2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-17-2005 

# EE O C v . M uhle nb e rg C ollege P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2788

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" EE O C v . M uhle nbe rg C o lle g e " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1174. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/11741 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 04- 2788 E QUAL E M P L OYMENT OP P OR T UNI T Y C OM M I S S I ON,

A ppel l ant

v. M UHL E NB E RG CO L L E GE

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s tr i ctC our tN o. : 02- C V - 07430 D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Fr ankl i n S. V an A ntw erpen

A r gued M ar ch 30, 2005 B e f o re : A L IT O , S M IT H a n d R O S E N N , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: M ay17, 2005) E r i c S. D r ei band V i ncentJ . B l ackw ood L o rra in e C . D a v ir D an iel T . V ail (A rgu ed ) E qual E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on 1801 L . St r eet , N . W . , 7t h Fl oor W as hi ngt on, D . C . 20507 C ouns el f orAppel lant N ancyC onr ad ( A r gued) W h i t e & W i l l i a ms 3500 W i nches t erR oad1TheDi stric t Co ur t e xerc ise d ju

ri sdic tio n p ur su ant to 2 8 U .S. C. § 13 31 . App e llate jurisdiction ex ists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. W e exerc ise plenar y review over

a grant of summar

y judgment and apply

the same standa

rd that the District Court is require d to employ . Abramson v. W illiam Patterson College , 260 F.3d 265, 276 ( 3d Cir. 2001). 2 Sui t e 200, T he Fr eder i ck B ui l di ng A l l ent ow n, PA 18104 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . T h e E q u a l E m p lo ym e n t O p p o rtu n ityC o m m iss io n (“ E E O C ” ) f iled a c o m p lain t in the U nit ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtof the E ast ern D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a against M u h len b e rg C o lleg e (“ M u h len b e rg ” ) a lleg in g a T itl e V II n a tio n a l o rig in c laim o n b e h a lf of D r . D a’ an Pan bas ed on M uhl enber g’ s deni al of D r . Pan’ s t enur e appl i cat i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed M uhl enber g’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he EE O C fi l ed a t i me l ya p p e a l . W e wi l l a f f i r m. 1 D r . Pan, a nat i ve of Chi na, obt ai ned a M as t er s D egr ee i n E ngl i s h L i t er atur e fr om H angzhou U ni ver s i tyi n C hi na, and t aughtfors ever al y ear s ther eaf t eri n hi s nat i ve country . I n 1991, aft erearni ng a Ph. D . i n C om par at i ve Li t er atur e fr om the U ni ver s i tyof R oches t er , D r . Pan w as empl oy ed as an as s i s t antpr ofes s ori n C om par at i ve Li t er atur e and E as tA s i an Language a nd C ul tur es atthe U ni ver s i tyof I l l i noi s . I n 1996, D r . Pan3

re s p o n d e d to M u h le n b e rg ’s s e a rc h f o r a P ro f e s s o r o f T ra d itio n a l C h in e s e C iv iliz a tio n . M uhl enber g’ s Pr es i dent , A r thurT ay l or , offe r ed D r . Pan an appoi nt m entas an A s s i s t ant P ro f e ss o r o f C h in e se C iv ili z a tio n , w ith th e h o p e th a t D r. P a n w o u ld d e v e lo p a p ro g ra m in A s i an and/ orA s i an and W es t ern C om par at i ve Studi es . D r . Pan’ s pr i m aryaff i l i at i on w as w i th the Phi l os ophyD epart m ent , buthal f of hi s t eac hi ng l oad w as compri s ed of c our s es i n o ther dep artm ents . D u ri n g the s p ri n g o f 1 9 9 8 , n ea r th e e n d o f D r. P an ’s sec o n d y ea r, M u h lenb erg i nvi t ed D r . Pan t o a meet i ng foral l t enur e ca ndi dat es t o r evi ew the r equi r ement s for t enur e as s etfor th i n i t s Facul tyH andbook. T he H andbook pr ovi ded thatthe i ni t i al cons i der at i on of a t enur e appl i cat i on w as per form ed bya Facul tyE val uat i on C om m i t t ee on T enur e and Pr om ot i ons ( “FE C ”) , w hi ch eva l uat ed the ca ndi dat e’ s r ecor d and
r ecomm ended e i thera gr antordeni al of t enur e. T he FE C ’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on w as s ubm i t t ed t o t he D ean of the C ol l ege Fac ul ty , C ur t i s D r et s ch, and then forw ar ded t o Pr es i dentT ay l or . “Tenur e i s gr ant ed onl ybyact i on of the B oar d of Trus t ees upon the re c o m m e n d a tio n o f

