The Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity has faced its share of criticism since its creation in 2003 – the most recent of which has involved a suit alleging that the University has not followed its own affirmative action policies.
The current controversy stands between a former University administrator, Joseph Wade, and the University’s Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity, or OIED, specifically the hiring of current Vice Provost of Equity and Diversity Charles Martinez.
On May 23, Wade filed a suit against the University claiming that the recent appointment of Martinez was against affirmative action policies, a charge the University has denied.
The conflict began more than a decade ago, and resulted in years of lawsuits between Wade and the University. One of these suits resulted in a settlement agreement signed by both parties stipulating how and when the University would create and hire a vice provost of diversity, the position now held by Martinez. Wade claims that the University, which appointed Martinez to the position without holding a national search, violated both policy and the settlement agreement.

The beginning

The dispute between Wade and the University began in 1995, when Wade was director of the Office of Academic Advising and Student Services. The University created three new administrative positions after re-organizing the academic support and student services department. The University administration then internally appointed people to these positions.
Wade subsequently filed his first lawsuit with the University claiming the University had discriminated against him because of his race – Wade is a black man – by appointing white staff members to the positions and not allowing anyone else to apply.
Wade’s attorneys, Martha Walters and Suzanne Chanti, expressed this in a formal letter to University President Dave Frohnmayer.
“Dr. Wade is an African American. The persons selected for the new positions are caucasian. Dr. Wade was discriminated against because of his race when he was not permitted to apply for the new positions and when he was not selected for either position despite his qualifications.”

Wade told the Emerald that his reasons for raising the issue with the University were not because he wanted to apply for the positions, but that he felt it was unfair that others could not apply, and he said he wanted to curb the injustice.
However, Walters’ letter to Frohnmayer read, “Dr. Wade was qualified for all of these positions and would have applied for one or all of the positions had he been given the opportunity to do so.”
The letter went on to state that “an open application process was required by the University’s Affirmative Action Plan.”
Wade filed a suit claiming racial discrimination in 1996. He said the suit was settled out of court, and as part of the settlement the University promised to make a greater effort to follow affirmative action procedures when hiring.
In November 1999, Wade said he was given notice that he would be removed from his position as director of academic advising. He claims the decision was a retaliatory move made by the University because of the racial discrimination suit he filed in 1996.
Wade filed a second suit in June 2001.
That suit also resulted in a settlement out of court in June 2002, which gave Lane County Circuit Court jurisdiction over the agreement for six years. That authority expires this Saturday, but in his latest motion, Wade is pushing to extend the deadline by an additional three years.
Part of the 2002 settlement stipulated that “the University shall create the position of Vice Provost for Institutional Diversity,” according to the settlement document.
The settlement outlined the responsibilities the position would have, and the manner in which the person filling the position would be hired. But the University had already brought in an outside consultant a year earlier to evaluate its diversity climate and how best to form the new office.
“In filling the position, all University affirmative action principles and procedures shall be adhered to and the University shall make vigorous efforts to recruit and hire a qualified person of color or someone who has clearly demonstrated sensitivity to and accomplishments in issues of diversity, including race,” according to the documents. Once the position was filled, it would be required to develop and implement a campus-wide diversity plan.
The settlement also set deadlines that the University had to meet in both the search and hiring process while filling the position.
In December 2003, Gregory Vincent was hired after the University conducted a national affirmative action search. He held that position until July 2005, when he left for a similar post at the University of Texas in Austin.
In an interview, Vincent said the University administration did not inform him that his position had been outlined in its settlement with Wade when he started in 2003.
“I found out about the settlement in the spring after I was hired,” said Vincent. “The way it was explained to me was the settlement was not the defining reason they created the position … their sense was, ‘We were going to do this anyway, and it wasn’t a new idea,’ so that is why they felt comfortable putting it in the settlement.”
Martinez was appointed to the position on an interim basis after Vincent left in 2005. In 2006 he was appointed permanently by the serving Vice President and Provost John Moseley. Martinez has held the post since.
One month after receiving his permanent appointment, the OIED adopted its current Diversity Plan in May 2006.
Twelve days ago, on May 23, Wade filed his third suit against the University in a “Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.”
In the motion, Wade outlines how he feels the University has breached its 2002 Agreement. In the motion, Wade claims that the University did not follow its affirmative action policies by appointing Martinez to the position without a full search.

