Cornell - FACTS-Part I

"WHAT DOSEN'T KILL YOU MAKES YOU STRONGER"

BACKGROUND

After examining the documents that were released during the discovery period of Mr. Grant's lawsuit against Cornell University, he discovered that denying him promotion/tenure was a fait accompli, contrived on myriad fronts by his immediate supervisors, David Feldshuh and the then Department Chairman, Bruce Levitt.

Levitt and Feldshuh vindictively sabotaged Grant's tenure/promotion review. Below please find the very long list recounting the unethical and craven devices they employed to destroy Mr. Grant's career at Cornell University.

ACTS OF SABOTAGE

o

2.

Levitt solicited negative letters from staff/colleagues. Four of the letters in Mr. Grant's file were addressed to “Dear Bruce.” Levitt was the Theatre Department Chairman and should have had nothing whatsoever to do with soliciting letters for Grant's file. Department Chairmen are not even able to vote on tenure/promotions. The letters should have been written to Professor Grant's faculty advisor Professor Feldshuh.

NOTE:

100% of the letters in White tenure/promotion candidate's files were addressed to their faculty mentors.

6 of the 20 letters in Grant's file were addressed to "Dear Bruce" or "Dear Allison."

100% of the letters in White tenure /promotion candidates's files were received between the beginning of their 6th year on the faculty and the day they submitted their official dossier: about a six-month window.

The six illegally planted letters in Grant's file spanned a period of over two years.

Why didn't Grant's Faculty Advisor, David Feldshuh, REMOVE these illegal letters from his tenure/promotion file?

3. Misled outside referees: all seven of the referees who did not know Grant wrote to say that they needed more documents about him and/or his creative work. Grant found no such request for more documentation for Wilson's, Morganroth's, Archer's or Goetz’s files (the White tenure/promotion candidates). It was clear to Mr. Grant that Levitt and Feldshuh sent the bare minimum to the outside adjudicators so they would recommend denying him tenure/promotion:

a. The University of Houston
Mark Olsen wrote:
"First of all, I want the committee to recognize that it is a daunting task to draw substantial opinions of scholarly and artistic work based on nothing more than a few materials..."

b. Bradley University
Paul Kassel wrote :
Without knowing Professor Grant, or seeing his work, it is impossible to Evaluate anything but the materials sent by the committee."

c. University of Iowa
Alan MacVey Wrote:
I have not seen Professor Grant's acting or directing and anything I say is at best an educated guess. I hope you will base your final assessment primarily on the responses of those who have seen his theatre work."

d. Emory University
Alice N. Benston wrote:
"As I said when I called you, my view will have to be limited, since I have never seen his productions or acting. However, I will respond to the paper record as promised..."

e. University of Michigan
Eric Fredricksen wrote:
"I am impressed by the number of shows that Mr. Grant has directed, and only wish there might have been included some critical feed–back on how a few of them were received. In many places, including the University of Michigan, reviews can be considered in conjunction with peer evaluations of creative work..."

f. Athens Ohio
Professor Gabriel wrote:
"Since I am not acquainted with Professor Grant's teaching nor have I observed his production work, I must write an evaluation that has a less formal; response relating to my opinion of the materials received."

G. University of Colorado at Boulder
Mr. Fink wrote:
Because there is only minimal information regarding his teaching in his CV, it is quite difficult to assess his achievement in this area... Because his acting credits are not dated, I do not know which have been in the past six years... Professor Grant seems to have been consistently productive, but there is no evidence of the quality of his work. No indication of recognition – local, regional, national is given (reviews– written evaluations.)

See copies of the letters in question below:

NOTE: None of the White tenure/promotion candidates' peer evaluation letters complained about receiving inadequate information concerning their teaching and/or creative work.

Mr. Grant's tenure/promotion dossier contained hundreds of supporting documents: reviews, production photographs, student evaluations, and syllabi, etc., that should have been sent to his outside referees:

4.

Grant's peer evaluator list was manipulated to put him at a disadvantage.

Mr. Grant knew only 3 of the 18 people on the Department's peer evaluator list;

The White tenure/promotion candidates knew 85% to 100% of the people on their peer evaluator lists.

This unfair and unprecedented ratio placed Grant at a disadvantage and clearly favored his white colleagues.

The outcome was predictable:

100% of the people Grant knew recommended his tenure/promotion.

80% (8 people) of the people who did not know Grant recommended his tenure/promotion.

20% (2 people) of the outside referees who did not know Grant recommended that he NOT receive tenure/promotion.

The Theatre Department's outside peer evaluator list for Keith Grant included eighteen names:

Carol Brandt (did not submit a letter)
Joel Fink
Erik Fredericksen
Denise Gabriel
Earle R. Gister (known by Grant)
Mark A. Heckler
Norm Johnson (did not submit a letter)
Paul Kassel
Colleen Kelly (did not submit a letter)
Alan MacVey
Alice Benston
Nancy Dunbar (did not submit a letter)
Mara Sabinson (known by Grant)
Jennifer Martin (did not submit a letter)
Sandra Mayo (did not submit a letter)
Mark Olsen
Margaret Spicer (known by Grant)
Lundeana Thomas (did not submit a letter)

JOYCE

MORGANROTH

The following notes were made beside the names on the Department's list of outside peer evaluators for Joyce Morganroth (White female) and/or taken from letters submitted by Joyce Morganroth's outside peer evaluators:

Sally Banes – Ms. Banes' name appears on Morganroth's cv.
Bessie Schonberg – TBA
Charles Woodford – "President of Dance Book Club which includes Morganroth's book in its selection".
Cheryl Culter – Ms. Culter writes, "...her [Morganroth's] book, Dance Improvisations, is the only aspect of her work with which I am familiar".
Cynthia Novack – "Morganroth participated in a one–week improvisation workshop directed by Novack and Bull and has interviewed Novack for an article she is writing"
Susan Waltner – "Morganroth was twice invited to be in residence as guest choreographer at Smith"
June Finch – "numerous guest residencies, including Cornell University..."
Martha Wittman – "Morganroth took technique classes with Witttman at the Long Beach Summer Dance Program and performed in her piece". Ms. Wittman also appears on Mroganroth's CV.
Hannah Kahn – "...She is the daughter of Fred Kahn, former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences".
Neil Greenberg – " former member of the Merce Cunningham Dance Company". The Merce Cunningham Dance Company appears on Morganroth's CV. Mr. Greenberg writes, "...I turn to Dance Improvisations [Morganroth's book] nearly every week for ideas on how to present the basic elements of dance..."
Wendy Rogers – "I have known her [Morganroth] since 1973 when we performed together as members of Among Company..."
Albert Reid – "Former member of the Merce Cunningham Dance Company". The Merce Cunningham Dance Company appears on Mroganroth's CV. Mr. Reid wirtes, " I first met Joyce Morganroth during her years in New York City...."
Barbara Dickinson – "...member of the Ithaca Dancemakers for six years"
Karen Bell – "...member of the Ithaca Dancemakers for six years"
Peggy Gaither – Appears on Morganroth's CV. Ms. Gaither writes, " I served as a guest on the faculty at Cornell University with Joyce Morganroth..."
Nancy Hauser – Did not know Morganroth.

According to her cv and the Department's list of outside peer evaluators, Ms. Morganroth had professional/personal relationships with 14 (possibly 15) of the 16 people on her list.

RICHARD

ARCHER

The following notes were made beside the Department's list of outside peer evaluators for Richard Archer (White male):

PLEASE NOTE
Richard Archer worked several seasons at the Great Lakes Theatre Festival (GLTF)

Jack Barkla "Designer ...Cornell University"
Chris Barreca "Designer...GLTF"
Mary Mill "Great Lakes Theatre Festival"
Gerald Freedman "Great Lakes Theatre Festival ...Artistic Director"
Anthony Forman "Production Manager...Great Lakes Theatre Festival"
George Ginakopoulos "Cornell Center for Theatre Architect"
Richard Hamburger "Director...Great Lakes Theatre Festival"
John Ezell "Associate Director...Great Lakes Theatre Festival"
Vincent Dowling "Great Lakes Theatre Festival Director"
Victor A. Becker "Former Head, Design and Technology, Cornell University Theatre"
Benjamin Mordecai "Former Production Director and founder, Indiana Repertory Theatre (this theatre appears on Archer's CV)"
Robert Schmidt "Designer Great Lakes Theatre Festival"
Michael Wilford "Cornell Center for the Performing Arts...Architect"
Paul Wonsok "Designer " Love's Labor's Lost, Cornell University"

According to his cv, Richard Archer had long term professional working relationships with all of the people on his outside peer evaluator list.

