White male teachers at Northern Arizona University sued the school for reverse discrimination because the college awarded raises to everyone except white male teachers!

Equal Treatment Under the Law

June 2006 Update:
VICTORY!  The Court awards pay raises and back pay totalling $1.4 million to the 40 white male professors.  See Link >>
See
June 2006: White Male Profs WIN
Victory!
Site
Index:

Site Index / Menu.

Case 23 Part (1):
Northern Arizona University Gave Raises to Minorities but NOT to White Males

Racial Preferences Cost!

Former president Eugene Hughes awarded raises to white women, to minority women, and to minority men but NOT to white males!

Case
DOWN:  Details of NAU vs. White Male Teachers
Details
White Male Teachers vs. Northern Arizona University:  NAU gave raises to 11 of 11 minority women, to 16 of 16 minority men, but NO raises to 192 white male teachers.

Return to Horror Stories Menu.

Go:  Horror Stories Menu.

See Also:  NAU News Stories, below (updated 12/20/00).


$207,000 in Raises to Everyone Except White Male Teachers
Updated July 07, 2006


The Plaintiffs' Case:  In 1993, Northern Arizona University President Eugene Hughes excluded 192 white male teachers from receiving raises solely because of their race and gender.  The teachers excluded from the raises filed a discrimination lawsuit. 

          At this writing, the suit has been heard before a jury in U.S. District Court in Prescott.   The jury returned its verdict on Monday, December 18, 2000:  NAU was found not guilty of reverse discrimination.

          Two classes, representing the minority and white female and white male faculty claimed their civil rights were violated in that pay action which the university says was an "affirmative action." 

          If the 12/18/00 decision is reversed on appeal, it could become a landmark reverse discrimination case within the 9th judicial circuit.  If the decision is upheld on appeal, it could end up in the U.S. Supreme Court who might tend to issue a national decision against such reverse discrimination practices.

          192 white males and 85 females were represented in this action.  (Women were represented in a class in the suit because the raises received by the women were $1,200 less than the raises received by the minority males.)

          Under then-president Hughes' 1993 pay formula, women and minorities who had been allegedly earning salaries below the midpoint of their salary range received raises ranging from $183/year to $6,945/year, while 192 white male teachers who had been earning salaries below the midpoint of their salary range receive NO raises.

SIDEBAR:

        NAU's Office of Affirmative Action places a heavy emphasis on statistics to prove discrimination.   They list 15 government statistics web sites and stat packages as tools to determine if discrimination exists.

        NAU's official AA policy states:  "The Board and the universities will take affirmative action to ensure equality of opportunity to minorities, females, veterans and disabled persons in faculty, administrative, professional, and classified positions; in educational programs and in all other Board or university programs and activities."

        Notice that "white males" are NOT included in the above statement.

          The table below illustrates the results of NAU's 1993 race and gender-based salary increases:

Race/Gender: # of Teachers below the mid-point of their salary range: # of Teachers given raises under the plan:
White Women 64 58
Minority Women 11 11
Minority Men 16 16
White Men 192 0

          NO white male teachers who had been earning salaries below the midpoint of their salary range were awarded raises, BUT virtually ALL women and minorities who had been earning salaries below the midpoint of their salary range were awarded raises.

          Various university spokespeople, including the Ombudsperson, feminists, and pro-quota activists have attempted to justify the blatant anti-white-male discrimination represented by the university's action.   Their back-pedaling explanations include the following:

  • After the fact, one University source said "The exclusion of white male teachers from raises may have been the result of the quality of the white male teacher's teaching, their scholarship, their creative activity, and/or their service".  None of these factors, however, were made explicit in then-President Hughes' decision to grant raises apparently based on race and gender. (Nor did the University introduce any such evidence at trial.)
  • One official attempted to rationalize the discrimination against white male teachers by saying "Female and minority faculty have always received less pay" than white male teachers, and regardless of the experience or qualifications of the female and minority faculty, this fact alone should justify granting of pay increases to female and minority teachers to the exclusion of white male teachers.
  • After the fact, feminists and minority quota advocates have gone on record as saying "Well, President Hughes' [pay raise] formula actually UNDER-estimated the amount of under-pay for minority and women teachers; women and minorities actually should have been given even greater raises at the expense of white male teachers."
  • Ombudsperson Earl Backman stated on the record "In cases where a person or group in an underrepresented group is needed, that person could be hired over a represented person who is more qualified." 

