Administrative – University Tenure Process – Intentional Race Discrimination

Denial of a professor’s tenure was not an act of discrimination or retaliation.

We affirmed.

The first time Appellant, an Indian man, sought tenure at North Carolina State University (NCSU), his application was denied. The next time—three years later—it was approved. According to Appellant, the “only” plausible inference from that experience is that the first tenure decision was an act of discrimination and retaliation. The district court disagreed, and so did we. Appellant’s own complaint made clear that there were a host of legitimate reasons for the first tenure decision.

Appellant did not receive tenure in 2020 while five white professors did between 2013 and 2023. Appellant published more articles, delivered more conference presentations, and secured more grants than a white colleague who received tenure. While Appellant’s higher numbers could make a difference if all other things were equal, “things, when teaching qualifications are being examined at the university level, are practically never equal.” In any event, Appellant’s complaint did not suggest that research productivity was the primary reason he was denied tenure. Instead, criticisms of Appellant by Defendant faculty members who sat on the Interdisciplinary Retention, Promotion, and Tenure Committee (IRPTC) focused on his teaching, mentorship, and administrative skills. Nothing stated whether those faculty members were even involved in the decisions to grant tenure to the white professors identified as comparators. Without an allegation that these defendants were involved, there is no way the district court could have reasonably inferred that they treated Appellant and a similarly situated comparator differently.

Appellant also asked us to infer intentional race discrimination from the fact that a faculty member did not recuse herself from the IRPTC and that others did not compel her to recuse. According to Appellant, that faculty member’s presence on the committee violated NCSU’s conflict-of-interest policy. The faculty member’s belief that Appellant was “incapable/incompetent,” was not a conflict of interest when the very task before the IRPTC was to decide whether Appellant was capable and competent. In fact, since her belief was the product of her experience co-teaching a class with Appellant, it was precisely the kind of informed perspective the IRPTC had every reason to solicit.

Appellant further asked us to infer intentional race discrimination from what he alleged is different treatment afforded to him and his white colleagues. Appellant’s amended complaint fell well short of alleging a similarly situated comparator. The facts he alleged about the faculty members had nothing to do with race. That he argued their actions can “only be explained” by race does not make it so. In fact, an “obvious alternative explanation” for Appellant’s denial of tenure emerges from his complaint: the decisionmakers who reviewed his first tenure application believed he was not qualified.

Affirmed.

Katti v. Arden (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 001-191-25, 22 pp.) (J. Harvie Wilkinson III, J.) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh (Richard E. Myers, II, C.J.) ARGUED: Valerie Bateman, NEW SOUTH LAW FIRM, Carrboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lindsay Vance Smith, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Jeff Jackson, Attorney General, Jeremy D. Lindsley, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit