Women in Higher Education, August 2005 Volume 14, No. 8

In Her Own Words
Washington vs. SDSU: The Struggle for Justice Continues

By Dr. Margerite Allington

For Dr. Pat Washington, the distance between Suffolk, Virginia, and San Diego, California, cannot be measured in miles alone. Born into difficult and often dangerous circumstances in Suffolk’s poorest black neighborhood a decade before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Washington managed—through grace and grit—to finish high school and college, earn a PhD, and gain entrée to the privileged and rarified world of academe.

In spring 1996, Washington finished her PhD and five universities arranged to interview her for tenure-track jobs. She stopped looking after the third interview, however, because San Diego State University’s Women’s Studies Department—the oldest and most respected in the nation—wanted her (of the more than 200 qualified candidates who applied), and she wanted them.

In the first blush of recruitment courtship, Washington believed that her departmental colleagues truly valued and actively welcomed all her “parts”—not just those that reflected their own experiences as women and/or as lesbians, but also the “parts” of Washington that were markedly different from them in terms of race, socio-economic class, culture and privilege.

For Washington, the most astounding acts of grace came at the hands of educators—people like her 3rd and 4th grade teachers who saw something in her “worth saving” and who refused to let go of their vision for her, even as she stumbled and fell along the way. Washington wanted to be that kind of channel of grace for her students, which they recognized and loved her for.

Welcomed with open arms

Initially, Washington’s faculty colleagues also seemed most welcoming. There was even talk of how Washington—the only black full-time faculty member hired in the department’s 30-year history—represented “the future of the department” and would even become “the next chair.”

On six separate occasions, the department’s top student scholars and activists named her “most influential teacher,” and she earned dozens of other awards and recognitions for teaching and mentoring.

But over time, Washington’s other “parts”—the ones that seemed so welcome in the first blush of hiring—grew increasingly less welcome. It began with some pointed hostility toward Washington in the classroom. One student was so bold as to throw graded papers back at Washington, telling her she had no right to assess his work, because she was “only an affirmative action hire.” Others expressed dismay that Washington focused “too much” on race, class, and sexual orientation and “not enough on women”—as if these categories were mutually exclusive, or only white, straight, middle-class women mattered.

When she sought advice from departmental colleagues, Washington was told by one that the student resistance was probably due to her “New York DEFANGED_STYLE” (WHAT DOES THIS MEAN EXACTLY??????) (Washington, remember, was born and raised in the Deep South.) Another told her to “come out” only to graduate classes, not undergraduate. But Washington taught only undergraduate classes, so this rule meant that she should keep silent about who she was and not “come out” at all. She found this a disingenuous omission, since, a tenet of her instruction was that people’s understanding of the world is filtered through the lens of their own identities.

Washington also experienced growing criticism from her senior colleagues when—on behalf of students of color, as well as herself—she questioned the absence, or inconsistent application, of departmental policies designed to ensure equal access and opportunity. Continuing to raise issues of equity and fairness, she found her outspokenness only increased her colleagues’ discomfort and isolated her more and more within the Women’s Studies Department.

Even worse, Washington’s career began to suffer. Publication requirements that for everyone else in the department, and which Washington understood she would have to meet (and which, in fact, she did meet—several times over), were raised twice for Washington. In the end, the objective requirements for tenure that Washington had been given at the time she was appointed in 1996 (i.e., “a minimum of two scholarly refereed publications”) were eliminated and replaced with requirements that were largely subjective and open to individual interpretation—such as the requirement for excellent “cutting edge” research.

In a 1998 article describing the failings of white feminism, Washington wrote, “Black and other racialized (do you mean radicalized?) women who take issue with covert conversations or actions that serve to undermine race or sex equity are often perceived as threatening, intimidating, even “militant” (hooks, 1989). If we speak firmly, frankly, and to the point, we may be accused of yelling, even though we have not raised our voices (Lorde, 1984). We often run the risk of having White power brokers insinuate—or state outright—that we are not team players in a world where collegiality (especially ours) is, oh, so important to our continuing appointment.”

Trouble in paradise

Her observations proved prophetic. Seven years after she began her career in SDSU’s Women’s Studies Department, Washington—who was named “Outstanding Faculty Member” for three consecutive years, won dozens of awards, presented at scores of conferences and was far more widely published than the majority of her departmental colleagues at the time they were tenured—was fired under the pretext that she did not meet “university standards.”

The decision to fire Washington was met with immediate outrage. SDSU students staged sit-ins and rallies to protest the university’s action, and the student governance body passed a near-unanimous resolution calling for Washington’s reinstatement.

Washington also received an extraordinary outpouring of support—legal, moral, and financial—from academic and activist organizations around the nation, including the San Diego Branch NAACP, the For Chicano/a Studies Foundation, California NOW, We Advocate Gender Equity (WAGE), the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Women’s Studies Association, Feminists Against Academic Discrimination, Sociologists for Women in Society, the American Association of University Women’s Legal Advocacy Fund, and dozens of other organizations, as well as countless individuals.

