The Correct Colors of a Faculty.(Brief Article)

This article deals primarily with unwritten policies for the selection of faculty at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, an undergraduate institution of the City University of New York (CUNY). In revealing the extraordinary lengths to which one college's administration was willing to go to use race as a basis for hiring, it may be indicative of practices prevalent in American higher education. But unlike other institutions--which have acknowledged race as a factor and defended it in lawsuits alleging violation of civil rights laws--John Jay's administrators chose to deny the operation of powerful racial bias in hiring decisions, despite strong evidence to the contrary.

The events recounted here, which personally affected this author, took place primarily in 1993 and 1994. These events, including statements attributed to various individuals (not named), can all be substantiated by legal documents and exhibits filed in a federal district court in support of a lawsuit I brought alleging violation of federal, state, and local civil rights laws. On the eve of trial in this matter, City University, which represented the college, settled the case for a substantial sum, while acknowledging no legal responsibility.

The 1993-94 Search

John Jay College of Criminal Justice advertised for full-time tenure-track positions for the 1993-94 academic year. I had been a part-time adjunct at John Jay since 1987, teaching courses in constitutional law and government. At the time, I held a Ph.D. from Columbia University and a law degree from Rutgers University. I also had approximately twenty years of experience in government in various capacities. I applied for one of the positions in a department directly related to my education and experience.

In a memorandum submitted to the college provost, a departmental subcommittee charged with personnel matters selected another candidate as its first choice, a black male, and named me, a white male, as its alternate candidate. Following routine procedure, the selected candidate was interviewed by both the provost and the president. He initially accepted but subsequently declined the college's offer. The subcommittee then reaffirmed its recommendation, by memorandum to the provost, that I be offered the position.

I was directed by the department chair to contact the provost's office to arrange for the interview routinely granted all departmental selections. Despite repeated efforts on my part during June and July 1993 to contact the provost, including a visit to his office, he refused to call or meet with me. The provost and the president rejected my candidacy without ever interviewing me, a highly unusual occurrence as acknowledged by both the provost and the chair in deposition testimony. The chair noted that even after an interview, it is very unusual for the department's selection to be overruled. This observation was substantiated by the executive director of the university-wide professional organization representing faculty and staff.

It was apparent to the chair, after several discussions with the provost in June, that the obstacle to my appointment was my race. In a series of memos to the provost and president, the chair took strong issue with the provost's decision. He stated that substantial efforts were made in the search to attract minority candidates. He pointed out that at each stage of the process the level of participation by minorities had increased. That is, while they represented only 5 percent of the identified pool of Ph.D.s nationally, minorities represented 20 percent of all applicants and 38 percent of those interviewed, and the department's first choice was, in fact, a black male. Second, the search could not now be deemed procedurally flawed, thereby requiring a new search, as the provost was now asserting, since the provost and the president had approved the offer to the first candidate. They had thus signaled the search's validity, unless one believes that a search deemed valid when it produces a minority candidate can suddenly become invalid when a selected minority candidate withdraws and the alternate candidate is a non-minority. Third, he noted that the decision to reopen the search violated both the university's written policy on nondiscrimination and federal civil rights law.