Opinion ID: 766743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Report of the Visiting Committee and the Affidavit of Professor Rhett Jones

Text: 76 Bickerstaff next cites to the report of the Visiting Committee for Africana Studies (Visiting Committee) that reviewed the Africana Studies Program at Vassar in 1988. Specifically, Bickerstaff relies on the statement contained in the Report that Africana Studies has been subjected to hostilities that make it unique among academic departments and programs [at Vassar]. The Visiting Committee also remarked that it had been informed that both the former president of Vassar and faculty advisors had been unsympathetic and unsupportive of Africana Studies. It further stated that it had been told that certain departments at Vassar, such as the Art Department and the Drama Department, had expressed some hostility toward Africana Studies. 77 A careful reading of the entire report reveals, however, that the Visiting Committee also noted that it is in no position to ascertain the truth of such charges. Additionally, the Visiting Committee remarked positively in other regards, stating that the support of the administration has been consistent, and that faculty on campus have come to favorable terms with Africana Studies. Similarly, in another section, the Visiting Committee wrote that it is delighted to report [about] mutual admiration and support on the part of department chairs and Africana Faculty regarding the Africana Studies Program. In the final analysis, the Visiting Committee found both positive and negative reaction to and support for Africana Studies in 1988. 78 But more to the point, the connection that Bickerstaff suggests--that perceived resistance to Africana Studies in 1988 is evidence that she was denied promotion in 1994 because of her race -cannot reasonably be made. The affidavit of Professor Rhett Jones, a member of the Visiting Committee, as well as an outside evaluator of Bickerstaff for promotion in 1994, does not alter this conclusion. In her affidavit, Jones asserts that Bickerstaff should have been promoted based on her achievements in Africana Studies. Yet, Jones admits that she has never observed Bickerstaff in the classroom. Jones also does not assert that she has any personal knowledge whether the attitudes observed by the Visiting Committee in 1988 persisted in 1994, much less whether they might have influenced Vassar's decision to deny Bickerstaff promotion in 1994. 6 While Vassar ultimately declined to follow Jones' outside recommendation that Bickerstaff be promoted, Jones' statement that, I can only assume [my recommendation] was ignored for reasons of race, is both speculative and contrary to fact. In truth, both the FASC Report and the President's letter to Bickerstaff specifically mention the consideration given to the recommendations of the outside evaluators. In declining to follow the recommendations of the outside evaluators, the President's letter stated: 79 The outside reviewers place much emphasis on your service to the educational community and within the College, and we agree that this has been significant. The Governance, however, requires the achievement of marked distinction in at least teaching or scholarship, a standard which has not yet been met. While service is certainly important, it cannot alone compensate for the limitations in both these areas. 80 Thus, contrary to Jones' belief, her recommendation was not ignored, it was just not followed by Vassar in light of its posted criteria for promotion. 81 In short, neither the Visiting Committee's Report in 1988 nor Jones' affidavit is sufficient to create a question of material fact whether Bickerstaff was denied promotion in 1994 because of her race. 82