th e P re sid e n t an d B o a rd o f T ru ste e s’ E d u c a tio n a l P o licie s a n d F a c u lty A f f a irs C o m m itt e e .” T h e F a c u ltyH a n d b o o k sp e c if ied th a t “e x c e llen c e in tea c h in g is for emostamong t he cr i t er i a us ed t o eval uat e mem ber s of the Facul ty . ” D r . Pan appl i ed fort enur e i n the fa l l of 1998, s ubm i t t i ng var i ous document s t o the F E C f o r its c o n sid e ra tio n . T h e se in c lu d e d e v a lu a tio n s b yM u h len b e rg f a c u lty , alu m n i, stud en ts an d ac ad em ic pe ers, as w ell as stan d ard ized stud en t eva luation sco res, an d D r.4

Pan’ s Pr ofes s i onal St at ement . T he eva l uat i ons w er e pr edomi nant l ypos i t i ve. T her e w er e, how ever , s om e neutr al and nega t i ve obs ervat i ons . D ean D r es t ch r at ed D r . Pan’ s t eac hi ng a s “ g o o d to e x c e llen t,” a n o b se rv a tio n P h ilo so p h yC h a ir L u d w ig S c h lec h t u n d e rsto o d to ind icate tha t D retsch “h ad so m e re serv ati o n s. ” M u h lenb erg P rof esso r C h ri sti n e S ist are not ed thatD r . Pan “coul d as k m or e” of hi s s tudent s . Pr ofes s orB enj ami n, a mem berof the F E C , report ed thatD r. P an’s att em pts t o eli ci tcl ass di scussi on w ere m etw i th m od est s ucce s s as onl ya s m al l cor e of s tudent s act i vel ypart i ci pat ed. T h e a lum n i and stud en t fee d b ac k , tho u g h g en era ll yco m m en d ab le of D r. P an ’s teac h ing , co n tai n ed so m e u n fa v o rab le ob serv ati o n s. W h il e o n e a lum n u s stated th at D r. Pan w as a verygood t eac her , he poi nt ed outthati t“w as har d t o fol l ow the di r ect i on he
w as t aki ng” and thatD r . Pan neede d “t o add s om e more s tructur e t o hi s l ectur es s o that s tudent s can gr as p t he bas i s of hi s m at er i al bett er . ” A notheral um nus expr es s ed her

“ c o n c e rn . . . tha t th e c las s la c k e d a stru c tu re d sy llab u s a n d g ra d in g p o licy . . . . ” T h is alum n u s stated: “I w ish I co u ld stron g lyrec o m m en d h im [f o r t en u re] b u t I w an t t o en su re th a t M u h len b e rg stu d e n ts g e t th e b e st te a c h in g p o ss ib le a n d I f e e l th a t D r. P a n ’s s ty le neede d t o be cha nged. ” A thi r d al um nus w as qui t e pos i t i ve aboutD r . Pan, y ets he expl ai ned that“D r . Pan’ s s tudent s gotoutof the cl as s w hattheyputi nt o i t . T hos e w ho
w ant ed t o s i tl i ke a l um p i n t he bac k of the r oom w er e abl e t o . . . . ” She w as cr i t i cal of thes e l acka dai s i cal s tudent s and the fa ctthatD r . Pan’ s cl as s es “ca m e t o be know n . . . as