Archer knew 14 of the 14 names on his list of outside peer evaluators.

RON

WILSON

The following notes were made beside the names on the Department's list of outside peer evaluators for Ron Wilson (White male) :

Dr. Walter Myers "...Ron has done a number of shows there..."
Dr. Eric Frederickson "He Chaired two ATHE panels that Ron was on..."
Colleen Kelly "She is a founding member of ATME, which is The Association of Theatre Movement Educators, along with Ron..."
Pam Pepper "She is the Artistic Director of the Pennsulvania Stage Company where Ron has done some work"
Felicia Londre "She is the dramaturge. Ron's play was produced there..."
Penny Metropolis "She...knows Ron's work because Ron suggested her for the job here".
Dr. Robert Glassman "Apparently has worked with Ron on the operas he (Wilson) has done out there"
Carol Brandt (There was no note made about Ms. Brant, However in her letter of evaluation for Ron Wilson she writes, "First–hand knowledge of Professor Wilson is through our mutual involvement with two professional associations, the Association for Theatre in Higher Education and the Kennedy Center American College Theatre Festival".

Ron Wilson knew 8 of the 8 people on his Department's list of outside Peer Evaluators.

KENT

GOETZ

Goetz (White male) knew all of the people on his Departmental list of Outside Peer Evaluators:

Wesley Peters "I worked with Professor Goetz at the Illinois Shakespeare Festival"
Dick Block "We have met several times through our mutural association with the United States Institute of Technology".
Arthur Dirks "I met Prof. Goetz for the first time at the ATHE Conference in New York City where he appeared in two conference sessions I attended".
John Ezell "...professionally connected"
Rex McGraw "He (Goetz) came to Ohio State few years ago as a guest designer for a production of the BEGGARS OPERA
Elaine Petricoff "I had the pleasure of collaborating with Kent Goetz on a production of FALSETTOS..."
Raynette Halvorsen "...I have been acquainted with Prof. Goetz through his active involvement with the Association for Theatre in Higher Education".
John Vestle I have known Kent Goetz since 1992..."

In addition to these quotes from his Peer Evaluators' letters, Mr. Goetz's list included numerous notes linking him to the prospective evaluator, as was the case with his white male and female counterparts and their lists.

5.

In his letter explaining why Grant was tenure/promotion, Levitt’s actually said that although Mr. Grant had achieved a national reputation as an actor, his publications and /choreographic accomplishments were lacking. However, all five of the White tenure/promotion candidates were advised to focus on one area of expertise because they were not expected to excel in more than one area.

Dean Atkins Regan wrote about Grant's national reputation as a professional actor:

“… In any case, it would be fair to assess the overall weight of these letters as presenting a mixed picture of a candidate that participated in a number of areas of theatre but with the exception of his own work as an actor had not gained recognition and respect for him"

Bruce Levitt wrote:

“First it appears that Mr. Grant is a kind and caring person…His [Professor Grant’s] ability as an actor is significant…”

In spite of the fact that Mr. Grant clearly had a "national reputation" as a professional actor, he was denied tenure/promotion. While his White colleagues with one primary area of expertise e.g., scenic design, technical directing, scholarship, or choreography, etc., were promoted and tenured.

Dean Adkins Regan's and Bruce Levitt's Letters:

1. Levitt planted negative letters into Grant's file that he then quoted extensively to justify the Department's decision to deny him tenure/promotion .

DAVID FELDSHUH

BRUCE LEVITT

Screen Shot 2024-01-11 at 5.29.41 AM.png

KATHLEEN MULLIGAN

Allison Van Dyke

DAVID STUDWELL

NOTE: These negative letters were sent to the Lecturer, Allison VanDyke. Ms. VanDyke should have had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with compiling letters for Mr. Grant's tenure/promotion review.

Moreover, these letters were written TWO YEARS before his 1995 tenure/promotion review (See the dates the documents above.)

