February 29, 2008

Protests Heat Up at Michigan Over Tenure Case of Expert in Native American Studies

Students and faculty members at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor have started an e-mail campaign to protest negative decisions in the tenure bid of Andrea L. Smith, who is interim director of the campus’s program in Native American studies.

Ms. Smith is an assistant professor with a joint appointment in Michigan’s American-culture program and women’s-studies department. The two programs split on her tenure bid, with American culture voting yes and women’s studies voting no. Then, last week, a panel in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts sided with women’s studies and voted to reject Ms. Smith’s bid. The decision now goes to the provost, Teresa A. Sullivan.

The e-mail in support of Ms. Smith asks people to send letters to the provost protesting the negative decisions. The message says Ms. Smith is “one of the greatest indigenous feminist intellectuals of our time.” The message does not name the students and professors who are supporting Ms. Smith, nor does it detail why her tenure bid was turned down. The message is circulating on several academic e-mail lists, including one for women’s studies, and has been echoed in the blogosphere at places like ThinkGirl.net and La Chola.

Valerie Traub, who leads women’s studies at Michigan, declined to talk about Ms. Smith’s bid or the department’s decision. “It’s a process internal to the University of Michigan,” she said.

Ms. Smith could not be reached for comment. She is the author of Conquest: Sexual Violence and the American Indian Genocide (South End Press, 2005) and Native Americans and the Christian Right: The Gendered Politics of Unlikely Alliances, which is being released next month by Duke University Press. She is also a co-founder of Incite! Women of Color Against Violence, which calls itself a “national activist organization of radical feminists of color advancing a movement to end violence against women of color.” —Robin Wilson

Comments

1. Gee, I get to post one of the first comments on this. All I can say is, everyone knows that joint appointments are a disaster for junior faculty. Someone sold her on the idea that her case would be special, but there is just too much that can go wrong. A sad but not unusual story.

   — Sam    Feb 29, 03:36 PM    #

2. I have no connection to this tenure case or U of Michigan whatsoever. It struck me when reading this it would be odd that “Ms.” Smith would be an Assistant Professor up for tenure at an R1. Though the Women’s Studies department didn’t support her tenure bid, I bet they’d be in favor of the Chronicle referring to her as Dr. Smith.

   — curious    Feb 29, 03:42 PM    #

3. It seems to me that there are 3 main reasons for not giving a junior faculty tenure; Scholarship -publication and quality; service, and teaching. What is the reason for rejecting Dr. Smith’s tenure?
   There is a fourth seldom discussed, the level of scholarly challenge the junior faculty’s scholarship poses to establish faculty members…

   — Mo    Feb 29, 03:51 PM    #

4. It’s possible to speculate until the cows come home on the wherefores and withertoes of the strength of Dr. Smith’s dossier, the wisdom of her accepting a split position, and the differences of opinions between the departments at Michigan. Without seeing the documents or being in the room during various committees’ deliberations, it’s fruitless to speculate. One thing is certain, though: the final outcome must be based on the academic standards of scholarship, teaching and service. If any person at the university who is involved in the decision-making process allows that process to be influenced by what may become essentially a popularity contest, Michigan will lose.

   — barbara    Feb 29, 04:11 PM    #

5. In post #3,Mo mentions 3 reasons for giving tenure. I would add a 4th not often mentioned but important: collegiality… A department is a kind of familly and members must be cooperative. Who wants a colleague who is really unbearable despite seeing himself/herself as “brilliant”, “original” ?… But I agree it could go under “service”. And I should add I have no clue about who is Dr Smith, so I cannot judge the case.

   — sceptical    Feb 29, 04:15 PM    #

6. How often, though, has “collegial” translated in practice to “thinks like us,” and “really unbearable” to “doesn’t in the least think like us”?

   — Gustave    Feb 29, 04:20 PM    #

7. In response to “curious” (comment 2), regular Chronicle readers realize that it’s the publication’s policy always to dub everyone Mr or Ms, whether a university president or a motor pool mechanic.