‘ bl ow off c our s es . ’ ”5

M u h len b e rg u til ize d a sta n d a rd ize d e v a lu a tio n f o rm (“ S IR ” ) c o m p lete d b ystu d e n ts in e a c h c o u rs e to ra n k th e irp ro f e s s o rs o n a s c a le o f

1 to 5 , w ith 5 a s th e h ig h e s t r a n k in g . Ge n e r a l l y , th e s e s c o r e s we r e c o n s i d e r e d l o w i f th e ywe r e n o to v e r4 . 0 . Dr . P a n ’ s S I Rs h a d , as D e a n D re tsc h n o ted , “g re a ter v a ria b ili ty ” th a n w a s typ ica l at M u h len b e rg . H is i ni t i al s cor es w er e hi gh: 4. 46; 4. 79; 4. 18; 4. 0; and 4. 09. H i s s cor es decl i ned ther eaf t ert o: 3. 21; 3. 67, 3. 23; 3. 67; 3. 38; 3. 09; and 3. 36. O f the s cor es of the s even t enur e ca ndi dat es undercons i der at i on thaty ear , D r . Pan’ s SI R s w er e the l ow es t , w i th the othercandi dat es a v e ra g in g w e ll a b o v e 4 .0 . A ft ercons i der i ng D r . Pan’ s t enur e appl i cat i on and hi s s uppor t i ng document s , and conduct i ng a fa ce- t o- fac e i nt ervi ew , the FE C , i n a r eportdat ed A pr i l 5, 1999, “vot ed
u n an im o u slyag ains t r ec o m m en d ing D r. P an fo r t en u re.” T h e F E C rated D r. P an ’s t eac hi ng abi l i ty“good, ” butnot“exc el l ent ” as M uhl enber g r equi r ed foran aw ar d of te n u re . T h e F E C c h a ra c te ri z e d th e e v id e n c e o n th e q u a lity o f h is te a c h in g a s “ m ix e d ,”
n o ted th a t co n c e rn s w e re ra ise d a b o u t h is e f f e c tiv e n e ss a s a tea c h e r, cite d c e rta in comm ent s byfac ul tyand al um ni , and found D r . Pan’ s SI R s l acki ng i n compar i s on t o t he othert enur e appl i cant s . W i th r es pectt o D r . Pan’ s C om m i t m entt o the G oal s of the C o lleg e , the F E C re p o rte d th a t itw a s c o n c e rn e d a b o u t D r. P a n ’s v iew o f h is s tu d e n ts beca us e he “ bel i t t l ed the w r i t t en w or k of s tudent s byname” and came t o t he i nt ervi ew w i th t he C om m i t t ee a nd handed outcopi es of a curr ents tudent ’ s poorw r i t i ng. B ynami ng the s tudent , D r . Pan demonstr at ed a di s turbi ng l ack of r es pectforthe s tudent . A l s o . . . D r . Pan a ttribu ted th e d if