Why didn't his Faculty Advisor, David Feldshuh REMOVE these illegal letters form Grant's tenure/promotion file?

2.

Levitt solicited negative letters from staff/colleagues. Four of the letters in Mr. Grant's file were addressed to “Dear Bruce.” Levitt was the Theatre Department Chairman and should have had nothing whatsoever to do with soliciting letters for Grant's file. Department Chairmen are not even able to vote on tenure/promotions. The letters should have been written to Professor Grant's faculty advisor Professor Feldshuh.

DAVID FELDSHUH

BRUCE LEVITT

ANN M. ELLIS

ELLEN GROVES

BRENT HARRIS

NOTE:

100% of the letters in White tenure/promotion candidate's files were addressed to their faculty mentors.

6 of the 20 letters in Grant's file were addressed to "Dear Bruce" or "Dear Allison."

100% of the letters in White tenure /promotion candidates's files were received between the beginning of their 6th year on the faculty and the day they submitted their official dossier: about a six-month window.

The six illegally planted letters in Grant's file spanned a period of over two years which was a blatant breach of Cornell University guidelines for soliciting tenure/promotion review outside referee letters. (Link To The Guidelines)

Why didn't Grant's Faculty Advisor, David Feldshuh, REMOVE these illegal letters from his tenure/promotion file?

3.

Misled outside referees: all seven of the referees who did not know Grant wrote to say that they needed more documents about him and/or his creative work. Grant found no such request for more documentation for Wilson's, Morganroth's, Archer's or Goetz’s files (the White tenure/promotion candidates). It was clear to Mr. Grant that Levitt and Feldshuh sent the bare minimum to the outside adjudicators so they would recommend denying him tenure/promotion:

a. The University of Houston
Mark Olsen wrote:
"First of all, I want the committee to recognize that it is a daunting task to draw substantial opinions of scholarly and artistic work based on nothing more than a few materials..."

b. Bradley University
Paul Kassel wrote :
Without knowing Professor Grant, or seeing his work, it is impossible to Evaluate anything but the materials sent by the committee."

c. University of Iowa
Alan MacVey Wrote:
I have not seen Professor Grant's acting or directing and anything I say is at best an educated guess. I hope you will base your final assessment primarily on the responses of those who have seen his theatre work."

d. Emory University
Alice N. Benston wrote:
"As I said when I called you, my view will have to be limited, since I have never seen his productions or acting. However, I will respond to the paper record as promised..."

e. University of Michigan
Eric Fredricksen wrote:
"I am impressed by the number of shows that Mr. Grant has directed, and only wish there might have been included some critical feed–back on how a few of them were received. In many places, including the University of Michigan, reviews can be considered in conjunction with peer evaluations of creative work..."

f. Athens Ohio
Professor Gabriel wrote:
"Since I am not acquainted with Professor Grant's teaching nor have I observed his production work, I must write an evaluation that has a less formal; response relating to my opinion of the materials received."

G. University of Colorado at Boulder
Mr. Fink wrote:
Because there is only minimal information regarding his teaching in his CV, it is quite difficult to assess his achievement in this area... Because his acting credits are not dated, I do not know which have been in the past six years... Professor Grant seems to have been consistently productive, but there is no evidence of the quality of his work. No indication of recognition – local, regional, national is given (reviews– written evaluations.)

The actual binders that Grant submitted for his 1995 tenure/promotion review at Cornell. They were filled with over 80 reviews,

photographs and articles about Grant's work as a professional actor/director/choreographer/educator.

See copies of the letters in question below:

DAVID FELDSHUH

4.

Grant's peer evaluator list was manipulated to put him at a disadvantage.

There is clearly an advantage to knowing the people on your list of outside referees.