   — Jim    Feb 29, 04:24 PM    #

8. With that kind of record, Dr. Smith will be snapped up by another excellent institution in about 3 seconds. There is a huge interest in the kinds of topics she addresses, and a real hunger for accomplished scholars in Native American studies. At most institutions, the Duke UP press book alone—which sounds truly fascinating—would be more than sufficient accomplishment for tenure. Gook luck to Dr. Smith!

   — Maria    Feb 29, 04:27 PM    #

9. Post 1 has it right. Joint appointments are risky. Dr. Smith likely focused her attention on the side of her appointment she found most rewarding and paid scant attention to the other. If that is indeed the case, it’s hardly surprising the slighted group voted against tenure. A joint appointment has to run 2 gauntlets, and she evidently did not pay sufficient attention to both.

   — CW    Feb 29, 04:49 PM    #

10. It is interesting that the websites ThinkGirl.net and La Chola have no clue about whether Dr. Smith deserves tenure or not. Her support is strictly based on herbackground.

    — fvn    Feb 29, 05:09 PM    #

11. Fvn, actually, that’s not true. If you read La Chola’s site, you’ll see that she was a student of Dr. Smith’s and her interactions with Dr. Smith are what motivated her to go to grad school and are what continue to inspire her now. I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that La Chola somehow is only sticking up for Smith because of her background—as if La Chola’s opinion isn’t worth considering.

    — B.    Feb 29, 05:45 PM    #

12. It is so tempting to respond to this message with a letter of support. But then I remember how appalled I was at the way in which outsiders with letters and petitions tried to insert themselves into recent tenure decisions at DePaul and Barnard…

    — DSD    Feb 29, 06:41 PM    #

13. As a member of the Michigan community, I can say that almost all faculty and students know that Andrea Smith has published more than her tenured colleagues and her teaching evaluations are absolutely amazing. When people only focus on her “support outside the academy” I feel that is beside the point and it seems odd that some of us only focus on that aspect, rather than her stellar academic work.

    — L    Feb 29, 07:25 PM    #

14. Publications, research, service, teaching, collegiality and other factors have been cited as possible factors in the thumbs down from “Women’s Studies”.

    But let’s not forget the political, personal and even psychic considerations that the “search committee” might have taken into account.

    Anyone know the names es of the search committee members?

    And with the abundantly apparent and confrontational tone of her work and academic foci, I am sure there were more than a couple of S/C members who quivered with anxiety at the thought of a tenured colleague who would call them out from behind their birkenstocks, which might have been in the end, too much for them to bite off at this bastion of “liberal” and “progressive” thought.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

    Good luck to Andrea.

    — G.    Feb 29, 08:54 PM    #

15. Jim: I had not noticed that previously. Thanks for the heads up.

    — curious    Feb 29, 08:55 PM    #

16. All too often when a non-tenured faculty member is more productive, more published, then the tenured bunch, s/he won’t get tenure. Jealousy of the mediocre over the accomplished.

    — William Allin Storrer    Feb 29, 10:57 PM    #

17. Poster 16, “then”???

    — who's mediocre?    Mar 1, 11:06 AM    #

18. Andrea probably feels hurt and slighted by her Women’s Studies colleagues, and yes, the tenure process is not fair. However, I would advise her to pack up her superb scholarship and her good reputation before it gets ugly and move on to an institution where she is wanted. I don’t see the need to be in an hostile working environment. She can take the lessons learned from this experience and be successful someplace else. If the provost can see past the negative review and she does receive tenure, Andrea still will need to pack up her office in the Women’s Studies dept. and go to American Culture full-time. With tenure, or without tenure, why stay there?

    — k    Mar 1, 02:42 PM    #

19. Tenure decisions can run into problems when a rigorous T&P process with enough checks and balances has not been put in place. A proper process does not leave it to a “up” or “down” vote by a committee. Instead, committees at the departmental, college and university levels are given an advisory role for input to the respective administrator, who is not to blindly take the advice as a “decision” and pass it on the next level. The administrators are accountable for decisions and they are to ascertain the quality of the advice they receive. For instance, before accepting that advice (recommendation), they should look to see if arguments are put forth with proper substantiation in the form of documented evidence, information, data and the like. Statements such as the “quality of research is superb” should not be swallowed without substantiation. There should be no place for opinions and proclamations in evaluations. Having worked in academia for 30 some years I have found that faculty are generally not sensitive to the rigor of the process, but are content if they like a decision and protest when they don’t. This causes irrationality and anguish.

