EEOC examining full tenure reviews

Under a compromise which allowed the government agency investigating discrimination charges against the University to review complete tenure files, investigators are still studying the evidence to determine the validity of the five-year-old claims. Last January, the Supreme Court ordered the University to submit the confidential peer reviews to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The commission is investigating the racial and sexual discrimination charges brought against the University by former Associate Management Professor Rosalie Tung after she was denied tenure in 1985. But the justices failed to rule on the issue of "redaction" -- the process in which the names and other identifiable characteristics are erased from files. The University submitted redacted files to the commission in March, despite the EEOC's claim that the incomplete files would not provide the evidence needed to investigate Tung's charges. The University's move sparked condemnations from faculty and students, and resulted in prolonged negotiations with the unsatisfied government agency. The University agreed in June to submit unredacted files. University General Counsel Shelley Green said this week that the administration agreed to the compromise because the commission said it would return the unedited files to the University when the investigation is completed. Green said she is satisfied with the compromise. "I feel satisfied that the EEOC had understood the importance of the files," Green said. "The EEOC acknowledged that the documents would be treated with special care." EEOC lawyer Yolonda Hughes said this week that the commission is currently studying the submitted tenure reviews, adding that she does not know when the investigation will be completed. Hughes said she thinks the commission's compromise with the University was reasonable. But she added that the commission will still not have complete records for future reference. "We agreed on what would be taken out and what wouldn't," Hughes said. "It's probably less redaction than they would have preferred and more than we would have preferred. It was a compromise." "The real question is, based on what we've received, can the investigator now complete her investigation?" Hughes asked. If federal investigators determine that the University discriminated against Tung, the former professor could use the ruling as evidence in her suit. Microbiology Professor Helen Davies, who criticized administrators for submitting only partial reviews in March, said this week that she thinks the University should have given the EEOC the unredacted files upon the initial request. "I would like to know if the University administration thinks it was worth the amount of money it cost in legal fees to take the case to the Supreme Court to end up giving the EEOC [investigators] the unredacted files they asked for originally," Davies said. General Counsel Green said she does not know whether redacted or unredacted documents will be used in court if Tung pursues her suit against the University. Tung, who now teaches at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee declined to comment on the case yesterday because the investigation is still pending.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.