Affirmative action is a hot-button issue around this country. And for more than a decade, one former University administrator has kept it in the spotlight right here at the University of Oregon.
Joseph Wade served as director of the Office of Academic Advising and Student Services during the 1990s. In 1999, however, he was notified of the University’s intent not to renew his contract. Three years earlier he had filed a lawsuit against the University. He said that when his department was reorganized, he was not given an opportunity to apply for one of the three new positions that were created as a result. Wade, who is black, claimed racial discrimination in his lawsuit.
Affirmative action has existed, in theory, since John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925 into law in 1961, with the aims of ensuring employers “take affirmative action” to guarantee equity in the workplace – racially and otherwise. In the decades since, affirmative action has consistently been targeted as one of the most controversial federal policies to be implemented by our government.
Flash forward to 2008, where Wade has filed his third lawsuit against the University, a “Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.” Throughout the decade-long ordeal, Wade has exclaimed displeasure with the way the University has gone back on agreements made as the result of past settlements. In 2002, for instance, the second of Wade’s lawsuits ended in a settlement that created the University’s vice provost for institutional diversity.
The administration appointed the current vice provost for institutional equity and diversity, Charles Martinez, rather than completing a full search. Wade’s most recent motion alleges the University is not committed to its diversity pledge. Wade said his lawsuit is for “the numbers of people who want the opportunity to work at the University and who don’t have the opportunity because the administration continues to be inbred.”
Wade does bring up some important points in the course of his motion. It is not fair or ethical for the University to be simply appointing administrators to positions on a regular basis, and the University Affirmative Action policies state that appointments are only made on an exceptional basis. However, this does not mean the University can or should never appoint administrators.
What Wade forgets is that the University did not, nor has it ever, done any wrongdoing in regard to his case – with the possible exception of his removal in 1999. In most cases, the University is obligated to conduct open searches for the most qualified candidates to fill positions. But it is not required to do so. Depending on an individual’s qualifications, or on the need of the University to quickly fill positions, someone may be appointed in lieu of a complete search.
Charles Martinez’s appointment did not violate the University’s equal opportunity and affirmative action policies. Wade’s most recent lawsuit, therefore, is frivolous.