The Theatre Department's outside referee list for Mr. Grant included eighteen names:

Carol Brandt (did not submit a letter)
Joel Fink
Erik Fredericksen
Denise Gabriel
Earle R. Gister (known by Grant)
Mark A. Heckler
Norm Johnson (did not submit a letter)
Paul Kassel
Colleen Kelly (did not submit a letter)
Alan MacVey
Alice Benston
Nancy Dunbar (did not submit a letter)
Mara Sabinson (known by Grant)
Jennifer Martin (did not submit a letter)
Sandra Mayo (did not submit a letter)
Mark Olsen
Margaret Spicer (known by Grant)
Lundeana Thomas (did not submit a letter)

JOYCE

MORGANROTH

The following notes were made beside the names on the Department's list of outside peer evaluators for Joyce Morganroth (White female) and/or taken from letters submitted by Joyce Morganroth's outside peer evaluators:

Sally Banes – Ms. Banes' name appears on Morganroth's cv.
Bessie Schonberg – TBA
Charles Woodford – "President of Dance Book Club which includes Morganroth's book in its selection".
Cheryl Culter – Ms. Culter writes, "...her [Morganroth's] book, Dance Improvisations, is the only aspect of her work with which I am familiar".
Cynthia Novack – "Morganroth participated in a one–week improvisation workshop directed by Novack and Bull and has interviewed Novack for an article she is writing"
Susan Waltner – "Morganroth was twice invited to be in residence as guest choreographer at Smith"
June Finch – "numerous guest residencies, including Cornell University..."
Martha Wittman – "Morganroth took technique classes with Witttman at the Long Beach Summer Dance Program and performed in her piece". Ms. Wittman also appears on Mroganroth's CV.
Hannah Kahn – "...She is the daughter of Fred Kahn, former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences".
Neil Greenberg – " former member of the Merce Cunningham Dance Company". The Merce Cunningham Dance Company appears on Morganroth's CV. Mr. Greenberg writes, "...I turn to Dance Improvisations [Morganroth's book] nearly every week for ideas on how to present the basic elements of dance..."
Wendy Rogers – "I have known her [Morganroth] since 1973 when we performed together as members of Among Company..."
Albert Reid – "Former member of the Merce Cunningham Dance Company". The Merce Cunningham Dance Company appears on Mroganroth's CV. Mr. Reid wirtes, " I first met Joyce Morganroth during her years in New York City...."
Barbara Dickinson – "...member of the Ithaca Dancemakers for six years"
Karen Bell – "...member of the Ithaca Dancemakers for six years"
Peggy Gaither – Appears on Morganroth's CV. Ms. Gaither writes, " I served as a guest on the faculty at Cornell University with Joyce Morganroth..."
Nancy Hauser – Did not know Morganroth.

According to her cv and the Department's list of outside peer evaluators, Ms. Morganroth had professional/personal relationships with 14 (possibly 15) of the 16 people on her list.

RICHARD

ARCHER

The following notes were made beside the Department's list of outside peer evaluators for Richard Archer (White male):

PLEASE NOTE
Richard Archer worked several seasons at the Great Lakes Theatre Festival (GLTF)

Jack Barkla "Designer ...Cornell University"
Chris Barreca "Designer...GLTF"
Mary Mill "Great Lakes Theatre Festival"
Gerald Freedman "Great Lakes Theatre Festival ...Artistic Director"
Anthony Forman "Production Manager...Great Lakes Theatre Festival"
George Ginakopoulos "Cornell Center for Theatre Architect"
Richard Hamburger "Director...Great Lakes Theatre Festival"
John Ezell "Associate Director...Great Lakes Theatre Festival"
Vincent Dowling "Great Lakes Theatre Festival Director"
Victor A. Becker "Former Head, Design and Technology, Cornell University Theatre"
Benjamin Mordecai "Former Production Director and founder, Indiana Repertory Theatre (this theatre appears on Archer's CV)"
Robert Schmidt "Designer Great Lakes Theatre Festival"
Michael Wilford "Cornell Center for the Performing Arts...Architect"
Paul Wonsok "Designer " Love's Labor's Lost, Cornell University"

According to his cv, Richard Archer had long term professional working relationships with all of the people on his outside peer evaluator list.

Archer knew 14 of the 14 names on his list of outside peer evaluators.

