Maybe I misread the piece, but I couldn't help wondering if the SC's treatment of the author had more to do with age discrimination than with race. I can no longer find the link to the piece, so I may be way off. On the whole, it was a fascinating.
It was very much about "hue" and "blackness" (or lack of). Read the last part of the article -- she makes it pretty clear how she interpreted it. (and kudos to her for using her name rather than a pseudonym. Much more real than hiding behind a moniker. A bit risky as the university in question will know who they are, but I see she has a good job now).
Age discrimination may have played a role. But the major issue here was the author's lack of hue. The simple fact is given her lack of "hue" , the author does not meet the criteria we use in our society to decide whether or not someone is black enough. If you are a hued person and can be visibly identified as being of African descent, then people will identify you as such. No one questions your blackness (most of the time). It doesn't matter what percentage of your heritage is actually African. The fact is even among self-identified African-Americans, it is common enough to have some percentage of European, Asian, and/or Native American heritage. But if you look Black enough and go before an SC, no one's going to ask to verify that your lineage is mostly African.
By any definition, the author is African-American--she is the descendant of slaves and she certainly qualifies under the one-drop rule. The sad thing here is that in their search for an "authentic" African-American faculty member, this SC really missed the boat.
