Color Bind at Clemson - Black professor claims discrimination

Lawsuit by Black professor unveils prickly issues of race and promotion criteria

CLEMSON, S.C. -- Dr. Romando James wants to join a short list--that of Black, full professors at Clemson University. Now an associate professor at the South Carolina land-grant institution, James recently lost a federal race discrimination trial against his employer, but remains steadfast in his decision to appeal the verdict and fight for a promotion he believes is rightfully his.

In his lawsuit filed in 1997, James alleges that he was denied promotion to full professor five times from 1986 to 1996 because he is Black. His suit is believed to be the first discrimination case against Clemson that has made it to a jury trial.

Also named in the lawsuit is James' boss, Dr. Diane Smathers, head of the Family and Youth Services Department. Smathers, in 1994 and 1996, recommended against James' promotion, even though a peer review committee recommended that he be promoted to full professorship.

After that two-week trial accompanied by rallies of support for James, who does have tenure, and testimony by the two college presidents who upheld Smathers, the jury of seven women and four men decided that Clemson and Smathers didn't discriminate against James. In rendering their verdict, the jury told James that Clemson administrators were justified in their contention that he didn't have the scholarly distinction or national reputation required for promotion.

That all 11 jurors were White and took an hour to reach a verdict after two weeks of testimony are just two reasons James is seeking a new trial.

"This message is bigger than not being promoted," says James, who continues to work at Clemson with at-risk and minority youth. "The message is inequity as it relates to Black males being moved within the system of power."

Lawyers for Clemson have said the case was not about race, but about a difference of opinion over James' qualifications. While James believes the criteria and guidelines for promotion changed only for him, Clemson administrators contend the criteria was made more stringent for everyone, in keeping with a more advanced performance standard. They vehemently denied the charges of racial discrimination, particularly because of the checks and balances in the promotion, process.

Clemson has no plans to change the promotion process, which varies by department. But the state has mandated post-tenure review, separate from promotion and yearly evaluations, which will make it tougher for tenured faculty members to keep their jobs if they get an unsatisfactory rating.

"The trial produced no evidence that Professor James was denied promotion because of his race," says Clemson president, Dr. Constantine W. Curris. "It produced abundant evidence that Professor James failed to meet the requirements for promotion."

Yet even as these administrators celebrate their court victory and prepare for James' appeal, the case brings to light the problems Clemson is having in recruiting faculty and administrators of color. According to the university's fall 1998 statistics, slightly more than 1 percent -- or five out of 410 -- of the full professors at Clemson are Black. Nearly 4.6 percent -- or 13 of 279 -- of the associate professors are African American. Meanwhile 8 percent -- or 17 of 221 -- of the assistant professors are Black.

Clemson University administrators differ on what impact the trial will have on those statistics. Dr. Harold Cheatham, who is the first and only African American to hold an appointment as an academic dean at Clemson, says the case is a "lose-lose" situation. Charges of discrimination cannot be exchanged at this level without substantial injury to both sides, he says. The dean of the College of Health, Education, and Human Development feels that k is unlikely that either side will change their minds.

"[The case] has a very strong potential for negatively affecting Clemson's minority recruitment efforts," he says.

Jerry Knighton, interim director for Clemson's Office of Access and Equity, says he thinks the verdict shows that Clemson has done nothing wrong.

"I don't think it necessarily casts a negative light on what Clemson is doing in terms of increasing and promoting its minority faculty," Knighton says.

For James, who came to Clemson from Rutgers University in 1980 and joined what is now called the 4-H Family and Youth Development department, bringing charges against Clemson has been very difficult. He has watched lawyers and administrators pick apart his academic credentials and heard them repeatedly say that they are good, but not quite at the level required for promotion. He has watched other colleagues, some of whom he helped train, get promoted ahead of him, without the doctoral credentials that he claims his bosses told him would get him promoted.

James, who received tenure in 1986, says he doesn't know if he will stay at Clemson and is also unsure about what will happen if he goes up for promotion again, adding that he believes the promotion process is flawed.

As for the appeal, he says he feels a responsibility to keep going, to help ensure fairness for himself and others he believes have been discriminated against.

"I never accepted that I shouldn't be promoted," James says. "The process didn't work for me and it hasn't worked for many others."

COPYRIGHT 1999 Cox, Matthews & Associates
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group