f icu ltya n d lac k o f

su c c e ss e x p e rie n c e d b ystu d e n ts in h is6

c o u rse s to th e ir p rio r p o o r e d u c a tio n . H e d id n o t se e m to b e a w a re o f h is ow n r es pons i bi l i tyt o pr ovi de a s ucce s s ful educa t i onal exper i ence for s tu d e n ts . D ea n D retsch n o ti fied D r. P an o f th e F E C ’s rep o rt . D retsch d id n o t th ink that D r. Pan s houl d have be en gr ant ed t enur e bec aus e hi s “per form ance w as notup t o our stan d ard s. ” D ea n D retsch fo rw ard ed the F E C ’s reco m m en d ati o n to P reside n t T ay lor. A fter rec eivin g the F E C ’s rep o rt , P reside n t T ay lor m et w ith it s m em b ers. I n T ay l or ’ s vi ew , ther e w as “no l i ghtforD r . Pan. E ach one of [the FE C m ember s ] had a
n eg ati v e a n d in so m e c ase s d ev astati n g lyn eg ati v e re p o rt . ” T ay lor l ea rne d that the F E C ’s i nt ervi ew w i th D r . Pan w as “t err i bl e . . . thatD r . Pan w as abr as i ve; he w as uncol l egi al . ” A c c o rd in g to o n e m e m b e r o f th e F E C , “ it w a s th e w o rs t in te rv ie w in 4 0 y e a rs .” I n M ay1999, D r . Pan r eques t ed a r evi ew of the FE C ’ s r ecomm endat i on bythe Facul tyPer s onnel and Pol i ci es C om m i t t ee ( “FPPC ”) . A ft erconduct i ng a hea r i ng, the FPP C i s s ued i t s r ecomm endat i on i n a l ett erdat ed J ul y19, 1999. B ya fourt o one vot e, the FPPC found thatthe FE C had gi ven i nadequa t e cons i der at i on t o Pan’ s t eac hi ng. T he l ett ernot ed thatquot es fr om fac ul tym ember s w er e t aken outof cont extand
m i s r epr es ent ed. I n t he FPPC ’ s vi ew , the “pr eponder ance of evi dence i n D r . Pan’ s w r i t t en fi l e . . . poi nt s t o a conc l us i on aboutD r . Pan’ s t eac hi ng [thati s ] di ffe r entfr om thatof the FE C ’ s . ” The FP PC , how ever , di d notfi nd anyfaul tw i th the FE C ’ s tr eatm entof the al um ni comm ent s orthe SI R s cor es . B ya thr ee t o tw o vot e, the FPPC r ecomm ended that Pr es i dentT ay l orr econs i derD r . Pan’ s t enur e appl i cat i on.7

In a d d iti o n , the F P P C n o ted tw o p ro c e d u ra l v io latio n s: (1 ) th e F E C ’s f a ilu re to not i fyD r . Pan thati thad r ece i ved hi s fal l 1998 SI R s cor es ( a pr ocedur al i rr egul ar i tyt hat
w as notl i m i t ed t o D r . Pan, butexper i ence d byal l s i x of the t enur e ca ndi dat es ) ; and ( 2) the fa ctthatthe Phi l os ophyD epart m entand a s t eer i ng comm i t t ee ha d notform ul at ed a composi t e r ecomm endat i on. T he FPPC , bya thr ee t o tw o vot e, r ecomm ended reconsi derat i on becau se i n the absence o f t hese proced ural viol at i on s there w as “atl east th e p o ten tial o f

a d if f e re n t o u tco m e .” T h e F P P C c o n c lu d e d its re p o rt b yn o tin g th a t it under s t ood thati t s char ge w as l i m i t ed and thati t s r ecomm endat i on forr econs i der at i on w a s “ n o t a n e n d o rs e m e n t o f a p a rt ic u la r o u tc o m e .” A t so m e p o in t, M u h len b e rg P ro f e ss o r S u sa n S c h w a rtz , a f rie n d o f D r. P a n ’s, to ld P re sid e n t T a y lo r th a t sh e th o u g h t “th e re w a s a ra c ial o v e rto n e in th e P a n m a tter.” S h e d id nots ubs t ant i at e heral l egat i on. I n r es pons e, Pr es i dentT ay l orm etw i th the mem ber s of the FPPC and not ed thatPan br oughta di ffe r enti nt el l ectual poi ntof vi ew t o the col l ege and thatthe col l ege ne eded di ffe r ence . Pr ofes s orSchw art z’ s comm ental s o pr om pt ed Pr es i dentT ay l ort o i nvi t e D ean D r et s ch, D epart m entC hai rSchl echt , and D r . Pan t o a m e e tin g in h is o f

f ice to c o n sid e r th is a lleg a tio n . D u rin g th is m e e tin g , ac c o rd in g to Ta y l o r , S c h l e c h ti n d i c a t e d th a th e d i d n o tth i n k th e r e wa s a n yb i a s o n th e p a r to f th e F EC,