    — Artie    Mar 1, 03:16 PM    #

20. It seems that Dr. Smith was a casualty of broader situation where this year several politically active women of color at UM were denied tenure by at least one of their respective home departments. At the same time there were other tenure cases within the College of LS&A where non-women of color with equal or less impressive records were getting approved. At the college level, rather than allow it to appear that the system is stacked against perfectly qualified and accomplished women of color, the university chose to approve some women of color while rejecting some others who departments had already approved. Dr. Smith became somewhat of a sacrificial lamb (as did the tenure candidate who was already approved by her department and rejected by the college). Her original rejection arose no doubt because of her radicalism and the jealousy of her tenured superiors. Her record is outstanding. It’s a true shame that: A) the college plays chess with its faculty like this, and B) the women’s studies department is so 72-cents-to-the-dollar liberal that they are so threatened by a self-professed radical like Dr. Smith.

    — lobster    Mar 1, 06:35 PM    #

21. I would also put this against the backdrop of other radicals across the country getting rejected for tenure or not being renewed in cases that merited it. For example, Nicholas DeGenova at Columbia University and Norman Finklestein at DePaul were both denied tenure despite outstanding records of scholarship, with good student reviews. I’m sure there are other cases as well. David Graeber was not renewed at Yale, despite his copious scholarship and its reception. It seems to me that without excluding the various contexts or frames above, Dr. Smith’s case is also part of this national context or trend as well. It’s true we were ‘not in the room’ but at the same time, the facts speak for themselves, and it seems to me that at a certain point, one must note patterns.

    — j    Mar 1, 08:25 PM    #

22. Kudos to “Ms.” Smith for scoring a Duke UP pub. But that South End Press book was not a good idea. It amounts to a vanity press for lefty extremists, and would certainly raise a flag for me — Is this person likely to turn out to be another Churchill or Finkelstein, whose politics bias her scholarship? If not, then why is she publishing in that kind of venue?

    — Fred    Mar 1, 10:49 PM    #

23. Yes, because only people who care about human rights (which is essentially what her South End Press book is about) are obviously biased by their politics. She should definitely be rejected because she has a political point of view. This is especially the case if she’s a woman or person of color and there is a group of people inside and outside of her school who actually have the gall to suggest that sexism or racism that influenced the tenure decision. I mean, who do these people think they are?? A university should be a place untouched by the opinions of people who may or may not be influenced by the scholarship produced there. We are special, we are academics and our value should only be assessed by other academics. In our own university. Because that’s why we produce scholarship – for the ten people in our own department to like us. That’s why we call it the ivory tower. Someone should really explain that to all these well-meaning, but sadly misinformed do-gooder outsiders who are trying to insert themselves into decisions that we make which are obviously always completely fair, just, unbiased, and for the good of those who don’t know any better.

    Obviously that amounts to the fact that she is some kind of lefty extremist. I mean, I didn’t really look at her long list of publications (okay, there might be a few, okay a lot, in highly regarded academic journals and presses, but she did have that one book published in that bastion of knee-jerk communism, South End Press). Okay, maybe she’s not fun to work with, she’s a bore, completely unbearable. Who’d want to share an office space or faculty meetings with someone who has all that ridiculous outside support and who calls herself “brilliant”? Oh, she never called herself “brilliant,” that was just in the press release written by UM students and faculty that support her work? Okay, fine, so what if she consistently has sparkling student reviews (clearly manipulations of starstruck children), many letters of support from faculty at UM (probably more biased Finkelstein types – you know what I’m talking about), or the fact that people all around the world can’t wait to write letters about how her work has touched their lives. (But that’s just more stupid human rights-obsessed lefties, they can’t be taken seriously. I mean those blogs are run by people who don’t even KNOW whether or not she deserves tenure, just outsiders poking their noses into other people’s business. Oh wait, they are produced by former students of hers? But what do students know, really? They just know her “background,” they’re not familiar with her scholarship because, you know, students don’t really read anything. And anyway, we never assess people based on their “background,” our assessments are truly based on people’s core selves.)

