization that represents the interests of the independent colleges and universities in Sacramento, but does not now, nor ever has had any role in accreditation. That organization is the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). If I were the president of the AICCU and received communications of the nature of yours, I too, would have referred them to the college. This does not speak well for your ability to do some very simple research even to find the correct agency to which to take your grievance. (p. 1)
Dr. Tranquada's entire rationale for questioning my fitness for tenure -- which was not to be decided by the College until the 1998-99 academic term -- was his disapproval of my efforts at exercising my right to academic freedom. The 1996-97 Faculty Grievance Committee of Pomona College concluded that by tying my future candidacy for tenure to my criticism of the College administration, Dr. Tranquada violated my right to academic freedom. In explaining its conclusion, the 1996-97 Faculty Grievance Committee made the following comments in its final report (dated June 2, 1997):
Several aspects of the letter lead us to this conclusion. First, the tone... is harsh, not cordial. Second, Professor Gaines' fitness for tenure is explicitly mentioned in relation to his actions [regarding the College's handling of a junior colleague's contract renewal], a threatening connection. Third, Dr. Tranquada, as Chair of the Board of Trustees of this College, is in a position of considerably authority and power. The Committee makes positive note of Dr. Tranquada's attempt to contextualize his remarks as a "tenured professor in another institution" and not as Chairman of the Board. However, the [1996-97 Faculty Grievance] Committee also believes that it is difficult for a person in his position to divorce himself entirely from his station at the College. The [1996-97 Faculty Grievance] Committee also notes that Dr. Tranquada's evident frustration arose in part out of Prof. Gaines's misdirection of his correspondence to a lobbying group instead of an accreditation organization, which may have damaged the College's interests.
Based on these considerations, the [1996-97 Faculty Grievance] Committee believes that Dr. Tranquada's letter went beyond constructive advice and could have a chilling effect on Professor Gaines' attempt to inform others about alleged improprieties at the College, whatever the ultimate merit of those allegations might be. (p. 4-5)
Third, the College's commentary on "lifetime tenure" is misleading. When the College denied me tenure, my contract ending June 30, 2000 was not renewed. Not only am I without tenure and promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor; but I am also without a paycheck at the present time.
Fourth, the College's use of the word "charge" falsely implies that I have filed a single charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In fact, I currently have four active charges of discrimination and three active charges of retaliation. The oldest of my charges of discrimination dates back to October 1998. The retaliation charges are especially important, because they grant the EEOC the authority to file an injunction that would allow me to keep my job until the EEOC completes its investigation. Unfortunately, due largely to efforts by the College's legal counsel to bully the EEOC into dropping my charges altogether (even as the College has withheld personnel records), the EEOC has been reluctant to go to court on my behalf. The EEOC's inaction, combined with the College's discriminatory behavior toward me, are major factors motivating me to embark on my current hunger strike, which at this writing (July 11, 2000) has lasted a full week.
Fifth, the College's claim regarding "no basis" in my charges is absolutely false. The EEOC already has attempted mediation (which ultimately did not occur, because participation in mediation would have prevented me from presenting any relevant evidence subsequently in court) concerning my first two charges of discrimination and my first charge of retaliation. According to the EEOC's own policy, it would not have attempted mediation unless it had reason to believe that my charges had merit. Moreover, the Association of Black Psychologists (ABPsi) concluded (in a letter dated February 1, 1999) that racial discrimination motivated the College to deny me tenure and promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor. Based on its investigation, the ABPsi declared, "We demand that the decision to deny Professor Stanley O. Gaines, Jr. tenure be reversed" (p. 1).
As my recent selection as a Fulbright Scholar for Fall 2000 indicates, my academic record is worthy of tenure. In fact, all three individuals who wrote letters of recommendation to the Fulbright Scholars Program on my behalf had participated in my 1998-99 tenure review. The Fulbright Scholars Program maintains rigorous standards concerning demonstrated excellence in teaching and research -- so rigorous, in fact, that most applicants do not receive Fulbright grants on their first try. In contrast, from the 1996-97 term through the 1999-2000 academic term, every Anglo, Latino, and Asian/Asian American tenure-track faculty member at Pomona College received tenure and promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor on their first try. (I am the only African American tenure-track faculty member to be considered for tenure and promotion during that time; of course, I was denied tenure and promotion.)