“ b u t so m e o n e w h o c o m e s f ro m [ a ] d if

f e re n t cu ltu re c a n b e m isu n d e rsto o d f ro m tim e to t i m e. ” A ccor di ng t o Pr es i dentT ay l or , D r . Pan’ s educa t i on, exper i ence and bac kgr ound
w er e comm endabl e, butD r . Pan w as unabl e t o appr eci at e the s t andar ds thathad t o be met8

f o r a n a w a rd o f

te n u re . A l though Pr es i dentT ay l orr econs i der ed the mer i t s of D r . Pan’ s t enur e bi d, he chos e t o adher e t o t he FE C ’ s r ecomm endat i on t o denyt enur e. H e ac know l edged thatt he fac ul tyeval uat i ons of D r . Pan w er e verypos i t i ve, butexpl ai ned dur i ng hi s depos i t i on t hat “itw as stil l bad co m ing o u t of the s tud en ts. T h e tea ch ing w as b ad . T ea ch ing is ve ry i m por t ant . ” A ccor di ng t o Pr es i dentT ay l or , the “r eas on thatD r . Pan di d notr ece i ve ten u re is th a t h e d id n o t f e e l itw a s a p rio rityto m e e t th e sta n d a rd s o f th e c o lleg e th a t it has been us i ng form any , m anydeca des . ” A ta fi nal m eet i ng betw een Pr es i dentT ay l orand D r . Pan i n A ugus t , Pr es i dent T ay lor co n v ey ed h is de cisi o n to d en yD r. P an ’s ap p li ca ti o n fo r t en u re. A cc o rdin g to D r. P an , T ay lor tr ie d to u n d e rs ta n d w h yth e F E C w a s n e g a tiv e a b o u t m yte n u re e lig ib ility. .

. A n d h e tri ed to u n d erstan d in m yfa v o r. H e sa id, y o u k n o w , theyd o n ’t u n d e rs ta n d y o u . T h e y ’r e p la y in g A m e ri c a n c h e s s a n d y o u ’r e p la y in g g o . G o m eans a J apane s e che s s game. T hat ’ s w hy. . . theydon’ tunder s t and y ou . T hat’ s w hat he sai d. T hat m ade a d eeper i m press i on on m e beca use h e u sed a m etap h o r. T ay l oracknow l edged maki ng the comm ent , and expl ai ned thathe w as try i ng t o m ake a

“ p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o i n t ” b e c a u s e th e g a m e o f “ g o ” “ t a k e s a v e ry s u b s t a n t i a l m i n d t o p l a y” and i tw as “onl ypl ay ed bypeopl e thathave gr eatr es pect . ” D i s s at i s fi ed w i th t he deni al of hi s t enur e appl i cat i on, D r . Pan fi l ed a c har ge of nat i onal or i gi n di s cr i m i nat i on i n D ece m ber1999. T he EE O C eventual l yfi l ed a c om pl ai nt o n h is b e h a lf. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt g ra n te d M u h le n b e rg ’s m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.9

Itrej ect ed M uh l enb erg’ s content i on that the E E O C fai l ed to est abli sh a pri m a facie cas e beca us e D r . Pan w as notqual i fi ed. T he C our tacknow l edged thatM uhl enber g had offe r ed a l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas on fori t s act i on, expl ai ni ng thati thad deni ed D r . Pan’ s bi d fort enur e bec aus e he f ai l ed t o s at i s fythe col l ege’ s s t andar d of “e xcel l ence ” i n t e a c h i n g r e q u i r e d f

o ra n a wa r d o f

t e n u r e . T h e Di s tr i c tCo u r tc o n c l u d e d th a tth e E E OC had notdemonstr at ed thatM uhl enber g’ s r eas on fordeny i ng t enur e w as pr et extual . T he E E O C f iled th is tim e lya p p e a l. Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r ta p p r o p r i a t e l yc o n c l u d e d th a tth e EE OC e s t a b l i s h e d a p r i ma fac i e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on. I n B e n n u n v . R u tg e rs S ta te U n ive rs ity , 941 F. 2d 154, 176 (3d C i r. 19 91 ), w e i nst ruct ed thatthere i s “no n eed to si ftthroug h [a tenure app l i cant’ s] cr edent i al s i n anydet ai l i n connec t i on w i th hi s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e. ” I ti s s uffi ci enti f the evi dence pl ace s the ca ndi dat e i n t he mi ddl e gr oup of ca ndi dat es forw hom t enur e coul d be e ith e r g ra n te d o r d e n ie d . R oebuck v. D r exe lU