    But seriously, come on people, let’s look at the facts:

    1. She published a book at South End Press and she’s politically active. This proves that she’s not a good scholar.
    2. If the Women’s Studies Department doesn’t support her, then obviously she is too extreme for U of M because Women’s Studies is famous for never having any conflict among scholars about race. Everybody knows this.
    3. If other people are organizing on her behalf, this proves she’s not collegial.
    3. Smith deserves what she got for taking a joint appointment. The academy is overflowing with jobs who can’t wait to hire a Native American feminist scholar. If she’s so “brilliant” why would she settle for this joint appointment which, though they said it was tenure track, obviously would not result in her actually getting tenure. I mean, when we say that a job is tenure track, we really mean it’s “tenure track,” you know, with the scare quotes.
    4. Why is she even fighting this? Really, this just makes us look bad to non-academics who don’t really understand the ins and outs of our very rigorous, very, very fair tenure process. It’s not transparent because, you know, it’s private. But trust us when we say there is no fairer, no more just process than the tenure process. She should just abandon other women of color at UM who are being denied tenure (for very fair, very just, secret reasons), other students at UM who are impacted by her work (confused children), and go to another school where she’ll be more supported. Because even if UM has a problem with their process, which couldn’t be true, they are really an exception to the rule. Generally, academia has a wonderful and consistent track record supporting feminist of color scholars. There are virtually no complaints at all. I mean, I certainly haven’t heard of any. And even if I did, I bet they published a book with South End Press. Biased, ungrateful, unbearable people – you know the type!

    — A    Mar 2, 01:31 PM    #

24. Dear K (#18),
    I KNOW I speak for many when I thank you for your insensitive, trite and stupid analysis of Andrea’s situation.

    Maybe, when you get “fired” for reasons unknown you will hop and skip home and begin throwing all your belongings into hefty bags and boxes and then carry them skippping all the way to your hybrid.

    And do be sure to put a smiley-faced bumper sticker over your face to cover your tears. You fraud!

    And as for why she stayed there? Maybe she just wanted to and actually had faith that her hard work would actually be respected and recognized in a White-dominated bastion of fake progressivism, race hypocrisy and gender bias.

    — gm    Mar 2, 08:07 PM    #

25. Dear K (#23),
    Thanks for the laugh! I’m with you!

    — Lynn    Mar 3, 05:50 AM    #

26. Dear A (#23),
    Thanks for the laugh! I’m with you!

    — Lynn    Mar 3, 05:52 AM    #

27. In response to #7: If what you say is true – that it is the Chronicle’s “policy” to dub everyone as ‘Mr.’ or ‘Ms.’ – that is very unfortunate. They should follow the standards of the REST OF HIGHER EDUCATION and use appropriate titles when referring to a colleague who has earned the right to be called “Dr.”

    — A    Mar 3, 10:33 AM    #

28. A (#27), the fact that you are so hung up by the honorific “Dr.” explains a great deal about where you are coming from in your ridiculously long comment #23.

    — J. Ward    Mar 3, 12:31 PM    #

29. Jeez, two published books and no tenure? Something tells me she just didn’t make a very good pot of coffee.

    — marci    Mar 3, 12:39 PM    #

30. Remember a few months ago the University of Michigan Press was called on the carpet for distributing (not publishing) a book from the radical leftist Pluto Press. Makes one wonder….

    — Sandy    Mar 3, 01:07 PM    #

31. To #28: I didn’t write comment #23, different “A.” Turns out more than one person has a name that begins with the letter “A.”

    — A    Mar 3, 01:43 PM    #

32. It is entirely possible that the tenure process is, in fact, unfair, and that not everyone at UM is aware of it. I am at the end of aa similar situation at a SLAC that has a dismal track record of keeping junior faculty, especially women, because the tenure process is just so broken here. I am in the process of packing it up and taking it to a school that wants me (and will pay me more to teach smaller classes!), and that has what appears to be a much more fair and open (which I now believe is truly essential to being fair) tenure process. I wish Dr. Smith a good academic home where the expectations are clear.

    — bee    Mar 3, 02:28 PM    #

33. Why do so many people have an opinion about something they are not directly involved in and have scant information about? (I will accept human nature as an answer, but not one that justifies the shrill level of some of the discourse.)

