|
|
|
|
|
KU Civil Rights UpdateSurprise! The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, headed by Chief Judge Deanell Reece Tacha, former KU law professor, vice chancellor, endowment association trustee, alumni association officer and civil rights defendant, has affirmed the district courts' dismissals of the three most recent cases before them. Believe it or not, they released two of those affirmations on the same day. Two judges were on both of the panels in those appeals and one judge wrote both decisions. The decisions ignore the growing mountain of evidence against the University, empowering them to continue their retaliatory ways. You can read more about the cases here: The appeal of Dr. Cynthia Annett, who was denied consideration for a position at KU after filing a complaint
against KU with the OFCCP. The appeal of former School of Journalism assistant professor Mike Cuenca, a native Kansan who is Hispanic/Filipino. The appeal of Dr. Karen Pagel-Meiners, a widowed single
mother who was persecuted and then terminated after requesting maternity
leave and
then bereavement leave. There are at least two new civil rights lawsuits this year, bringing the total under Hemenway to 44. K-State still has had only 10 in the same time period. And K-State hasn't had a new one filed since 1999. Tells you something, doesn't it? For more information about how well K-State handles their grievance process, check out the website of their Office of Affirmative Action. Defendant Dean ResignsThe University has announced that James K. "Jimmy" Gentry, dean of the School of Journalism at the University of Kansas and a named defendant in former KU journalism professor Mike Cuenca's civil rights lawsuit, will step down from his position to teach in the School. In the lawsuit, Cuenca presented documentary evidence that Gentry had tainted Cuenca's tenure review by withholding evidence of Cuenca's record and lying to the University about Cuenca's record. The J-School reportedly conducted Gentry's five-year review during the past school year, but the University's official statements about his resignation make no mention of the outcome of his review or of his involvement in the civil rights lawsuit. Gentry, will now be a professor in the J-School, which means the University has rewarded him with a lifetime sinecure, which doesn't seem particularly just. But at least he won't be making any management decisions. The timing of the announcement is intriguing. Next week, the Association of Educators of Journalism and Mass Communications will hold their national convention in nearby Kansas City. Gentry says that they actually wanted to do that to create a "buzz" at the convention. Sounds like a good idea to me. The J-School is also facing its regular accrediting review in two years and Gentry said he wanted to resign so that they could find someone else before the review. I wonder if that means he thinks he might be a liability. Read the University's official press release and the Journal-World article. The story of Cuenca's tenure review is a must read. TIME TO SPEAK UP!Most employees are unaware of the existence of the U.S. Office of Federal Contracts Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which enforces affirmative action law for all companies and institutions that receive federal funds. KU has been found out of compliance the last two times they've been reviewed. They have undergone a new review within the last year. The women and minority faculty of KU (both current and former) continue to speak up and let the OFCCP now what it's really like to work under Robert Hemenway. Contact the OFCCP and tell them your story:
Ms. Sandra Scott Zeigler Don't forget to read the complaint we filed with them in 2000. Statement from Mike Cuenca: It's a familiar tune.In keeping with the nationwide nullification of civil rights law in the U.S. federal courts, District Judge Sam A. Crow denied my motion for summary judgment and granted the University's motion for summary dismissal. Crow graduated from KU in 1949 and was appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1981. And this is the same court that only fifty years ago ruled that they could see no discrimination in not allowing black students to go to school with white students. That case was Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. KU filed its motion for summary dismissal with more pages than the Court allows and containing a statement that amounted to perjury by defendant Myron Kautsch. After I produced evidence that proved the lie, they asked the judge for permission to swap in a completely new motion. Crow allowed the swap and then dismissed the case without allowing me the opportunity to respond to their amended dismissal motion. Crow disingenuously disregarded the written statements of illegal motive, writing, "direct evidence of prohibited discrimination or retaliation in the decisions affecting plaintiff is not found . . . " Although judges are required to draw all inferences raised by the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff when considering summary dismissal, Crow accepted the facts I had alleged, then colored all of those facts in the light most favorable to the defense. To