Guilford College President Kent Chabotar upheld last year’s contested recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) to deny tenure to Eleanor Branch, assistant professor of English. The decision follows an external investigation into alleged racial discrimination and comes despite Branch’s formal appeal in which she stated that “the (FAC) has by turns ignored, dismissed, reduced or distorted (her) contributions to the college.”

Chabotar delivered his most recent decision to Branch in writing on Oct. 11. In his letter, the President described the importance of the tenure process to Guilford College.

“As a significant means to economic security and academic freedom,” Chabotar wrote, “tenure is more important than hiring, promotion, extension, and perhaps any other personnel decision that the College makes.”

Chabotar proceeded to justify his decision within the context of Branch’s overall case, including the initial decision to deny tenure last spring.

“While I am not bound by the decision of the FAC and Appeals Board,” Chabotar wrote, “I respect the experience and consistency the faculty who have reviewed this matter bring to the task.”

In March 2006, the FAC and Academic Dean Adrienne Israel recommended that Chabotar deny Branch’s tenure application, the Guilfordian reported. Chabotar concurred with the initial recommendation.

A letter to Branch, signed by Israel and Frank Keegan, professor of biology and chair of the FAC, explained the committee’s reasons for its negative finding.

“Because of continuing problems,” the letter reads, “with the quality of your teaching, insufficient accomplishments in the area of scholarly growth, and the uneven quality and quantity of your community service, the Faculty Affairs Committee and Academic Dean have forwarded a negative recommendation to the President.”

The FAC thus decided negatively on three of the four standard criteria for tenure review, the fourth being listed as “effective advising.”

Branch immediately filed an appeal, following the procedures outlined in section 2.610 of the faculty handbook. Her formal letter of appeal expressed “outrage” at the FAC’s justification.

“I do not recognize the person FAC describes in its letter because I am not that person,” Branch wrote.

She went on to dispute the FAC’s individual claims, citing multiple instances of “misinterpretation,” “misrepresentation” and “omission” in the committee’s assessment.

After examining the appeal, the Tenure Appeal Board met with Branch on April 22 and refused to overturn the FAC recommendation.

Several members of the Guilford community met the Appeal Board’s rejection with substantial opposition. A delegation of 14 senior faculty, including chairs of the philosophy, English and math departments, visited Chabotar on May 2 to speak on Branch’s behalf.

The agenda for that meeting outlined the “stone” of the delegation’s appeal, namely that “FAC amplified the significance of specific negative (or apparently negative) data, gave insufficient weight to Eleanor Branch’s strengths as an unusually thoughtful and accomplished teacher, scholar, community activist, and employed a doubtfully attainable standard of excellence.”

The supporting faculty also pointed out the relationship between the FAC decision and Guilford’s diversity hiring policy, as well as the statement approved by the Board of Trustees committing the College to anti-racism.

Additional elements of Branch’s appeal put Guilford’s commitment to becoming an anti-racist institution into question.

Branch alleged in an April 28 letter to Chabotar that she had endured a “hostile work environment” – racial in nature – during her employment.

The crux of Branch’s allegation is that she was held to expectations that were not applied to her white colleagues. These include compulsory participation in specifically race-related campus organizations and activities.

This alleged disparate treatment, Branch claims, led to significant bias in the treatment and evaluation she received and contributed directly to the negative tenure recommendation.

In response to both the racial allegations and the formal protest by the faculty delegation, Chabotar took what he called “two extraordinary steps” to ensure that the tenure process was fair.

Chabotar hired Julius Chambers, a well-known civil rights lawyer and former chancellor of North Carolina Central University to review the tenure material and determine whether race may have influence the FAC or academic dean’s decision.

Chambers performed his investigation during summer 2006 and released his report to Chabotar in early September.

In his most recent letter to Branch, Chabotar references the investigations apparent finding.

“Mr. Chambers conducted a thorough review and concluded that he did ‘not believe that race was a legal or deciding factor in the decision involving Dr. Branch’s application for tenure,'” Chabotar wrote.

According to Chabotar, one of the conditions of Chambers’ investigation was that the report remain private. Neither Eleanor, nor the campus community in general has been permitted to see it.

“(Chambers and I) both agreed that he could do a better job if the report stayed confidential,” Chabotar said. “If I were to make it public now, I would be altering the ground rules of the agreement. If we had previously agreed to publicize the report, it might well have been different.”

Chabotar’s second step was to establish a “special presidential advisory group” to review the decision of the FAC.

The group consisted of seven “experienced and tenured faculty members,” including members of the current FAC that reviewed Branch’s tenure case.