These are the official attitudes and biases the plaintiffs faced when taking this case to trial.


NAU News Stories:
(Newest stories appear first)

Profs lose discrimination suit (12/19/00)

[Arizona Daily Sun - Prescott]

          "A U.S. District Court jury Monday rejected a class-action lawsuit filed by Northern Arizona University faculty members who failed to receive a pay raise in 1993 because of their gender and race."  

          The jury consisted of five men and two women.

          "The lawsuit, filed by 186 white male professors and 71 female professors against former NAU President Eugene Hughes and the Arizona Board of Regents, contended that minorities were awarded pay increases in 1993 of up to $3,000 apiece while white males received nothing.

          "The female professors claimed they were discriminated against because they received raises that were $1,200 less than those awarded comparable minority males.

          The plaintiffs claimed that non-minority males were denied pay increases based on their gender and race and that this fact violated NAU's own affirmative action program as well as federal law.  The plaintiffs' sued for $2 million to $4 million in back pay, interest and legal fees.

          During the trial, the plaintiffs produced an internal University study from 1993 -- the year the special minority raises were issued -- which showed that there was no statistically meaningful difference in salary levels between female professors, non-minority male professors, and minority professors.

          George Rudebusch, a lead plaintiff in the suit, said "I'm surprised by the verdict, given the facts the jury saw.   I thought we had a really strong case and I thought the relevant facts came out.   I'm confident we will prevail in the end.  We're planning an appeal at this time," according to the Arizona Daily Sun.  Rudebusch said it will take about two years before the case reaches the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

(Based on the story by Gary Ghioto in the Arizona Daily Sun 12/19/00)

[Link http://www.azdailysun.com/flagstaff/story.nsf/ByDocId/
96311087CECE4173072569BA00702F2D?OpenDocument
]


Fix or failure? (12/15/00)

PRESCOTT, ARIZONA (Excerpted from the Arizona Daily Sun):

          "A U.S. District Court jury will continue deliberations Monday in a multimillion-dollar reverse discrimination lawsuit filed by Northern Arizona University faculty members who claim they failed to receive pay increases in 1993 because of their sex and race.

          "Closing arguments were heard in Prescott yesterday in the civil trial that pits 186 white male professors and 71 female professors against former NAU President Eugene Hughes and the Arizona Board of Regents.

          "The lawsuit alleges that Hughes awarded minorities pay increases in 1993 of up to $3,000 while the white males received nothing. The female professors claim they were discriminated against because they received raises that were $1,200 less than those awarded comparable minority males.

Quotable Quotes:

Assistant Attorney General Lisa K. Hudson, defending NAU's reverse discrimination policies, said that federal "civil rights" law and university affirmative action policies require that the university use skin color and gender when awarding raises.  She told the jury "That's what affirmative action is all about!"

          "In closing arguments Friday, the plaintiffs asserted the real gap in salaries at the time between white males and minorities was closer to $87, not $3,000. The suit seeks $2 million to $4 million in back pay, interest and legal fees."  [One issue is the questionable statistical method used by former NAU President Hughes in determining the purported minority-pay-gap.]

          "The lawsuit also claims that the president's "unilateral decision" to award the raises violated the university's own Affirmative Action Program and federal civil rights law.  "The raises were illegal, they were the wrong thing to do and they did not comply with the law," said Jess A. Lorona, co-counsel for the professors as the case wrapped up Friday afternoon.

          Attorney Jess A. Lorona, co-counsel for the professors, and lead attorney Thomas C. Horne told the jury of five men and two women that Hughes awarded the raises based solely on the faculty members' minority status and sex and not the usual standards, such as merit, teaching and research skills and service to NAU.  "At the same time, qualified NAU professors didn't receive anything because they were white and male, Horne said.  "You don't use race and sex as an absolute bar," said Horne, adding, "That's against our constitution."