do so, he discredited the direct evidence and disregarded the uncontroverted evidence of seven years of retaliatory actions against me, the uncontroverted evidence of the tainted tenure review, the uncontroverted evidence of KU's history of non-compliance with federal civil rights laws, the uncontroverted evidence of KU's past civil rights legal problems, and the uncontroverted evidence of the lies and misrepresentations of KU's managers and administrators. It's necessary to consider the good will KU enjoys in this region and particularly in this court. Crow is one of eight KU grads among the 11 judges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Four of the six magistrate judges are KU grads. One of the district judges is the sister of KU's second-highest-paid administrator. Two of the district judges are graduates of the School of Journalism. Now, I proudly join two other victims, Dr. Cynthia Annett and Dr. Karen Pagel-Meiners, who are currently appealing dismissals in KU cases to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (which recently threw out a jury verdict that found KU liable for illegal retaliation.) Deanell Reece Tacha, one of KU's most powerful and loyal alumni, is the Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. She is a former KU law professor, former KU administrator, and until recently a trustee of the Kansas University Endowment Association. Tacha knows firsthand of this battle for civil rights at KU. While she was a KU administrator, she was sued in two civil rights lawsuits brought by two female tenured professors who filed lawsuits after they were terminated after raising salary equity issues. Tacha was defended by the very same attorney now defending KU. Those cases were dismissed by the District of Kansas court and then the appeals of the dismissals were rejected by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals--after she was appointed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Her former law clerk, Reggie Robinson (now Executive Director of the Kansas Board of Regents), was KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway's special legal counsel throughout the pendency of all of KU's recent civil rights litigation. In her position as the chief judge of the Tenth Circuit, she is the "supervisor" of all the judges in the District of Kansas and she appoints the panels that will hear appeals of their rulings. So, not surprisingly, once again a federal judge from the District of Kansas has confirmed the facts alleged by a KU civil rights plaintiff, and has then issued a disingenuous and cynical ruling to protect the policies and bad decisions of Robert Hemenway and to effectively weaken civil rights law enforcement. Although KU has again succeeded in avoiding legal liability for their actions, one must wonder if they really think they've "won" anything. Those who have been motivated by a well-meaning but misguided desire to "protect" KU are in fact prolonging the victimization and the deterioration of KU's reputation. At any time during Hemenway's nine years at KU, the more than 40 civil rights lawsuits against KU and the resulting bad publicity could have been stopped if the people with the power to do so had simply taken action to do the right things to protect the rights of all of KU's employees. Now, one must wonder how long Governor Kathleen Sebelius and the Kansas Board of Regents will condone with their inaction the victimization and the snowballing degradation of KU's reputation. Free speech, lies and tenure review.Former KU assistant professor Mike Cuenca has filed a motion for summary judgment in his federal civil rights lawsuit. The motion and accompanying documentation detail the seven years of prejudice and discrimination he experienced in the William Allen White School of Journalism. You might not be shocked by the blatant lies and violations of academic freedom and free speech documented in the motion. Individual defendant James K. "Jimmy" Gentry, dean of the School of Journalism, falsified Cuenca's work record during Cuenca's tenure review and then lied about it under oath. Individual defendant Myron A. "Mike" Kautsch, former dean of the School of Journalism wrote in a memo that he wanted to terminate Cuenca for "making demands and stating expectations." The KU administration was aware at all times of the conduct of these individuals and deliberately ignored their violations, creating a de facto policy of tolerance of discrimination and retaliation in their workplace. Read the entire memorandum in support and the narrative affidavit. Did Chancellor Robert E. Hemenway lie to the Board of Regents?On April 8, KU Chancellor Robert E. Hemenway presented his work record to the Kansas Board of Regents prior to his annual performance evaluation. According to published news reports, he boasted of an increased number of minority faculty as an accomplishment. But the truth is that the there has been an increase of only one minority faculty member in the past three years--and the number of tenured minority faculty has actually fallen. Dr. Cynthia Annett responded to the Chancellor's deliberate misinformation with the following letter to the editor of the Lawrence Journal-World.