New criticisms

Vincent said it wasn’t long before the new office began receiving vocal criticism for the work it was doing in drafting the Diversity Plan.
“I was disappointed at how mean-spirited the response from the University community was,” said Vincent. “What we did was put together a draft proposal for a Diversity Plan, and the idea was to give the campus the opportunity to respond so we could refine it. We were all surpris
ed at how strongly negative the response was to the draft.”
In an e-mail, Martinez said, “During that first year, our campus was a very divided community. Under the leadership of my predecessor, Greg Vincent, the campus had just spent a year developing a bold and comprehensive diversity plan. While many people supported the plan, there were also a lot of substantive concerns about the strategies that were described in the plan.”
After the first two tumultuous years, Martinez said he spent a lot of his year as interim vice provost rebuilding trust within the University community and finding another way of approaching the University’s Diversity Plan.
“At the time, I described that year as the most stressful year I had ever spent in my career,” said Martinez. “I … had to build consensus and trust among those that were most critical about our efforts, to respect the many substantive concerns that were raised, and demonstrate understanding of the complex personal and institutional histories of experiences in ‘diversity’ that often accompanied our conversations, debates, and discussions.”
Martinez said the most common criticisms his office receives from the University community are that “campus diversity efforts are arbitrarily focused on quotas and numbers,” that its efforts are either illegal, ineffective, or simply “window dressing.”
Vincent said that during his time at the University, he faced some of the same criticisms, especially that the office’s efforts were ineffective and unimportant compared with other things the University could be doing.
Wade’s third suit is the latest in these critical voices.
Wade said his complaint is not with the OIED’s actions or with Martinez’s leadership, but that the University did not act consistently with affirmative action policies or ethics when it appointed Martinez to the position.
“It’s about the people who work at the University who are afraid to be heard and 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,” said Wade. He added that he thought it was most audacious for the University to appoint a person to a position that represents diversity and affirmative action efforts on campus.
Wade’s latest motion states the University “agreed to create a position of Vice Provost for Institutional Diversity and to hire qualified individuals in that position pursuant to UO’s Affirmative Action plan. Dr. Wade has a good faith belief that the University has failed to follow specific terms of the Agreement.”
In court filings, the University denied the allegations and argued that undoing any hirings based on Wade’s wishes would be unrealistic.

‘The exception, not the rule’

According to the University’s Affirmative Action Web site, any searches or appointments that the University makes must first be cleared through the Affirmative Action office and its director, Penelope Daugherty.
For a department or office to directly appoint someone to a position, it must submit a memo “explaining the exceptional circumstances” that would exclude the office from making a search.
“Direct appointments are considered an exception to our policy requiring regular, open searches,” said Daugherty in an e-mail. “The decision whether or not to authorize a direct hire depends on the needs of the University … the qualifications of the person proposed for hire, and the likelihood that a search would identify more qualified applicants. I also take into consideration whether the unit has recently filled or tried to fill the position through a regular, open search.”
The University would not comment on Martinez’s appointment to vice provost because Wade’s most recent suit is still open, but experts in the affirmative action field said that appointments like Martinez’s are neither uncommon, nor illegal.
Anne Gillies, an affirmative action associate at Oregon State University, said though the preferred method of hiring at OSU is to conduct a search, appointments – which OSU calls a “waiver of search” – are allowed based on the circumstances of each situation.
“We directly appoint at OSU if a person is uniquely qualified for the position, if there has been a recently failed search … the unit is facing an emergency situation, or if there are other compelling circumstances, so this leaves the door open to situations that we haven’t thought of,” said Gillies.
Bruce Kuehnl, the founder of EEO Logic, which offers affirmative action guidance, said appointments “should be the exception, not the rule.” However, he added that a company or organization can adhere to affirmative action rules without holding an open search for every position.
“The people who run the company get to make some decisions as long as they’re not being discriminatory,” said Kuehnl.
[email protected]