In the days leading up to President Nancy Dye’s retirement, word of a faculty petition to the Board of Trustees calling for her resignation sent shock waves through the campus. It is now known that Dye had decided upon retirement before the petition’s circulation, but the sentiments that spurred it on continue to reverberate through the faculty, as opinion remains divided — particularly in the department of African American Studies.

Prior to Dye’s announcement, Associate Professor Booker Peek sent an e-mail first to the black faculty and then to the faculty listserv outlining all the ways that Dye has, in  his opinion, benefited the College.

The second version sent to the listserv opened with this caveat: “…[This letter] is terribly biased and one-sided in President Dye’s favor. Moreover, presidents of colleges have infinitely more important things, people, etc. to take care of than the matters to which I refer below. But I hope what I say constitutes a speck on the scales of justice…and balance.”

After this disclaimer came a numbered list of the ways, in Peek’s opinion, Dye has supported and promoted the interests of minority students and faculty on campus. This includes policy and program initiatives like awarding full scholarships to accepted graduates of the local public high school, establishing a Masters program in education and continued support of the Words Are Very Empowering program, a K-12 summer school for local children.

He went on to describe her general support of offices significant to minority students, including the Ombudsperson, Office of Equity Concerns and the AAST department, as being “absolutely incredible.”

Peek said, although it seems clear that the petition had nothing to do with Dye’s retirement, “[the e-mail] was directed at those who signed the petition. It was looking at one side of President Dye that was absolutely exceptional.”

He continued, “[The petitioners] told [the rest of the faculty] that they had only asked a select group of tenured faculty members to sign. I wanted to know whether any blacks had signed. Because of all the reasons on that list, I thought blacks should have been in strong support of the president. They had every right to sign and a right to remain anonymous, but I had a right to ask around.”

He sent an e-mail to black tenured faculty. One part read: “I respect all those who did sign, but I am not sure that calling for the firing of the president at this time is good for the College or good for blacks.”

Peek is not alone in this opinion. One professor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the issue was leadership. Changes, said the professor, can be wrought through policy or through individually spearheaded initiatives.

In furthering the cause of diversity, said the professor, leadership might be more effective than policy.

Peek’s letter went on to say, “It might be somewhat of a reassuring act of collegiality, friendliness, professionalism, etc. for us to learn about a few of the reasons underlying how this call for firing of the President helps the African American Studies department, blacks and the College.”

AAST Professor James Millette contacted Peek saying that he had lent his name in support of a petition but never signed a letter calling for Dye to be fired.

Peek responded to this statement with a letter sent out to the Association for Black Concerns, an organization of black adults in various faculty and staff positions on campus. Significantly, it was addressed to and directed at only members of ABC. It was prefaced with a request that it not be distributed or even printed out. However, another professor showed the Review the letter. In light of that, and of the document’s ultimate widespread distribution in spite of his wishes, Peek has given the Review permission to excerpt it.

“In my view, some white faculty sent a letter to the trustees asking that President Dye be fired,” Peek wrote. “They needed a black to give that letter more credence. A black professor in the African American Studies department signed a letter, but not necessarily the letter sent to the Board.”

This, as it turned out, was a semantic misunderstanding.

“The allegation was that I signed a letter calling for the president to be fired,” said Millette. “As I indicated in several ways to people who asked, I lent my name in support of a petition that was intended as I understood it to bring to a close the impasse between faculty and administration on a number of issues.”

These issues, according to Millette, were faculty governance,  procedures and policy.

“There is a settled feeling on the campus that faculty is not being given the influence it is entitled to expect in institutional business,” he said. “Too much is being decided by the administration on [its] own say-so.”

 After receiving Peek’s e-mail, Millette posted several hard copies – which did not reveal Millette’s name – on his office door in Rice, making its contents available to all.

“It’s a simplified interpretation of recent events – vitriolic to some extent,” said Millete. “It seems to be pointing a finger. On the basis of the letter, the person [it speaks about] seems to be the source of what has happened.”

He continued, “It was directed at me and it was something I wanted to share publicly.”

As for whether Dye has had a positive effect on AAST and promoting diversity on campus, Millette says, “Yes and no. I think there was a positive impact in bringing the program forward. I don’t think the impact was as significant as it needed to be. It doesn’t seem that the acceleration of black admissions is taking place…That is more of an institutional thing.”

Peek’s ultimate discomfort with the petition was its secrecy and its lack of balanced consideration.

“This is an academic community,” he said. “We’re supposed to weigh pros and cons. If that had been done and the chips had fallen against the president, who could have complained? It would have been a democratic process and represented the true voice of the faculty.

“What we got,” he continued, “was a secret document signed by some of the most protected people on campus, the tenured professors – and not all the tenured professors got asked. I support enthusiastically every faculty member’s right to express any view they want. What I’m baffled by is that there wasn’t a campus-wide effort to discuss it. It’s disappointing that we as scholars and intellectuals would proceed that way.”

He likened it to the now-controversial report on Dye’s performance of several weeks ago, saying that its supporters want to elevate it to a position of highest respect when in reality, he argued, it was completely one-sided.

“It was all dirt and no vacuum-cleaner,” said Peek.

Peek said that he doesn’t know where the matter stands now. He is baffled as to why Millette would distribute the email to ABC against its author’s wishes and anxious to know whether words or meanings were indeed changed from the petition his colleague signed before it was sent to the Board.

Millette said, “There seems to me to be an overreaction to a petition that has caused a crisis that no one now wants to talk about.”