Organizational Betrayal for Black Women in an Apathetic Ecosystem of Higher Education

• In Event: Gatekeeping and Gaslighting: Systematic Obstructions to Tenure for Black Women Faculty

Abstract

Using Freyd’s organizational betrayal theory in the context of the higher education ecosystem (author 2022), I theoretically examine the intersection of racism and sexism, which permeated a tenure and promotion process at a Research 2 Historically Black College/University (HBCU). Organizational betrayal asserts that a person can feel betrayed by a friend, school, work, or family. First, the person originally trusts the cruel person or organization and needs them for emotional, psychological, or financial well-being. Those affected by betrayal may initially develop a ‘betrayal blindness,’ a subconscious reaction for an individual to ignore the betrayal and purposely remain unaware of organizational transgressions (Smith & Freyd, 2014; p. 119). Higher education suppressing women’s advancement is an unfortunate commonality. A previous study with 128 faculty confirmed that women who did not seek tenure, managerial power, or advancement did not face bullying; the finding was statistically significant. In other words, if women ‘stay in their place’ and do not attempt advancement, the organization did not typically mistreat them (author, 2016). Also, relying on Bell (1992) and Bonilla-Silva (2006) who confirm the structural impediments which block equity and access, I find that the structures in a higher education ecosystem, or lack thereof, serve to exacerbate discriminatory bullying and betrayal. This narrative includes a former home institution having poorly crafted policies that resulted in misinterpretation and abuse. Further, the narrative will describe the arduous process that embodies extensive unequal pay issues plaguing seven of eight women in the department, as confirmed by publicly available salary databases. At the time of this writing, the matter still has not been resolved with the home institution, which has failed to follow federal law and its policies to favor men who comparatively produced a fraction of my productivity. Google Scholar’s h-index tabulations confirm this statement. Consequently, one might pause about the researcher’s ability to offer an unbiased description of my experience in this chapter. The matter has been addressed in the following ways. First, the names are scrubbed from the text and replaced with pseudonyms. Additionally, the university at the center of this debacle is a state school, meaning the state attorney general has proclaimed that this information is available through the Freedom of Information Act.
The resulting recommendations include, 1) an in-depth external review of the tenure/review process, 2) Reviewers should be trained about Title IX and Title VII issues. 3) Internally, review committees should have a third party from the provost’s office to confirm consistency in reviews. Some institutions have a third party from the provost’s office to attend all deliberations for quality assurance measures, 4) As some schools already use this recommendation, questionable people should be removed from the tenure review process. Colleagues who are found responsible for race or gender bias, or colleagues who have been charged by three different individuals should be removed from the tenure and promotion evaluation process.

Author

• Leah P. Hollis, Pennsylvania State University