Cornell - FACTS - Part 3

7. Grant Never Had a Face-To-Face Meeting with The Senior Faculty Before His 1995 Tenure and Promotion Vote was taken:

White Tenure and Promotion Candidates had one or more face-to-face meetings with the Senior Faculty before their final tenure votes were taken.

Had Mr. Grant known that there were several serious questions about his dossier: service, teaching etc., he would have insisted upon a face–to–face meeting with his colleagues.

Mr. Grant's only opportunity to meet with the Senior Faculty was scheduled at a time when his colleagues knew that he could not possibly be present. On June 6, 1995, when his meeting was scheduled, Mr. Grant was in the final dress rehearsal for his production of SOUTH PACIFIC at the Connecticut Repertory Theatre. Mr. Grant had to take a break from his dress rehearsal (working with over 30 actors, 15 musicians, and 10 technicians) in order to speak to the Senior Faculty for a conference call.

Richard Archer

(White male) received at least four invitations to meet face–to–face with the Senior Faculty to discuss his tenure

/promotion review.

When Cornell Professor David Bathrick was deposed for Mr. Grant's racial discrimination case against Cornell University, the lack of access/communication with his Senior Faculty members was addressed.

When David Bathrick

was asked:

"...And you don't think it [a face to face meeting with the Senior Faculty] would have altered the outcome of Grant's negative tenure vote from the Senior Faculty?

Mr. Bathrick said:

"I shouldn't say that nothing would alter [sic]. Being in person versus having the voice contact, I – my opinion is that it wouldn't have made a lot of difference, but it might have made a difference."

The Senior Faculty meeting on June 6th would have been a valuable opportunity for Mr. Grant to respond to concerns and to set his record straight.

After an initial meeting with his mentor, David Feldshuh (over a year before his tenure vote) Mr. Grant never spoke with any Senior Faculty member face-to-face in a focused manner (not even Mr. Feldshuh) about his dossier or his problematic tenure case.

When Mr. Grant learned that his tenure was denied he phoned his faculty mentor, David Feldshuh, for support and/or advice about maneuvering through the daunting on-campus appeals process. Mr. Feldshuh did not return Mr. Grant's phone call. Mr. Grant has not spoken to or had any communication whatsoever with his former mentor for over thirty-years.

FINAL WORDS

1. In spite of the extraordinary schemes that Levitt and Feldshuh employed to sabotage Mr. Grant's promotion/tenure review, he still managed to receive unanimous approval from the outside referees.

1. Eric Fredricksen

(The University of Michigan ) YES

2. Paul Kassel

(Bradley University) YES

3. Alan MacVey

(The University of Iowa). YES

4. Mark E. Olsen

(The University of Houston) YES

5. Gary English

(UCONN) YES

6. Libby Apple

(IRT) YES

7. Tice Miller

(UNL) YES

8. Carelton Molette

(UCONN) YES

9. Earle Gister

(Yale Drama School) YES

10. Jean Sabatine

(UCONN) YES

11. Joel G. Fink

(University of Colorado) YES

Mr. Fink was NOT told that grant had 9 and NOT 1 professional residencies from 1989-1995.

Mr. Fink wrote that if Grant’s entire cv was being considered then he (Grant) deserved the tenure AND promotion years ago because his pre-1989 professional accomplishments were so impressive.

12. Denise L. Gabriel

(Athens Ohio) NO/YES

Misunderstood Cornell tenure/promotion guidelines and was evaluating Grant as a scholar. If this error had been corrected she would certainly have voted YES.

13. Alice N. Benston

(Emory University) ABSTAINED

She abstained because Cornell did not send enough documentation about Grant's creative accomplishments.

Mara B. Sabinson (Dartmouth)

Submitted a letter about Grant's directing residency at Dartmouth College.

Margaret Spicer (Dartmouth)

Submitted a letter about Grant's directing residency at Dartmouth College.

GRANT'S OUTSIDE REFEREE LETTERS

2.

In spite of the extraordinary schemes that Levitt and Feldshuh employed to sabotage Mr. Grant's promotion/tenure review, the graph below makes it abundantly clear that he did not deserve a unanimous negative tenure/promotion vote from his Cornell University colleagues because:

He was just as qualified on paper as many of his White colleagues and more qualified than others;

He had established an impressive national reputation as a stage and film actor. Dean Atkins Regan and Levitt attested to this fact. He booked five EQUITY acting jobs and three non-EQUITY roles after joining the Cornell faculty;

He had distinguished himself as a sought after director and choreographer. He booked three directing residencies after joining the Cornell faculty;

He was published;

He received overwhelming support from the outside referees; (11of 12 voted YES and 1 voted NO because she misunderstood the guidelines.)

He was a popular and effective teacher;

He was collegial. Bruce levitt wrote in his letter denying Grant promotion/tenure, "...you are a kind and caring person..."

LINK TO GRANT'S

21 page Tenure/Promotion cv

COMPARE AND CONTRAST GRANT AND HIS WHITE COLLEAGUES

Screen Shot 2024-01-18 at 4.30.00 PM.png

Helvetica Light is an easy-to-read font, with tall and narrow letters, that works well on almost every site.

NOTE: The graph above represents the off-campus creative activities completed by the candidates within the 6-year tenure/promotion window e.g., from the date hired to the day the tenure/promotion dossier was submitted.

LINK TO FACULTY CVs

LINK TO GRANT'S CV

3.

I was a gay, Black professor navigating a hostile, and toxic work environment. When I was able to somehow miraculously overcome those emotional and professional obstacles , the two white men who were tasked with managing my tenure/promotion review took the following extraordinary vindictive measures to undermine my promotion/tenure review, destroy my career at Cornell and force me to resign. To wit:

Ignoring my request for help compiling my dossier and cv.

Arguing against me when the committee met to adjudicate my application for tenure/promotion.

Sending the bare minimum to outside referees and refused to send more when they were asked.

Skewing and perhaps misleading responses from another outside referee who had asked for guidance regarding the policy concerning which of my professional accomplishments were being assessed. The referee was confused as to the missing dates of some of my productions. (If this were true, why hadn’t Feldshuh, as my mentor and advisor, corrected this oversight?). The result was a response that was detrimental to me.

Inserting negative letters into my file that were written years before the tenure/promotion time limit. And quoting the negative comments in these illegally planted letters several times in Levitt's official report that explained why Grant was being denied promotion/tenure.

Soliciting negative letters from colleagues to illegally insert into my file.And quoting the negative comments in these illegally planted letters several times in Levitt's official report that explained why Grant was being denied promotion/tenure.

Establishing a double standard for Grant and other White tenure/promotion candidates. Criticizing and judging my residencies as inadequate while praising, granting promotion, and tenuring white candidates whose residencies were identical or not as impressive.

How could anyone achieve tenure/promotion with so many professional and psychological obstacles maliciously placed in their path to thwart them?

4.

I don't think that it was a coincidence when Ellen Gainor wrote the memo below to the Cornell University Theatre Department faculty two weeks before Grant received his unanimous negative tenure/promotion vote on June 6, 1996.

Ms. Gainor's call for "standardization" of the tenure/promotion process was certainly motivated by her concerns as she witnessed Grant's unfair and haphazard review.

Ms. Gainor urges her colleagues to,

"...move towards some standardization [of tenure and promotion reviews] for the future..."

It is noteworthy that Ms. Gainor felt that it was perfectly fine if Mr. Grant was the victim of the laissez-faire tenure/promotion review ethos that was articulated by David Feldshuh:

"We can take the same cv and argue for or against tenure..."

However, Ms. Gainor felt that it was important to standardize/codify the procedures for Kent Goetz, the White male who would be going up for tenure/promotion, "...in the fall", just a few months after Grant's unfair and racially biased review.

"White people [do indeed] give each other free stuff when they are alone."

Kent Goetz's future was important while Grant's academic career was expendable. It is abundantly clear that Ms. Gainor did not appreciate or see Black professors like Grant, they were invisible and didn't matter. The focus of her concerns were fixated on standardizing the process for the White men and women who would reap the benefits of a more fair, and equitable standardized tenure/promotion review process in the future.

"I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone...I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me...They see only my surroundings, themselves, or figments of their imagination--indeed, everything and anything except me."

Ralph Ellison, INVISIBLE MAN

FINAL WORDS

Keith Lee Grant