RON

WILSON

The following notes were made beside the names on the Department's list of outside peer evaluators for Ron Wilson (White male) :

Dr. Walter Myers "...Ron has done a number of shows there..."
Dr. Eric Frederickson "He Chaired two ATHE panels that Ron was on..."
Colleen Kelly "She is a founding member of ATME, which is The Association of Theatre Movement Educators, along with Ron..."
Pam Pepper "She is the Artistic Director of the Pennsulvania Stage Company where Ron has done some work"
Felicia Londre "She is the dramaturge. Ron's play was produced there..."
Penny Metropolis "She...knows Ron's work because Ron suggested her for the job here".
Dr. Robert Glassman "Apparently has worked with Ron on the operas he (Wilson) has done out there"
Carol Brandt (There was no note made about Ms. Brant, However in her letter of evaluation for Ron Wilson she writes, "First–hand knowledge of Professor Wilson is through our mutual involvement with two professional associations, the Association for Theatre in Higher Education and the Kennedy Center American College Theatre Festival".

Ron Wilson knew 8 of the 8 people on his Department's list of outside Peer Evaluators.

KENT

GOETZ

Goetz (White male) knew all of the people on his Departmental list of Outside Peer Evaluators:

Wesley Peters "I worked with Professor Goetz at the Illinois Shakespeare Festival"
Dick Block "We have met several times through our mutural association with the United States Institute of Technology".
Arthur Dirks "I met Prof. Goetz for the first time at the ATHE Conference in New York City where he appeared in two conference sessions I attended".
John Ezell "...professionally connected"
Rex McGraw "He (Goetz) came to Ohio State few years ago as a guest designer for a production of the BEGGARS OPERA
Elaine Petricoff "I had the pleasure of collaborating with Kent Goetz on a production of FALSETTOS..."
Raynette Halvorsen "...I have been acquainted with Prof. Goetz through his active involvement with the Association for Theatre in Higher Education".
John Vestle I have known Kent Goetz since 1992..."

In addition to these quotes from his Peer Evaluators' letters, Mr. Goetz's list included numerous notes linking him to the prospective evaluator, as was the case with his white male and female counterparts and their lists.

Mr. Grant knew only 3 of the 18 people on the Department's peer evaluator list;

The White tenure/promotion candidates knew 85% to 100% of the people on their peer evaluator lists.

This unfair and unprecedented ratio placed Grant at a disadvantage and clearly favored his white colleagues.

The outcome was predictable:

4 of the people Grant did not know recommended his tenure/promotion.

2 of the people Grant did not know questioned his tenure/promotion.

100% of the people Grant knew recommended his tenure/promotion.

LINK TO DOCS

5.

In his letter explaining why Grant was denied tenure/promotion, Levitt’s actually said that "although Mr. Grant had achieved a national reputation as an actor," his publications and /choreographic accomplishments were lacking.

However, all five of the White tenure/promotion candidates were advised to focus on one area of expertise because they were not expected to excel in more than one area.

DOUBLE STANDARD

Dean Atkins Regan wrote about Grant's national reputation as a professional actor:

“… In any case, it would be fair to assess the overall weight of these letters as presenting a mixed picture of a candidate that participated in a number of areas of theatre but with the exception of his own work as an actor had not gained recognition and respect for him"

Bruce Levitt wrote:

“First it appears that Mr. Grant is a kind and caring person…His [Professor Grant’s] ability as an actor is significant…”

In spite of the fact that Mr. Grant clearly had a "national reputation" as a professional actor, he was denied tenure/promotion. While his White colleagues with one primary area of expertise e.g., scenic design, technical directing, scholarship, or choreography, etc., were promoted and tenured.

Dean Adkins Regan's and Bruce Levitt's Letters:

6.

CREATED AN UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD

FOR GRANT

Mr. GRANT was advised by his faculty advisor DAVID FELDSHUH on December 17, 1992, to complete the following creative projects and residences in preparation for his 1996 tenure/promotion review:

“…We tried to specify more fully what you might do to strength [sic] your tenure case. Specifically, this included:

Five to six workshops or talks at national conferences;
One to three articles;
Guest artist directing or acting at academic institutions;
Securing a position at an Institution such as the American Conservatory Theatre…or the Denver Theatre Center as a resident professional and as a teacher.

Mr. Grant was required to achieve a national reputation as an actor/director/author/educator while White faculty were told to focus their off-campus creative work in one or at most, two areas.

Again, Feldshuh wrote to Grant:

Five to six workshops or talks [EDUCATOR]at national conferences.