ni v. , 8 5 2 F. 2 d 7 1 5 , 7 2 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 8 ) . To b e s u re , D r. P a n m e t th is re q u ir e m e n t. I n o r d e rt o s u r v i v e s u mma r yj u d g me n twh e n a Ti t l e VI I p l a i n t i f f ma k e s o u ta p r i ma f a c ie c a se a n d th e e m p lo y e r h a s p ro f f e re d a leg iti m a te, n o n d isc rim in a to ryre a so n f o r its act i on, “a pl ai nt i ff mustpoi ntt o s om e evi dence , di r ectorci r cumst ant i al , fr om w hi ch a f a c tf in d e r c o u ld re a so n a b lye ith e r (1 ) d isb e liev e th e e m p lo y e r’s a rticu late d leg iti m a te re a so n s; o r (2 ) b e liev e th a t an in v id io u s d isc rim in a to ryre a so n w a s m o re lik e lyth a n n o t a m ot i vat i ng ordet erm i nat i ve ca us e of the empl oy er ’ s act i on. ” Fu e n tes v . P e rs k ie , 32 F. 3d10

759, 764 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . I ti s notenough t o s how thatthe empl oy erw as w r ong or m i s t aken i n t aki ng s uch ac t i on beca us e the i s s ue i s “w hetherthe di s cr i m i nat oryani m us m ot i vat ed the empl oy er . . . . ” I d. at765. R ather , the pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e “s uch
w eakne s s es , i m pl aus i bi l i t i es , i ncons i s t enci es , i ncoher enci es , orcontr adi ct i ons ” i n the pr offe r ed r eas on thata r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d di s bel i eve i tand i nferthatthe e m p lo y e r d id n o t a c t f

o r t h e a s s e rt e d re a s o n . I d. C on si st ent w i th thi s fr am ew ork, w e hav e i nst ruct ed thata plai nti ff m ust demonstr at e more than j us ta deni al of t enur e i n the cont extof a di s agr eementaboutt he c a n d id a te ’s te a c h in g a b iliti e s . B ennun , 9 4 1 F .2 d a t 1 7 0 ; Mo lth a n v . T e m p le U n ive rs ity , 778 F. 2d 955, 962 ( 3d C i r . 1985) . A ccor di ngl y , w e do nots i t“as a s upert enur e r evi ew boar d . . . . I ti s notforus t o w ei gh the evi dence and det erm i ne w hetherw e agr ee w i th t he U ni ver s i ty ’ s as s es s m ent . . . . ” R oebuck , 852 F. 2d at731. A s w e r ecogni zed i n E qual E m pl oym ent

O ppor t uni t

y C om m is s i on v. Fr ankl i n and Mars hal lC ol l ege , 775 F. 2d 110 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ), “itis ne ith er f o r th e E E O C n o r fo r th e c o u rt s to ree v alua te a c an d idate’s qual i fi cat i ons . . . . T he oftt i m es di ffi cul tdeci s i on t o pr om ot e ort o gr antt enur e s hal l be l eftexcl us i vel yt o t hi s nat i on’ s col l eges and uni ver s i t i es s o l ong as the dec i s i ons ar e not m ade, i n partl ar ge ors m al l , upon s t atut or i l yi m perm i s s i bl e r eas ons . ” I d. at117 ( ci t at i on o m itted). A ft era thor ough r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e conc l ude thata r eas onabl e fa ct fi nder coul d notconcl ude thatthe dec i s i on t o denyD r . Pan’ s t enur e appl i cat i on w as m ot i vat ed11

bya dis cri m i natoryanim us. A tm ost , the ev i den ce est abli shes that there w as a di s agr eementaboutD r . Pan’ s t eac hi ng abi l i t i es . T he FE C det erm i ned, aft err evi ew i ng D r . Pan’ s w r i t t en fi l e and i nt ervi ew i ng hi m per s onal l y , thatD r . Pan’ s t eac hi ng, though

