University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman needs to reevaluate her definition of diversity. She is quoted on the University’s “Diversity Matters” website saying “An essential factor in our academic excellence is our diversity. When you bring together students, faculty and staff of different backgrounds and different experiences, you create an intellectual experience that is unmatched in higher education.” However, the recent round of faculty tenure decisions makes a very different statement. The negative tenure recommendations given to a number of women of color faculty, and in particular Dr. Andrea Smith, sends a message to the students at the University of Michigan that different backgrounds and experiences are not valued as a condition for tenure.

Dr. Smith is jointly appointed in the Program in American Culture and the Department of Women’s Studies. The Program in American Culture gave a positive recommendation for Smith’s tenure, while both the Department of Women’s Studies and the College of LSA gave negative tenure recommendations. I was initially shocked at by this decision because Dr. Smith has played a key role in fostering diversity through social-justice based research, teaching, and community building at the University of Michigan.. Furthermore, she is the author of three published books addressing issues related to the Native American community, the co-author of three additional books, and she has fifteen articles published in peer reviewed journals ranging from topics on religion to feminism. Dr. Smith’s eligibility for tenure is further supplemented by her extensive social justice work addressing the issue of violence against women and Native Americans. She is a co-founder of Incite! Women of Color Against Violence and the Chicago chapter of Women of All Red Nations. As a result of her work, scholars, social service providers, and community-based organizations throughout the United States have shifted from state-focused efforts to more systemic approaches for addressing violence against women.

There are no delineated minimum requirements for what is needed to attain tenure. Expectations vary by university but generally include publishing one to two books with an academic press, publishing several articles in peer-reviewed journals, and teaching, service, and research on par with ones colleagues. Clearly, Dr Smith’s credentials place her well above the criteria expected of a tenure track professor.

The University of Michigan refers to its students, staff, and faculty as “leaders and best.” Dr. Smith is the epitome of this definition as a professor, author and researcher in the fields of both Native American studies and Women’s Studies. Her work has been recognized and honored with numerous prestigious awards from organizations such as the Lannan Foundation, University of Illinois, Gustavus Myers Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. Most notably, her contributions to these fields have been venerated with a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. Despite these achievements Dr. Smith has been given a negative recommendation for tenure. As she has been a nationally recognized scholar by the aforementioned institutions, I question what criteria the University of Michigan employs to define a “leader and best” for tenure track faculty.

Dr. Smith’s case is not an isolated one. The University of Michigan has a troubling track record of recruitment and retention of faculty of color. Recently the University has established the Committee for a Multicultural University to research the percentages of minority faculty recruited and retained since 1994. According to The University Record the faculty-led committee was established by the office of Lester Monts, senior vice provost for academic affairs who is currently reviewing Dr. Smith’s tenure decision.

A recent article published in the Ann Arbor news (“U-M faculty calls for the hiring of more minorities” 3/18/2008) details that the committee recommends that the University of Michigan needs to increase the amount of racial minority professors. Particularly disturbing was the fact that there are so few faculty members of Native American descent that the committee was unable to make comparisons to the previous study conducted in 1994. Therefore, the committee recommends that the university should make an effort to increase the number of Native American faculty. Yet, in direct opposition to these findings and recommendations the University of Michigan is in the process of denying tenure to a leading Native American scholar.

Another article in the Ann Arbor News (“Counselors Push Narrow Academic Path” 3/19/2008) also quotes Professor Jay Barken making disparaging remarks about a course in Native American Studies. Regarding courses taken by student athletes as an easy ‘A’ Barken states, “Ojibwe has been a well-known easy place to go…the argument is that every university has their scut courses like that.”Such sentiments are indicative of the dismissive attitude of Native American studies that is partially responsible for the negligible amount of Native American faculty currently tenured at the University of Michigan.

Currently Dr. Smith’s case is under review by the LSA Provost, from there her tenure case moves on to the university regents. The provost and the regents can either endorse the previous decisions made by LSA or provide a positive recommendation and call for further review of her case. I challenge The University of Michigan to support President Coleman’s assertion that “bringing together students, faculty and staff of different backgrounds and different experiences will create an intellectual experience that is unmatched in higher education.” Approving tenure for Dr. Smith will be a genuine step toward creating a truly diverse community, and it will communicate that both academic and social justice work are valuable commodities to the University of Michigan.