In closing, the College's decision to deny me tenure and promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor occurred within a larger context of institutional racism that has been in place for several years. In Fall 1995, a group of students known as the R.A.C.E. Committee issued a "Call to Action" report, demanding that the College increase its percentages of (1) students of color, (2) faculty of color, and (3) courses dealing specifically with race and ethnicity. (I am proud to add that the R.A.C.E. Committee gave me a teaching award in Spring 1996.) As the College's mishandling of my 1998-88 tenure review indicates, the College has great difficulty dealing with a Black man, such as myself, who criticizes the College administration. For these reasons, my hunger strike continues.
Dr. Gaines replies: Part Two of Two, 7/18/00
ADDENDUM:
REBUTTAL TO REMAINDER OF POMONA COLLEGE STATEMENT
REGARDING GAINES' HUNGER STRIKE
Thanks to the Claremont Courier, I now have a copy of the full statement made by Pomona College at the outset of my hunger strike, which has lasted two full weeks as of this writing (7/18/2000). In the present paper, I shall rebut the falsehoods told by Pomona College regarding my case. The present paper shall serve as an addendum to my earlier rebuttal, based on the portion of the College's statement that was published by the Inland Valley Our Times.
The Pomona College statement begins innocently enough:
Facts: Stanley Gaines began teaching at Pomona College in 1992. Until his teaching contract expired on June 30, 2000, he held the title of assistant professor of Psychology and Black Studies.
The above sentences are true. However, the College does not mention that I had two separate four-year contracts (1992-1996 and 1996-2000). During Fall 1995, I was reviewed for contract renewal. The votes were unanimously positive at every level from my departments on up. At that time, no one claimed that I was "deficient" in teaching, or that I was "uncollegial." In fact, no one made such claims until three years later, in Fall 1998, during my review for tenure and promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor. Even if those dubious claims had true, the College never gave me the opportunity to prove myself as a teacher or as a "collegial" colleague prior to denying me tenure -- and, of course, those claims were not true.
The Pomona College statement continues:
Pomona College Position: In 1998, Stanley Gaines was considered for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor with lifetime tenure. As in every tenure case, the process involved an intensive review of Mr. Gaines' performance and the participation of a broad cross-section of the college's faculty and students.
At this point, the College's position departs from reality. My tenure review was unlike any other such review of which I know at Pomona College. I do not know of any other instance in which the College initially agreed to include a faculty member's entire portfolio, but then decided to exclude all of the faculty member's standardized course evaluations. That is what happened to me, after I filed my initial EEOC complaint. To make matters worse, the chair of the subcommittee (Wayne Steinmetz) within the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) lied when he said that the 1998-99 Faculty Handbook did not authorize the FPC to consider such evaluations; in fact, the Faculty Handbook did specifically mention standardized course evaluations as suitable for review.
Also, I do not know of any other tenure review in which, after a faculty member filed a grievance, the Faculty Grievance Committee (FGC) reached a conclusion that "no violation" of the faculty member's rights had occurred, even though the FGC had failed to (1) hold a single hearing or interview a single witness (including myself); (2) appoint a single mediator to try and resolve the situation; or even (3) recuse a single committee member whom the candidate had asked to be recused. Nevertheless, that is precisely what happened to me. Although I appealed the FGC's negative decision (which President Peter Stanley had approved 24 hours after receiving it), the Executive Committee of the Faculty refused to reopen the case; and President Stanley refused to renominate me for tenure.
In order to hide its acts of wrongdoing, the College engaged in an extensive cover-up campaign. Central to its cover-up was the College's rewriting of the rules concerning (1) tenure and promotion reviews, (2) internal grievances, and (3) discrimination-based harassment. All of the rewritten rules originated with the College's administration and legal counsel -- not with the faculty.
The next portion of the College's statement on my case was published in the Inland Valley Daily News, so I will not repeat it here. Finally, we have the end of the College's statement:
The college is aware of news reports that Mr. Gaines has decided to go on a "hunger strike." We view this as unfortunate, and sincerely hope Mr. Gaines does not take any action that endangers his health.
Actually, by firing me (and, thus, leaving me without health coverage), Pomona College has endangered my health. The College's immoral, unethical, and illegal behavior toward me resulted in my hunger strike. The College can easily end my hunger strike as follows:
All that President Stanley has to do is go back to the faculty and the Board of Trustees and admit, "We were wrong. We falsely claimed that Prof. Gaines was 'deficient' in teaching and was 'uncollegial'; and we denied him the right to a fair hearing. As Prof. Gaines' recent Fulbright Grant for teaching and research attests, he is not 'deficient' in teaching at all. Furthermore, as a check of the Fulbright Web site (www.cies.org) will indicate, the Fulbright committee prizes 'collegiality' in its scholars. Let us do the right thing, here and now, and grant Prof. Gaines what he has earned -- namely, tenure and promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor."
|