“ g o o d , ” d i d n o tme e tth e s t a n d a r d o f “ e x c e l l e n c e ” r e q u i r e d f o rt e n u r e . Th e F P P C, h o w ev er, co n clud ed that the F E C h ad n o t give n ad eq u ate c o n side rati o n to D r. P an ’s
w ri tt en fil e. Y et no thing in the rep o rto f e ith er the F E C o r th e F P P C su g g ests that D r. Pan’ s her i t age pl ay ed anyparti n t he deni al of hi s t enur e appl i cat i on. T h e E E O C e q u a tes th e F P P C ’s r e p o rt w ith th e g rie v a n c e c o m m itt e e ’s r e p o rt in S tew a rt v . R u tg e rs S ta te U n ive rs ity , 120 F. 3d 426 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . T her e, w e r ever s ed a gr antof s um m aryj udgm entforthe U ni ver s i ty , expl ai ni ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our thad fai l ed t o cons i derthe gr i evanc e comm i t t ee’ s concl us i on thatthe deni al of t enur e w as a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s a n d th a t s u c h e v id e n c e w a s p ro b a tiv e o f a ra c ia l a n im u s . I

d. at 4 3 4 n .5 . S tew a rt i s di s t i ngui s habl e on i t s fac t s and i s notcontr ol l i ng. U nl i ke Stew art , w her e the pr ofes s ors peci fi cal l yal l eged r ace and gende rdi s cr i m i nat i on, and the gr i evanc e c o m m itt e e o b se rv e d th a t so m e o f th e U n iv e rsity ’s c o n d u c t w a s n o t co n sis ten t w ith its af firm ati v e a cti o n init iat ives , there is no thing in the F P P C ’s rep o rtsu g g esti n g that D r. Pan’ s nat i onal i tyadver s el yaff ect ed hi s bi d fort enur e. M or eover , w hi l e the gr i evanc e comm i t t ee i n Stew arts t at ed thatthe pr ofes s or ’ s r ej ect i on “coul d nothave be en r eac hed by
r eas onabl e eva l uat or s , ” 120 F. 3d at430, her e ther e w as evi dent i arys uppor ti n the
n e g a tiv e sta tem e n ts b ya lu m n i an d th e lo w S IR s, a s w e ll as in th e les s-th a n -f a v o ra b le12

per s onal i nt ervi ew , t o s uppor tthe FE C ’ s concl us i on thatD r . Pan fai l ed t o m eet M uhl enber g’ s s t andar d fort enur e w hi ch w as “exc el l ence i n t eac hi ng. ” I ndeed, even the FPP C not ed thatthe FE C had nei therm i s r epr es ent ed the al um ni comm ent s norpl ace d i nap propri at e rel i ance o n D r. P an’s SIR s. W e r ecogni ze thattw o devi at i ons fr om M uhl enber g’ s rul es occurr ed. N ei ther pr ocedur al i r r egul ar i tycan be r eas onabl yr el at ed t o D r . Pan’ s nat i onal i ty , as our d e s c ri p tio n o f

th e m , supra , m akes cl ear. A ccordi ng l y , these i rr egu l ari t i es can n ot cas t doubton M uhl enber g’ s r eas on fordeny i ng t enur e, and do notgi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence th a t a n a n ti- C h in e s e a n im u s f la v o re d th e F E C ’s re c o m m e n d a tio n . C f
. W ei ns t ock v
. C ol um bi a U