Is this an indication of sensitivity to social issues in the workplace ?On Wednesday, February 13, 2002, University of Kansas Chancellor Robert E. Hemenway stood before a classroom full of second-graders--and at least one news photographer--and proceeded to tell the children the story of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. What could he have been thinking? Although there are those--including many African-Americans--who ignore the implications of the racial slur "tar baby" in the story to rationalize including this story in modern folk tale repertoire, for many people that slur is impossible to ignore. The point to be made here is that when you're being sued by 7 separate individuals in federal court, alleging that you and your institution discriminated against them for reasons including racial prejudice, you might want to think about telling a different story to a group of schoolchildren. See the original photograph in the Topeka Capital-Journal. KU has known about the problems facing minority faculty on campus, but has ignored and hidden their concerns.In 1997, KU's "everything but the truth" squad led by Chancellor Hemenway and Provost David Shulenburger made a decision to hide a minority focus group report that indicated serious and widespread problems facing minority faculty on campus. The report was the product of focus groups conducted by the University during the fall of 1996 involving a full third of the minority faculty at the time. Even though they should have produced this report in the courses of their many discrimination lawsuits, they hid it until it was uncovered by Mike Cuenca in his lawsuit. So, none of the attorneys or plaintiffs in the previous lawsuits were aware of this important evidence of KU's own knowledge of the problems with minority hiring, promotion, and retention some faculty were suing over. Even after it was uncovered, the administration stonewalled its release, denying access to the report as a public document. The University continues to hide this report. They have refused to produce it under the Kansas Open Records Act, saying that because they have attached a roster of participants to the report, it is a personnel record and isn't covered by the Open Records Act. This stubborn resistance is strangely futile, however, because the report is now a public document after it was filed with Mike Cuenca's motion for default judgement (described below.) Read "A Focus Group Report on KU Minority Faculty." The first page is a summary by current acting Director of Equal Opportunity Danielle Dempsey-Swopes, dated a full year after the report's publication and a full two years before the two jury trials conducted during the spring of 2000. It is important to note how many people were involved in the cover up of this report. It was written by Beverly Davenport Sypher, former associate dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and James Patterson, a lecturer in the Communications Studies Department. The focus groups were conducted with the participation of the Office of Equal Opportunity. The report was submitted to the administration and reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel. Not one of the people involved spoke up and acknowledged this report's existence or their knowledge of the concerns of minority faculty. Why not? Were they threatened? Were they part of a larger cover-up of KU's problems with diversity? Did they just not care?
This past summer (2001), KU successfully appealed the denials of their motions for dismissal in Dr. Marie Aquilino's case. Although the District Judge had ruled several times that there was enough evidence to support the charges and a jury found that KU had retaliated illegally, a friendly panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on behalf of KU and in essence vacated the jury's verdict. What's most disturbing is that the appeals court acknowledged that KU did not deny the retaliation, only that the harm inflicted on Dr. Aquilino did not rise to a level of illegality. Their now-published decision is one more that helps conservatives further limit the scope and effectiveness of civil rights law. However, it is important to note that the decision did not exonerate KU for the retaliation that the jury found. The decision says, in part: "At trial, KU stipulated that Dr. Aquilino engaged in protected activity, and on appeal it does not challenge the evidence showing the causal connection between Dr. Aquilino's protected activity and the allegedly adverse actions the university took against her." Once again, you have more evidence that Robert Hemenway and David Shulenburger believe that any conduct--no matter how immoral or illegal--is neither beneath them nor unacceptable to them if they can get away with it. Read the 10th Circuit's Aquilino decision. Under Chancellor Hemenway's leadership, KU has faced 36 federal lawsuits alleging various civil rights violations. Many of the suits have been settled quietly. Others were dismissed. One must wonder if the plaintiffs in any of those cases knew about KU's deficient Executive Order 11246 compliance or about the hidden minority focus group reports or about the hidden women's status report. During the same time period, K-State only faced 10 civil rights lawsuits. Wichita State only faced 2. This is a pretty strong indication that KU's internal grievance process is seriously broken. The 36 lawsuits filed since Hemenway took over in 1995 represent a 328% increase over the 9 lawsuits that KU faced during the seven years prior to Hemenway's arrival. K-State's increase was only from 8 to 10, or 125%. So it seems that Chancellor Hemenway has succeeded in leading KU to the top of at least one ranking. The Kansas Conference of the American Association of University Professors held their