    — richard    Mar 3, 02:51 PM    #

34. Richard (#33), the fact that we don’t have much information about the decision seems to be precisely the problem. The concern is partly about Smith, but mostly about the entire academic practice of tenure, that is, who has the power to say that a person’s work is valuable and rigorous, and whether they should keep their job. What I hear people calling for is more transparency as well as a good and fair process. Work done in the academy doesn’t just impact the academy — I think we can all agree on that. So, how “involved” we are is a matter of perspective. We may not be on the tenure committee, but many of us have vested interests in ensuring that the work of feminists of color are supported in universities and experience specific consequences if they are not.

    — fb    Mar 3, 03:58 PM    #

35. fb, thank you for your VERY gracious, restrained and more than courteous response to another boor pawing at his laptop. Now let’s get him another triple latte with extra foam…and do try not to disturb his nap.

    — g    Mar 3, 09:46 PM    #

36. We don’t need any more information on this decision. Look at the SC members and just remember they sent the “injun” back to her Teepee. How “Diverse”, “Inclusive “and above all “Tolerant” of them. Another laugh in the academy…just shameful…my profoundest condolences to Andrea, she deserves a MILLION times better. She would have been treated better at an ultra-conservative, Baptist, all male, trade school. Her only mistake, trusting that these “liberal” fakes actually cared about her, her research or her place in the contemporary academy. But not to worry, I am sure there will be 10s of thousands of other Andreas applying for postions at Michigan.

    — grace    Mar 4, 09:59 AM    #

37. If there is a white woman on the committee, she will be the blame. La Chola will see to that, she hates white women, and any opportunity to claim a woman of color has suffered at the hands of a white woman is La Chola’s favorite topic. The personal vendetta as political is not dead.

    Dr. Smith needs to move on and not allow some starry eyed grad student to ruin her reputation.

    — Professor    Mar 5, 07:59 PM    #

38. ISI Web of Knowledge lists 5 journal publications for Smith based on her work at Michigan, that I can find. None of them are research articles. Instead, 2 are editorials, 1 is a literature review, and 2 are book reviews. She has also written some books,one of them is “Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide”, which is a good achievement, but books are not peer reviewed. The South End Press venue probably hurt her. Any other publications of hers must be in journals that are not included by ISI, maybe that means that they are not strong journals. So it appears that Smith has essentially no new, peer-reviewed contributions to the field, and probably that is why she is not getting tenure. Her political activism is not counted in an academic department. Creating organizations (INCITE), giving speeches at political meetings or rallies, magazine and newspaper articles, interviews, nominations for awards, etc., are not viewed as academic activities which support tenure. She has to publish original research in peer-reviewed, high quality, archival journals. And those articles need to be cited by other researchers. Good luck to her in an activism career, it is not necessarily the case that it mixes well with an academic career.

    — Smith Publications    Mar 6, 05:17 PM    #

39. To the author of post #38 – I agree with your comments completely and in addition to perusing ISI, I also went to Sports Illustrated’s website (www.cnnsi.com) and found NO evidence that Andrea ever published there, either. So it seems the problem is even worse than you make it out to be. My one nagging concern: I hope we’re sure that ISI and cnnsi tracks the publication records of ALL reputable journals – golly, we certainly would look silly if it came to light that they tracked only certain journals and not others. Likewise, thank goodness reputable academic publishers (like Duke University Press, the publisher of Dr. Smith’s latest book) don’t subject their manuscripts to among the most rigorous peer review process in existence – if that were the case, our argument would really be in trouble then, wouldn’t it? It would almost look as though we did no homework and pulled our argument out of our ass.

    — dazed and confused    Mar 6, 11:02 PM    #

40. The “talking points” document being circulated by her supporters states that Smith has a peer-reviewed publication in American Quarterly. An author search for “smith” yields no publications from her in AQ. This is a very bad sign, to claim a publication that cannot be found. It may indicate that it is a letter or editorial, but certainly not research. She has an article in NWSA Journal whose web site describes itself as “It regularly includes essays focussing on feminist scholarship, reviews of books, teaching materials, and films and such features as “On Learning and Teaching,” “Forum,” “Report,” and “Biographical Portraits.”. No mention of original research – essays are not research. She also has an article in Hypatia which is not even carried by U Michigan library. This tenure denial is all about the quality of her research publication record, which is thin.