ni v. , 224 F. 3d 33, 45 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( r ej ect i ng cont ent i on thats er i es of pr ocedur al i r r egul ar i t i es i n t enur e pr oces s s how ed di s cr i m i nat oryi nt entbeca us e ther e w as n o e v id e n c e th a t p lain tiff ’s s e x p layed a ro le in th e a lleg e d irre g u lar iti e s); B i cke rs taf f v. V as s arC ol l ege , 196 F. 3d 435, 452 ( 2d C i r . 1999) ( acknow l edgi ng thatpr ocedur al i rr egul ar i t i es m ayr ai s e ques t i on as t o r el i abi l i tyof the t enur e dec i s i on, butpoi nt i ng out that irreg u lari ti es a t i ssu e w ere n o t r ac e re lat ed ). N orar e w e per s uaded thatPr es i dentT ay l or ’ s r emar k aboutD r . Pan pl ay i ng “go” i s evi dence thatT ay l or ’ s deci s i on t o adher e t o the FE C ’ s r ecomm endat i on w as bas ed on D r . Pan’ s her i t age. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatthi s r emar k “r efe rr ed t o the i nt er act i on betw een the FE C and D r . Pan, r atherthan hi s ow n vi ew s . ” T he othercomm ent s r egar di ng D r . Pan’ s cul tur e do notgi ve r i s e t o i nfer ence of13

di s cr i m i nat i on ei ther . T heyw er e made i n the mi ds tof i nqui r i ng i nt o Pr ofes s or Schw art z’ s uns ubs t ant i at ed al l egat i on thatthe deni al of t enur e w as m arr ed byr aci al overt ones . I ndeed, Pr ofes s orSchw art z’ s s t at ement , w hi ch i s i nadmi s s i bl e forpurpos es of e s ta b lis h in g th e e x is te n c e o f a d is c ri m in a to ry a n im u s , see P a m intua n v. N a n ti co ke Mem ’l H os p. , 1 9 2 F .3 d 3 7 8 , 3 8 7 n .1 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ), w a s th e e v e n t th a t p ro m p ted T a y lo r to i nqui r e i nt o t he i s s ue of D r . Pan’ s cul tur e. T i t l e V I I encour ages empl oy er s t o heed al l egat i ons of thi s natur e. N o empl oy ers houl d be pl ace d i n a C at ch- 22 w her e i tm ayfac e l i abi l i tybeca us e i thas fai l ed t o r es pond t o an al l egat i on of di s cr i m i nat i on, and al s o fac e l i abi l i tybeca us e i thas i n fac tr es ponded. A n i nqui ryi nt o an al l egat i on of di s cr i m i nat i on sh o u ld n o t it se lf

b e c o m e e v id e n c e o f

d isc rim in a tio n m e re lyb e c a u se th o se c h a rg e d w ith conduct i ng the i nqui r yhave di s cus s ed the al l egat i on fr ankl yand cons i der ed al l the pos s i bi l i t i es . A s al w ay s , s t at ement s byan empl oy erm us tgi ve r i s e t o a re a so n a b le in f e re n c e o f d is c ri m in a tio n b e f

o re a ju ry q u e s tio n is p re s e n te d . C f
. Li m v. Trus t ees of I ndi ana U

ni v. , 297 F. 3d 575, 580 ( 7th C i r . 2002) ( concl udi ng thatpr es i dent ’ s l ett er acknow l edgi ng conce r n aboutt enur e w as noti nappr opr i at e i n l i ghtof the fa ctthatan E E O C char ge had be en fi l ed and thati tw as s pecul at i on t o concl ude thatthe l ett er estab li sh ed d iscri m inato ryinten t) . In su m , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e E E O C f a iled to sh o w m o re th a n a d e n ial o f ten u re in th e c o n tex t o f

a d isa g re e m e n t ab o u t D r. P a n ’s te a c h in g a b ili ty . T h e re is n o th in g to r eas onabl ys ugges tthatD r . Pan’ s C hi nes e her i t age w as a fa ct ori n M uhl enber g’ s deci s i on2 Wh ileweho ld t hat th e reis ins uf

fi c ient evide nc ein t

hesumma

ry judgment re c ord to show that the Univer sity' s tenure de cision was base d on rac e or national orig in, our opinion sh ould n ot b eint e rp rete d a s e xpre ssingany view a s to wh e ther t

heUnivers ity

wa s c or re c t in its evaluation of Dr. Pan' s abilities as a scholar or teacher . Those are questions that we ha ve neither the authority

nor the e xpertise to dec ide. to d en ytenu re. A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err i n g ran ti n g su m m ary 2 ju d g m e n t f

o r M u h len b e rg . W e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.