Spring meeting at KU, on April 21, 2001. Dr. Martin Snyder, Associate Secretary for Academic Freedom and Professional Standards, spoke on "An Effective Faculty Handbook." Dr. Snyder is conducting the investigation into KU's tenure practices and procedures that was triggered by the Kansas Conference Ad Hoc Committee A Report, which was critical of KU's tenure practices and procedures. Download and read the Kansas Conference Report. Assistant Professor Mike Cuenca has filed a motion for default judgment in his civil rights lawsuit against KU. It turns out that KU has been withholding material evidence in the recent string of federal civil rights lawsuits. The evidence they held back includes the documents detailing their previous violations of federal civil rights regulations, as well as internal reports on the status of minorities and women in the workplace that are critical of the University's treatment of these groups of employees. This revelation is significant because it could be grounds to have the trial verdict in the Annett case vacated and it could result in criminal charges against those responsible. If you've been following the news on this site, you'll know that the practice of suppressing information is this administration's most common strategy. They seem to believe that they'll be able to continue to deny wrongdoing in all of these different controversies and that nobody will actually dig deep enough to find the evidence. They were mistaken. Download and read the Plaintiff's Motion For Default Judgment. Mike Cuenca has filed a reply brief after KU's response to the motion for default judgment. KU did not deny that they withheld evidence as Cuenca alleged. They did, however, try to rationalize their conduct. Download and read the Plaintiff's Reply. NOTE: The federal judge denied the motion for default judgment, ruling that the evidence of institutional discrimination that the University withheld is not relevant to this case of employment discrimination. On March 8, 2001, students marched across campus and into the newsroom of the University Daily Kansan to protest the Kansan's coverage of minority issues and stories. The protest developed after a story about the Big 12 Conference on Black Student Government published in the Kansan. Following the lead of their faculty mentors, the Kansan's student leadership has stonewalled the issue, denying any mistakes were made. As a result, the story just won't die. Here are the various articles, starting at the beginning: "Fight fails to derail minority conference," "Fight's newsworthiness affected paper's decisions," (Column) "Kansan was mistaken to imply that fight defined weekend conference," "Coverage of fight at conference employs negative stereotypes," "Student-focused newspaper includes good, bad news," "Black students picket Kansan," "Conflict brews on campus," "KU black students disapprove of coverage in campus newspaper," "African-American coverage to be discussed on KJHK," "Groups discuss recent tension on KJHK," "Blame school for race coverage," "Kansan editor's response hypocritical, insufficient," "Inappropriate coverage merits Kansan apology," (Column), "Journalism school not racist," "Kansan merely reports news," "Racism apparent at University," (Letter), In a letter to the editor of the Lawrence Journal-World, Dr. Elmer Hoyer of Wichita State University, who is president of the Kansas Conference of the American Assocation of University Professors, criticized the KU administration for the confrontation in Dr. Pierotti's classroom. "Faculty Concern," (Letter) The University has not let up in its recent attack on Drs. Pierotti and Annett (see the articles in the next section.) The article below describes the latest act of harassment. "Professor threatened with removal; University upset about unapproved guest lecturer," During the past couple of weeks, Dr. Ray Pierotti has had to have two eye surgeries which have left him unable to teach his classes. His wife, Dr. Cynthia Annett, has been giving the lectures in his place. The class she's filling in for is a class she previously taught herself. On Oct. 19, the University administration tried to block her from teaching the class. But we were prepared and the media was there. The story made the front pages of both local newspapers, accompanied by an amazing photograph from inside the classroom during the confrontation. Dictating to a professor who he or she can or can't have as a guest lecturer is a clear violation of academic freedom. "Professor, KU disagree about guest lecturer; University inspects lecturer after lawsuit," "Substitute spawns class action; Students witness charged confrontation between professor, administration," Also, the Kansan editorial board published an editorial today saying that diversity should be more than mere window-dressing. "Diversity is more than numbers," (Editorial) For past news articles, follow our News link. In 1995, Chancellor Robert Hemenway set a goal of 200 minority faculty by the year 2000. How did we do? From 1995 to today, we increased from 100 to 125 minority faculty. He missed it by 75 people and at the rate we're going, we will not have 200 minority faculty until the year 2015. See our Report on the Status of Women and Minorities at the University of Kansas, for more of the startling and depressing statistics. We have filed our formal group complaints with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs and the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education. What we recently discovered is that KU was found in violation of Executive Order 11246 by the OFCCP way back in 1995. At that time, KU offered remedies that the OFCCP accepted. But then KU didn't perform the remedies. So it's no wonder that they've fought so hard to keep all this information hidden.