          "...  Lorona and Horne told the jury that the salary studies by Chambers and the Commission on the Status of Women did not portray the actual situation at NAU concerning wage inequities between white males, minorities and women.

          "... after rank, seniority and market value were factored into the salary equation, the consultants reported to [current NAU president Clara Lovett] that there was "no statistically significant difference" between the salaries of men and women professors at NAU.

          "In addition, Gantz and Miller also said that their analysis found "that there is not a provable inequity due to either gender or minority status" concerning compensation at NAU.

          "The consultants told [current NAU President Clara Lovett] that it was not as "urgently necessary" to make salary adjustments in 1993 "as it appeared."   "If there were salary inequities at NAU, not one single woman or one single minority male ever complained about it, " Lorona added.

          Plaintiff's attorney Thomas C. Horne told the jury that the actual discrepancy in 1993 between white male professors and their minority colleagues was found to be only $87.  By contrast, the average raise given to minority male professors by [former president] Hughes was $3,000 based, apparently, exclusively upon their skin color and gender.

          The plaintiffs' attorney, Horne, argued that former president Hughes should have included performance factors such as the number of publications or books written by the professor, grants received and committee work prior to his unilateral award of "race-based and gender-based" raises.    Attorney Horne argued that former NAU president Hughes awarded the raises based exclusively on gender and skin color.

          "The NAU affirmative action policy prohibits salary increases based solely on race and gender, Horne added.

          "The jury was instructed by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Broomfield that they had to make two findings in their deliberations concerning liability, one for Hughes and one for the Arizona Board of Regents."

(Based upon the Arizona Daily Sun story 12/15/00 by Sun Staff Reporter Gary Ghioto)

[Link http://www.azdailysun.com/flagstaff/story.nsf/ByDocId/B948EF722F4DC926072569B700240333?OpenDocument ]


Raises not 'right' (11/25/00)

          "A reverse discrimination charge could cost Northern Arizona University up to $4 million, if a jury finds in favor of the plaintiffs.

          "The lawsuit, claiming that NAU discriminated against some professors when handing out pay raises not based on performance, is going to trial -- seven years after the alleged discrimination took place.

          "The case will be heard beginning Dec. 12 in U.S. District Court in Prescott. The jury trial will establish liability. If the plaintiffs prevail, a special master will determine the amount of damages to be awarded.

          "The class-action lawsuit was filed by 192 Anglo men who went without raises in 1993 and 75 women who were making at least $1,200 less than comparable minority males because of what they say was a faulty computer regression analysis. All claim they were discriminated against because of their race and/or gender. They're asking for $2 million to $4 million in back pay, interest and lawyers' fees. The amount varies due to each side's different opinion on whether market adjustments have been made by NAU since 1993.

          "The plaintiffs say that in 1993 then NAU President Eugene Hughes gave more than $200,000 in raises to women and minorities who were below the midpoint of their salary range ..." [ ...based on a statistical analysis which the plaintiffs  claim unfairly shortchanged white male faculty members as well as some white and minority women.]

          "These raises were done unjustly," said George Rudebusch, NAU philosophy professor and lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

          "If you were a white male, you were absolutely barred from getting a raise," said Tom Horne, the attorney representing Rudebusch and the other plaintiffs. "The way these raises were determined was totally fallacious."

          "If you don't factor in performance when looking at salaries, it won't tell you anything useful," Horne said, adding that Hughes didn't consider performance when he handed out the last raises under his tenure. "The difference in salaries can be explained by performance."

          "NAU officials would not comment for the story, saying its policy is not to comment on an ongoing lawsuit.

          "Soon after handing out the controversial raises, Hughes left NAU.  

          "Several examples listed in the lawsuit show that men, women and minorities with similar positions in the same department were making the exact same salary before the 1993 raises were handed out. But the minority male professors received the largest 1993 raises, then minority women, and last the Anglo women. Anglo men received nothing.

          "Court documents show that the plaintiffs asked to be retroactively awarded the salary increase and benefits, including back pay that he or she would have received if all salary increases had been based on a neutral policy and procedure.

          "We want to send a message across the state that it's not OK to fix inequities based on statistical studies that ignore performance," Rudebusch said. "Winning this lawsuit would establish that universities can't adjust salaries exclusively based on sex and race." 

