A Black Professor's Experiences in Academia
Professional Isolation, Sabotage, Fraud, Racism, and White Privilege
What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger
Background
After examining the documents that were released during the discovery period of Mr. Grant's lawsuit against Cornell University, he discovered that denying him promotion/tenure was a fait accompli, contrived on myriad fronts by his immediate supervisors, David Feldshuh and the then Department Chairman, Bruce Levitt.
Levitt and Feldshuh vindictively sabotaged Grant's tenure/promotion review. Below please find the very long list recounting the unethical and craven devices they employed to destroy Mr. Grant's career at Cornell University.
2.
Levitt solicited negative letters from staff/colleagues. Four of the letters in Mr. Grant's file were addressed to “Dear Bruce.” Levitt was the Theatre Department Chairman and should have had nothing whatsoever to do with soliciting letters for Grant's file. Department Chairmen are not even able to vote on tenure/promotions. The letters should have been written to Professor Grant's faculty advisor Professor Feldshuh.
David Feldshuh
Bruce Levitt
3.
Misled outside referees: all seven of the referees who did not know Grant wrote to say that they needed more documents about him and/or his creative work. Grant found no such request for more documentation for Wilson's, Morganroth's, Archer's or Goetz’s files (the White tenure/promotion candidates). It was clear to Mr. Grant that Levitt and Feldshuh sent the bare minimum to the outside adjudicators so they would recommend denying him tenure/promotion
David Feldshuh
Bruce Levitt
The actual binders that Grant submitted for his 1995 tenure/promotion review at Cornell. They were filled with over 80 reviews, photographs and articles about Grant's work as a professional actor/director/choreographer/educator.
4.
Grant's peer evaluator list was manipulated to put him at a disadvantage.
-
Mr. Grant knew only 3 of the 18 people on the Department's peer evaluator list;
-
The White tenure/promotion candidates knew 85% to 100% of the people on their peer evaluator lists.
This unfair and unprecedented ratio placed Grant at a disadvantage and clearly favored his white colleagues.
The outcome was predictable:
4 of the people Grant did not know recommended his tenure/promotion.
2 of the people Grant did not know questioned his tenure/promotion.
100% of the people Grant knew recommended his tenure/promotion.
There is clearly an advantage to knowing the people on your list of outside referees.
The Theatre Department's outside referee list for Mr. Grant included eighteen names:
-
Carol Brandt (did not submit a letter)
-
Joel Fink
-
Erik Fredericksen
-
Denise Gabriel
-
Earle R. Gister (known by Grant)
-
Mark A. Heckler
-
Norm Johnson (did not submit a letter)
-
Paul Kassel
-
Colleen Kelly (did not submit a letter)
-
Alan MacVey
-
Alice Benston
-
Nancy Dunbar (did not submit a letter)
-
Mara Sabinson (known by Grant)
-
Jennifer Martin (did not submit a letter)
-
Sandra Mayo (did not submit a letter)
-
Mark Olsen
-
Margaret Spicer (known by Grant)
-
Lundeana Thomas (did not submit a letter)
5.
In his letter explaining why Grant was denied tenure/promotion, Levitt’s actually said that "although Mr. Grant had achieved a national reputation as an actor," his publications and /choreographic accomplishments were lacking.
However, all five of the White tenure/promotion candidates were advised to focus on one area of expertise because they were not expected to excel in more than one area.
Double Standard
Dean Atkins Regan wrote about Grant's national reputation as a professional actor:
“… In any case, it would be fair to assess the overall weight of these letters as presenting a mixed picture of a candidate that participated in a number of areas of theatre but with the exception of his own work as an actor had not gained recognition and respect for him"
Bruce Levitt wrote:
“First it appears that Mr. Grant is a kind and caring person…His [Professor Grant’s] ability as an actor is significant…”
In spite of the fact that Mr. Grant clearly had a "national reputation" as a professional actor, he was denied tenure/promotion. While his White colleagues with one primary area of expertise e.g., scenic design, technical directing, scholarship, or choreography, etc., were promoted and tenured.
Dean Adkins Regan's and Bruce Levitt's Letters:
6.
Created an uneven playing field for Grant
Mr. GRANT was advised by his faculty advisor DAVID FELDSHUH on December 17, 1992, to complete the following creative projects and residences in preparation for his 1996 tenure/promotion review:
The outcome was predictable:
“…We tried to specify more fully what you might do to strength [sic] your tenure case. Specifically, this included:
-
Five to six workshops or talks at national conferences;
-
One to three articles;
-
Guest artist directing or acting at academic institutions;
-
Securing a position at an Institution such as the American Conservatory Theatre…or the Denver Theatre Center as a resident professional and as a teacher."
Mr. Grant was required to achieve a national reputation as an actor/director/author/educator while White faculty were told to focus their off-campus creative work in one or at most, two areas.
Again, Feldshuh wrote to Grant:
Five to six workshops or talks [EDUCATOR] at national conferences.
-
One to three articles [AUTHOR/SCHOLAR]
-
Guest artist directing [DIRECTOR] or acting [ACTOR] at academic institutions.
-
Securing a position at an Institution such as the American Conservatory Theatre…or the Denver Theatre Center as a resident professional and as a teacher [EDUCATOR]
Additional Proof that Grant was expected to excel as an Actor/Director/Educator/Scholar
When he was deposed for Mr. Grant's United States District Court, Northern New York legal case, Mr. Barthick (the former Theatre Department Chairman), discussed his understanding of the areas in which Mr. Grant's outside professional activities were being evaluated for tenure:
-
Q — Maybe I need to ask this question, Mr. Grant was being evaluated as an actor; is that correct...
-
Bathrick — Among other things
-
Q — And a director?
-
Bathrick — Among other things
-
Q — And a teacher?
-
Bathrick — Among other things
-
Q — And what other activities – Was he being evaluated as a scholar?
-
Bathrick — Yes.
-
Q — Did he present himself to the faculty as a scholar?
-
Bathrick — I don't know what that means.
-
Q — Well, if I understand correctly, your dual appointment – your appointment in the German arts or dramatic arts department indicates you do scholarly work in addition to performance work. Isn't Mr. Grant's work strictly performance or primarily performance?
-
Bathrick — He presented articles that he put up for publications, now, we consider that scholarly. Mr. Grant made a contribution as a scholar and included it in his tenure package, and the department agreed to consider that.