"Evidence of retaliation stands on its own merits" (Guest column) "Former professor awarded; University to consider appeal" "Ex-professor gets $35,000 in lawsuit against KU" "Former professor wins lawsuit against KU" "KU's actions were retaliatory, jury determines" Official statement from the University of Kansas "KU provost calls Aquilino unqualified" |
|
TENURE ALERT! |
|
Faculty members applying for tenure and/or promotion at the University of Kansas are prohibited from inspecting their own tenure dossiers for misrepresentations, distortions, or even simple errors. Here's how KU works: A faculty member who is a tenure candidate fills out their portions of the Blue Form, which is the application for promotion and tenure. These portions include their statements of teaching and research philosophy, their creative/research activities, their teaching record, and their service record. The candidate then turns this form over to their department or school, representatives of which fill out other portions of the form. These other portions include an assessment of the standards of measure of quality for their particular field and the assessments of the candidates teaching, research, and service. This is where the disturbing part comes in. Once the candidate fills out their portion of the Blue Form, KU does not allow them to ever see the form again. They turn over this document to their colleagues, who can then put anything they want to into this form, confident that the candidate will not be able to refute or counter any misrepresentations or distortions. At some point in the process after the completion of the Blue Form, KU regulations state that the candidate is expected to inspect the Blue Form and sign off on whether or not the Blue Form and supporting materials are a fair representation of the candidate's record. But KU doesn't allow the candidate to inspect the Blue Form. KU requires that the candidate sign the Blue Form without inspecting it. Some of the efforts by some departments and schools to prevent candidates from inspecting their own Blue Form at signing are rather comical. In one instance, a candidate requested the opportunity to see the Blue Form and her department chair held it up across the room and said "See it? Now sign it." Another candidate was directed to sign the form while sheets of paper were placed across the form so that only the signature portion was visible to the candidate. In my own case, the School of Journalism never even requested that I sign the Blue Form before they reviewed my application. This policy of secrecy is exactly counter to the published policies and guidelines not only of the University itself, but also of the American Association of University Professors. The AAUP Policy Documents and Reports book contains a section titled "Access to Faculty Personnel Files." This section clearly mandates that faculty members should have access to their tenure/promotion dossiers at all times, to prevent the possibility of unintentional or intentional misrepresentations and/or distortions and to allow for the easy correction of inadvertent misunderstandings or other problems. At KU, this secrecy policy is used by at least some people to derail the tenure candidacy of some individuals. The people who would abuse the process know that they will be protected by KU's policy of secrecy. If a faculty member is rejected for tenure or promotion, he or she can not see their tenure materials in order to inspect them for inaccuracies. The only way that these materials can be inspected is through legal action. Recently, three lawsuits against KU involving tenure have made it to the courts. In all three of these cases, the legal action allowed the candidates to inspect their Blue Forms and tenure materials. In all three cases, intentional improprieties were exposed. In all three cases. Who knows how many other rejected faculty members' files were also tainted? |
- Are you in an interracial marriage or relationship?
- Have you been subjected to a double standard in your department/unit?
- Are you "invisible" in your department/unit?
- Have you openly supported minority/women's/diversity issues and then experienced a negative change in your work environment?
- Have you ever felt pressure to help cover up evidence of discrimination or retaliation?
- Are you a minority person or woman who has been denied a promotion and/or tenure?
- Do you know any minority people or women who have left KU because of their feelings that they were being discriminated against?
- Have you ever filed a discrimination and/or retaliation lawsuit against KU?
- Have you ever filed a complaint against KU with the Kansas Human Rights Commission or the EEOC?
- Have you ever complained about discrimination to the KU Office of Equal Opportunity or any other KU office?
- Do you know of acts of discrimination and/or retaliation in the KU workplace?