One to three articles [AUTHOR/SCHOLAR]
Guest artist directing [DIRECTOR] or acting [ACTOR] at academic institutions.
Securing a position at an Institution such as the American Conservatory Theatre…or the Denver Theatre Center as a resident professional and as a teacher [EDUCATOR]

JOYCE

MORGANROTH

Morganroth was given a much

lower standard for her tenure/promotion review. Her

Faculty advisor Peggy Lawler wrote on May 1, 1985:

“Your choreographic work is also considered the equivalent of scholarly publication… If, for instance, in the next two years, you were to concentrate on the publication of your book and perhaps some articles derived from this plus…workshops at conventions or other colleges and universities. It would not be expected that you also achieve recognition for your choreographic work.”

Morganroth was told that she could achieve a national reputation as an author or choreographer.

RICHARD ARCHER

Archer was given a

much lower standard

for his tenure/promotion review:

Archer was told that he could achieve a national reputation as a Technical Director. While Grant was advised to achieve a national reputation as an actor/director/author/teacher. On December 7, 1987, Bruce Levitt told Archer:

"...Your role and accomplishments as a Technical Director will be regarded by both the voting members so for the Department and the Dean’s ad hoc committee as the primary example of your artistic development (i.e., the equivalent of scholarly achievement) …Your main goal should be to demonstrate your creative abilities as a Technical Director."

100% of Archer's accomplishments cited in his tenure/promotion cv were as a Technical Director.

Ron Wilson

Wilson was given a much

lower standard for his tenure/promotion review:

Wilson, who went up for tenure/promotion months before Grant's review was was told to focus on one area to achieve a national reputation. On February 26, 1992, Bruce Levitt wrote:

"The breadth of your interests and abilities should not deter you from developing greater depth in a particular area. This might include writing a book on stage movement or acting, or focusing on your playwriting and having your plays produced and published...In other words, the Senior Faculty would like to work with you to focus your many creative energies so that the tenure case can be prepared in a powerful and persuasive way".

Wilson was urged to focus and work as an actor or playwright or an author.

Grant was told to achieve national reputations in Acting/Directing/ Teaching/Scholarly Publication. He was NOT given the "either/or" option that Wilson and Morganroth were offered.

KENT GOETZ

was given a much lower

standard for his

tenure/promotion review:

On December 14 1993, Bruce Levitt wrote to Professor Goetz:

“In short, the addition of more professional design credits and/or some publications would complement your already active involvement in design work in academic theatres and your commendable involvement with USITT.”

After receiving this memo Professor Goetz's added two articles and scenic design credits to his tenure/promotion cv.

Additional Proof that Grant was expected to excel as an Actor/Director/Educator/Scholar

When he was deposed for Mr. Grant's United States District Court, Northern New York legal case, Mr. Barthick (the former Theatre Department Chairman), discussed his understanding of the areas in which Mr. Grant's outside professional activities were being evaluated for tenure:

Q — Maybe I need to ask this question, Mr. Grant was being evaluated as an actor; is that correct...
Bathrick — Among other things
Q — And a director?
Bathrick — Among other things
Q — And a teacher?
Bathrick — Among other things
Q — And what other activities – Was he being evaluated as a scholar?
Bathrick — Yes.
Q — Did he present himself to the faculty as a scholar?
Bathrick — I don't know what that means.
Q — Well, if I understand correctly, your dual appointment – your appointment in the German arts or dramatic arts department indicates you do scholarly work in addition to performance work. Isn't Mr. Grant's work strictly performance or primarily performance?
Bathrick — He presented articles that he put up for publications, now, we consider that scholarly. Mr. Grant made a contribution as a scholar and included it in his tenure package, and the department agreed to consider that.

Like Bathrick above, Dean Adkins Regan and the entire Cornell Theatre Department faculty beleived that Grant should have national reputations as a Actor/Director/Educator/Scholar.

On June 21, 1995 Dean Regan wrote the follwoing about Grant's professional

accomplishments:

"In any case, it would be fair to asses the overall strength of these letters as presenting a mixed picture of a candidate that participated in a number of areas of theatre with the exception of his own work as an actor has not gained recognition and respect from..."

LINK TO DOCS