Vernellia: Vincene . . . [sob]. 

Vincene: My goodness, Vernellia. What is it? Did something happen to Tshaka or Issa [Vernellia's children]? 

Vernellia: It's the draft report from the P&T committee. I got it back today and it's demeaning! [teary]. 

Vincene: You have to be kidding. How could it be? You have all that scholarship and a great outside review; you've served on university committees and law school committees, given speeches all over the country, and testified at presidential hearings on health care. On, no! Don't tell me they came down on your teaching? 

Vernellia: They did [crying]. They said terrible, demeaning things about my teaching. They said I couldn't teach and made doctrinal errors and came to class unprepared. It was so condescending. They lectured me on how important teaching was and how it was my first responsibility. The report just goes on and on, page after page, tearing my tort classes apart. 

Vincene: Alright, let's start with the important business. Vernellia, you know that you are a good classroom teacher, right? You know that you have lively class discussions with lots of student participation; you know that you know your subject matter; and furthermore, you know that you conscientiously prepare for your classes. Let's start with all of that as a given. Now you cannot let the committee, their draft report, or the dean define who you are or what you are capable of. Vernellia, you have to decide who you are, accept your own evaluation of what you can do, and proceed from there. We cannot afford to let others define us. 

Vernellia: I know you're right. You'd think that after twenty- five years of working, I'd be used to it. It's just that it hurts to have them say those horrible things about me, especially since I work . . . 

Vincene: Stop it, Vernellia! Just add it to all of the other hurts that have been heaped on you all of your life and keep on pushing. You cannot afford to let them get you down now. This is not the first time your effectiveness has been challenged by white people. It won't be the last. You know that many white people start out with a presumption that African Americans are inadequate, and any little evidence is used to support their preconceived idea. I know it hurts, but you cannot internalize the things they said about you in the report. You have to decide what kind of teacher you are and how you stack up relative to other teachers in your school and to live with that evaluation. Don't forget, this is the same committee that said your teaching was satisfactory in April when they considered you for retention. Now it's November and you've received an outstanding outside review on your scholarship, which takes it beyond reproach, and all of a sudden your teaching is the issue and a reason to deny you a promotion. That is not logical, Vernellia, and when erratic things happen to us, we have to start thinking about motives. It is not time for you to wallow in self-pity and doubt. You are being persecuted by this committee; it is race- based, and it is time for you to get mad and fight back. 

Vernellia: You know, my African American colleague's report was terrible too. They challenged his scholarship. 

Vincene: Excuse me, but do I detect a pattern here or what? Two African Americans - one with impeccable teaching credentials who is challenged on scholarship despite great reviews; one with outstanding scholarship who is challenged on teaching despite good reports in previous reviews. Seems to me they are determined to get both of you one way or the other. Are you mad yet? 

Vernellia: It's so tiring. Why can't they treat me with respect? I'm so damn tired of it all. You know, the faculty rules say that they don't expect any change in teaching between the third-year retention decision and the promotion decision. So I thought my job was to produce more scholarship over the summer and everything would be okay. The P&T committee had criticized my teaching in previous reports, but the criticisms have gone to teaching technique, proofreading, grammar, and pronunciation. The criticisms were not related to substances in teaching or scholarship. Since they retained me, I never thought teaching would be the issue on promotion. They gave me no hint. I took steps to correct issues they identified, and I focused on scholarship. And then they pulled the rug right out from under me. They interpreted the rule to say that it didn't mean that they wouldn't revisit teaching, just that they ordinarily wouldn't expect any change, but that it is possible that change could occur. 

Vincene: In other words, unlike the usual curve we would expect in which teachers grow better with time, it appears that you could have grown worse between April and November. Incredible! 

Vernellia: I know. I think P&T committee tried to cover its basic argument because it went back and reevaluated some of my spring teaching tapes. 

Vincene: Let me get this straight. Once they decided that your scholarship was adequate, the P&T committee just didn't evaluate your fall teaching. Instead they went back to the spring tapes and looked at those, which had already been evaluated and found satisfactory. I know that you get really good student reviews in your upper-division classes. You get mixed reviews in your first-year classes, but it is so typical for a law professor, especially African American women, to have mixed reviews--great reviews in your specialty areas and O.K. reviews in other ares. It's the devil/angel syndrome. White students often either love you or hate you. So what's the deal about your teaching? Three years of saying that you are a satisfactory teacher -- how did they attack it? 

Vernellia: That's the irony here. For three years the P&T committee report said that I was satisfactory in teaching, and they said that the students' complaints related to my level of knowledge and my ability to teach were unfounded. But you know, the committee changed in September. I suppose this is one of the flaws of having a P&T process conducted by less than a full faculty. You never know when a changing committee will introduce someone into the process who has been harboring a bias. 

Vincene: The P&T process can certainly be influenced by individuals who have a strong racial or gender bias. 

Vernellia: I think that's what happened to me. When the committee changed, a new committee member went back and picked my tapes apart. He essentially said, "Wait a minute, fellows, I don't know how the other committees missed this, but this person is not qualified," and then wrote a memo to that effect. Vincene, he never gave me the benefit of the doubt on anything. He construed every slip of the tongue and every difference in doctrine or presentation as evidence of my incompetence. Then the bias for the rest of the committee came into play because they did not recognize what was going on, or they were fearful that the other committees may have allowed an African American into the academy who was not qualified. The committee didn't immediately accept the memo. I think they were troubled. Some of the committee members had been on the spring P&T committee. To accept the professor's memo must certainly have called into question their competence in evaluating me. On the other hand, to ignore it might mean that the horrors of horror would occur. An unworthy African American female would be allowed into the academy. 

Vincene: Boy, do we live under the burden of the presumption of incompetency. They really are fearful of not picking a "good one," an African American who is different from the rest--the aberrational "smart one." It doesn't take much to feed their doubts about their choices. 

Vernellia: Exactly, and they are so willing to accept "evidence" from the most reliable sources. At any rate, the committee gave the memo to one of the other law professors who teaches torts. He concluded that "what we have here is just teaching within the normal range of teaching. I don't think that this is evidence of any serious problems." 

Vincene: Vernellia, this is borderline hilarious. One torts professor writes a memo saying that you are an incompetent teacher because you make errors that would confuse the students. Mind you, he had to rewind the tapes over and over to pick the specific points of law in your class tapes and take issue with them saying, "Here are five things that Vernellia Randall did wrong," another professor who says, "I agree with Vernellia in two cases, and I agree with my other colleague in three." In other words, we have five issues on which reasonable minds might differ, as is noted by the fact that we have three torts professors on one faculty that disagree on these points. 

Vernellia: Exactly! How can I be incompetent if "reasonable minds" could disagree? Why isn't the professor who wrote the memo incompetent for being wrong at least half the time according to the opinion of my other colleague? 

Vincene: That kind of disagreement over doctrinal points seems pretty normal for law school faculty. So something went wrong on this committee when they failed to see it that way. 

Vernellia: Yes. What went wrong? Is the bias--the willingness to construe my opinions, slips of tongue, and minor errors made in the heat of classroom discussion--used as evidence of incompetency rather than normal?