(Excerpted from the story by Mary Tolan in the Arizona Daily Sun story 11/25/00)

[link to Arizona Daily Sun story:
http://www.azdailysun.com/flagstaff/story.nsf/ByDocId/7316D29E09023CB4072569A3001FB842?OpenDocument ]


NAU pay-dispute lawsuit nears trial after 7 years (10/16/00)

          "A lawsuit alleging that Northern Arizona University mistreated women and White males when doling out pay raises finally comes to trial in December - seven years after professors banded together in a rare charge of discrimination.

          "The NAU case began in 1993 after then-President Eugene Hughes gave more than $200,000 in raises to women and minorities who were below the midpoint of their salary range.

          "The problem ... was that the computer analysis used to determine the raises did not take into account each professor's performance and the highest academic degree earned.  "If you were a White male, you were absolutely barred from getting a raise," said Tom Horne, the attorney representing both women and White males who filed the class-action lawsuit. "The way these raises were determined was totally fallacious."

          "NAU declined to comment on the case ... The state, along with Hughes, the Arizona Board of Regents and several former regents are also named as defendants.

          "The lawsuit seeks $2 million in damages, which includes back pay for professors who claimed they were discriminated against.

          "The NAU matter began as a class-action lawsuit filed by 192 White males and 85 women who were making at least $1,200 less than comparable minority males due to what they say was a faulty computer regression analysis.

          "... the pay for those White males who did get raises and some women still remained less than if they had been treated the same as minority males.  "If it were just White males, it would be a bunch of White whiney males fighting affirmative action," said Ed Hood, a Spanish professor who is part of the class action. "But it's much more than that."

          "Hood, who said he stands to gain little from the lawsuit since punitive damages are not allowed, said he remains committed to the issue on principle.  "This has gotten very personal for me," he said. "I don't want to work at a university that's allowed to operate with impunity."  (Arizona Republic 10/16/00, page B-1, by Kerry Fehr-Snyder)
[link http://www.azcentral.com/news/1016nau16.html ]
[alternate link requires registration and password:  http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/1016nau16.html ]


Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Attorneys Jess A. Lorona and Thomas C. Horne represented the white male professors in this reverse discrimination case.   The law firm is Ducar, Lorona and Parks, P.C., and it is located in Phoenix, Arizona.

Ducar, Lorona and Parks, P.C.
Renaissance Two
40 North Central, Suite 2800
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4497

Telephone: 602/253-9700
Facsimile: 602/258-4805

Email:
tducar@azlitigation.com
Web Site: 
http://www.azlitigation.com

Related / Similar Reading and Links:

Lawsuit: Benton Harbor, Michigan School System Reverse Discrimination

Lawsuit: University of Michigan vs. White Student Applicants

National News Story Index - Reverse Discrimination in Education

Northern Arizona University Affirmative Action Office


END Case 23: NAU Denies Pay Increases to White Males

Make another selection:

Case 23, Part (1)

NAU Gives Raises to Minorities but NOT to White Males

Case 23, Part (2)

White Male Profs WIN Discrimination Lawsuit

Horror Stories Main Menu

Main Site Index:

Top:
Go to Top of Page
MAIN NEWS
Index

by category
DONATE
Contributions are tax-deductible
HORROR
STORIES

and case studies
TERMS
and Definitions
SEARCH
Site
LEGAL HELP
Firms and Resources
LINKS MESSAGE
Board
GO:  Home Page
Home
Page Index
URL's and page names for site
Favorite
EDITORIALS

National opinion
DIRTY RACIAL
POLITICS

How Quotas are Enforced
EDITOR'S DESK
What's Hot!
RACIAL
PROFILING

D.O.J. Requires It!
EDUCATIONAL
TESTING

News Analysis
CENSUS 2000
Racism
ABOUT US

Copyright 2002 Adversity.Net, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.  For problems or questions regarding this web contact editor@adversity.net    Last updated: July 07, 2006.

Go to Adversity.Net Home Page

*  We use the term reverse discrimination reluctantly and only because it is so widely understood.  In our opinion there really is only one kind of discrimination.