Individual faculty (including direct witnesses to the discriminatory treatment of Washington’s tenure file), as well as an entire department, also spoke out against her termination. Two departments in her college even notified university officials that they had reviewed Dr. Washington’s credentials and were prepared to tenure and promote her in their own departments. But the university proved unyielding.

Fighting back

Washington filed a complaint of discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the federal civil rights enforcement agency) in July 2002. After a 14-month investigation based on information provided by both Dr. Washington and SDSU, the EEOC issued findings against San Diego State University, stating there was “reasonable cause” to believe the university discriminated against Washington by denying her tenure and promotion and terminating her “on the basis of race/sex combined and in retaliation for previous complaints.”

After these findings, Washington and her supporters believed that the university would at last demonstrate good faith by acting on the EEOC’s proposed remedies—which included reinstating Washington with tenure, promotion, back pay and benefits. But this was not the case. Instead, the university issued a press release— unprecedented in personnel matters—attacking Dr. Washington’s character and assailing the credibility of the EEOC.

With no other recourse, Washington and her attorneys filed a lawsuit against the California State University system. But fighting the system is no easy task. Washington characterizes her three-year battle to get her job back as a journey through a seemingly endless series of peaks and valleys.

The peaks include the continuing—and ever growing—support of organizations and individuals. This past fall Washington’s case appeared as the cover story for AAUW Outlook, the national publication for the American Association of University Women. The EEOC’s finding in Washington’s favor was another peak—and remains so, despite the university’s efforts to downplay its significance. The peaks are also the people who thank Washington for shedding light on the injustices that occur in the academy and for continuing to fight to correct those injustices; by refusing to give up and go away, Washington gives hope to others experiencing similar oppression and discrimination—both within and outside of academe.

The highest and most gratifying peaks are members of Washington’s support committee who organize rallies, staff tables, carry protest signs, participate in teach-ins, appear on radio talk shows, make themselves available for strategy sessions, and generally act as coaches and cheerleaders along the way. They are the true backbone of her struggle for justice.

The valleys have been the duration of the fight itself—not just the three-year legal battle, but the events leading up to it as well. They include classic forms of sex/race discrimination and retaliation such as shifting standards, ostracism, hyper scrutiny, ridicule and devaluation of her work and accomplishments, and negative stereotyping.

Personal valleys also include the financial and emotional toll of waging a legal battle and the ever-present sense of fighting for her life against a huge, indomitable machine.

The valleys also include learning that the legal system is geared toward convincing the plaintiff to settle for a monetary award rather than toward correcting discrimination or getting a plaintiff’s job back. Washington learned this the hard way when the attorneys who filed her lawsuit abandoned her case because she wouldn’t take a monetary settlement in lieu of reinstatement—despite her making it clear from the outset that her suit was not about money; it was about getting the tenure and promotion she had earned and would have received, absent discrimination.

Washington stuck to her guns, and the attorneys walked.

Adverse judicial ruling

While the attorneys’ actions were disappointing, the consequences of their action were worse. Their abandoning the case reopened the door for summary judgment. On April 8, 2005, Superior Court Judge Jay Bloom, known as a conservative judge who regularly sides with the employer, dismissed Washington’s case. He stated: “Although the evidence may show that Washington’s colleagues did not like her, “[a] personal grudge or resentment can constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment decision.”

Reaction to the dismissal of what many Washington supporters believe to be a clear-cut case of discrimination was swift. Within days the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Legal Advocacy Fund, which has made substantial contributions to defray Washington’s legal costs, issued a press release blasting Judge Bloom for letting San Diego State University “hide behind the façade of collegiality.”

Leslie T. Annexstein, director of the AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund, stated, “The court’s decision completely ignores the plaintiff’s claim—a claim supported by a finding of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—that she was discriminated against on the combined basis of her sex and race.

“Instead, the court allowed the university to cover up its discrimination by asserting ‘lack of collegiality’ as a legitimate reason for denying her tenure. In reality,” Annexstein went on to explain, “the claim of a lack of collegiality is frequently used by universities against women seeking tenure to mask a hostility to opening up the highest ranks of academia to anyone who does not ‘fit’ into the old boy’s network of the professorate.”

The summary judgment was yet another “valley” for Washington, who characterized the judge’s dismissal of her case as “one more link in the chain of discriminatory and arbitrary decision-making” she has experienced since being employed by SDSU.”

Nonetheless, Washington is clear that her case is not over. “I will have my day in court,” asserts Washington. “The judge’s decision is not the end—it is just a temporary setback. I remain confident that justice will prevail in my case.” '

Her new attorney is Dan Siegel, who recently won reinstatement for a faculty member denied tenure at UC-Berkeley. He described the decision as “surprising and very disturbing," saying, “The judge ignored compelling evidence of discrimination and retaliation and made credibility decisions that must be made by a jury.” Siegel has appealed the decision and expects to be successful.

Dr. Washington and her supporters, with their experienced legal team, are working hard to get Washington her day in court and invite visits to her website at http://patwashington.org.

In sharing this information with others in higher education, we hope to help others understand the frailty of relationships with colleagues and superiors, as well as the limits of a legal and institutional system to protect women from the bias and stereotyping that can undermine a career.