Since some African-American faculty members feel UT has a revolving door

for select faculty, does the university’s commitment to diversity only

apply to a select group? Robert Villafane, the first African-American in

the Department of Microbiology, was denied tenure by UT in June 1995; he

had been with the university since 1989. The university had little to say

regarding Villafane’s denial of tenure since the case is still under

investigation. However, in an attempt to defend themselves, the university

insisted they are committed to diversity and increasing the number of

minorities and denied the existence of a revolving door for

African-American faculty. Along with the university, the Department of

Microbiology had no comment either. It is too late for the university and

those who work with it to act as if this subject is taboo. If the

university has nothing to hide, it should not matter if the case is still

under investigation, because they should be able to support their actions

with facts and substantial reasoning. The university, as well as everyone

involved with this issue, should be trying to convince the public their

reasoning is legitimate.

If the university is so committed to diversity and increasing the number of

minorities, then why is the percentage of African-American faculty steadily

declining? In the fall of 1990, the faculty was 4.2 percent

African-American and in October 1995, the percentage of African-American

faculty dropped to a meager 3.64 percent. Part of these statistics include

Jeanette Jennings, who was denied the position of acting dean of the

College of Social Work and Jacqueline Jones, former host of Seque on

WUOT-FM. Jones was the only staff member eliminated in a restructuring of

the station. Also, Earl Pruitt, a doctoral candidate in the Department of

English, was discharged as a result of low test scores on his comprehensive

examination. Even if the African-American faculty who were dismissed, were

discharged for a legitimate reason, (e.g., not being qualified), then why

doesn’t the university do a better job in hiring more qualified

African-American faculty? If this is done, the university would not have to

eject faculty from their positions. Synder said he is not satisfied with

the number of minority faculty, but alleges it is hard to find and keep

minority faculty. It seems the logical action regarding the employment of

minority faculty should be to not dismiss them so easily or frequently,

since they are so hard to come by.

If the university is having so much trouble maintaining minority faculty,

due to competition from other universities, another reason given by Synder,

why doesn’t UT fight to keep the African-American faculty since the numbers

are so low in the beginning? Where is the “commitment” when other

institutions of higher learning are battling for the obviously qualified

African-American faculty? I write “qualified” because the other

universities would not be interested in the African-American faculty if

they were not qualified. I’ve always thought UT to be a fighter in every

sense of the word, but when it comes to retaining minority faculty, the

university gives up way to easily, therefore becoming a loser.

It seems the university has not put enough effort into their “commitment”

to increasing the number of minority faculty or maintaining the ones

already employed. My advice to the administration who are “committed” to

diversity and increasing the number of minority faculty: If you are going

to say you are committed to a cause and allow people to publish your

statements regarding your alleged commitment, then let your actions show

you are committed. Also, if UT can be competitive with every other aspect

of the university, including academics, and especially football, there is

no excuse for the administration not to be competitive in their attempts

retain and increase African-American faculty.