    See: http://www.woclockdown.org/AndreaSmithTalkingPoints.pdf

    — Not a Researcher    Mar 7, 11:48 AM    #

41. God, people. If you’re going to make an argument about research, please do try your best to do your own. For goodness sakes, are you really going to try to make an ad hominem argument about whether or not she deserved tenure based on a little press release like this? If you’re going to take the time to write a comment about “not a researcher,” do the actual bloody research (not just an ISI search – are you kidding me??) and make your argument.

    — fb    Mar 7, 01:22 PM    #

42. Here are 7 of her “peer reviewed” journal publications, copied and pasted from various databases. Number 8 would be the American Quarterly publication which is not found on a “smith” search, maybe it is in press or a non-article. If more readers can fill in the remaining journal articles, the supporters claim 15, then we could actually discuss her case with facts, rather than emotions.

    Numbers 3-7 are in the ISI database and are not research articles. Number 2 is in NWSAJ, which describes itself as “It regularly includes essays focussing on feminist scholarship, reviews of books, teaching materials, and films and such features as “On Learning and Teaching,” “Forum,” “Report,” and “Biographical Portraits.”“ There is no mention of original research – essays are not research. To be listed amongst “magazines “ is also a problem for this journal. Number 1 is in Hypatia which is not even carried by U Michigan library and appears to be a very weak journal.

    Books, even peer-reviewed, are not original research. They support her strength in teaching, not investigating. Where are her studies and her data?

    1. Not an Indian Tradition: The Sexual Colonization of Native Peoples. Hypatia 18(2):70 2003

    2. Beyond pro-choice versus pro-life: women of color and reproductive justice. Source:NWSA Journal 17.1 (Spring 2005): p119(23). (9397 words)
    Document Type: Magazine/Journal

    3. Social-justice activism in the academic industrial complex
    Source: JOURNAL OF FEMINIST STUDIES IN RELIGION Volume: 23 Issue: 2 Pages: 140-145 Published: FAL 2007
    Document Type: Editorial Material

    4. Dismantling the master’s tools with the master’s house: Native feminist liberation theologies
    Source: JOURNAL OF FEMINIST STUDIES IN RELIGION Volume: 22 Issue: 2 Pages: 85-97 Published: FAL 2006
    Document Type: Editorial Material

    5. “The one who did not break his promises” – Native Americans in the evangelical race reconciliation movement
    Source: AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST Volume: 50 Issue: 4 Pages: 478-509 Published: DEC 2006
    Document Type: Review

    6. Native American studies.
    Source: JOURNAL OF AMERICAN ETHNIC HISTORY Volume: 25 Issue: 4 Pages: 192-193 Published: SUM 2006
    Document Type: Book Review

    7. Restorative justice and family violence
    Source: VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN Volume: 11 Issue: 5 Pages: 724-730 Published: MAY 2005
    Document Type: Book Review

    8. American Quarterly? Not found.

    9.-15. ?

    — Fill in the CV    Mar 7, 01:35 PM    #

43. This incomplete list of things she’s written that you haven’t read is not “research.”

    Can I just say that this is a silly exercise? Why argue that she doesn’t deserve tenure on the friggin Chronicle blog w/o doing the work?

    We should assess scholars using good and rigorous standards, and our assessments, in turn, should be held to good and rigorous standards. Our assessments should also be transparent so we can all be accountable to those standards and avoid absurdist conversations like this one.

    — fb    Mar 7, 02:46 PM    #

44. Andrea Smith’s second monograph is coming out at the end of this month with Duke University Press, a prestigious academic press known for a rigorous evaluative process involving external reviewers. Along with the editorial board of Duke, the editors of the journals in which Smith published should launch their own investigation of the Women’s Studies Department’s finding at U of Michigan’s that her research and, implicitly, their review processes are sub-standard. I am impressed and quite inspired by the organizers of the Lockdown conference. But I do think that it’s high time for other segments of the academic community implicated in this controversy to contribute to this important debate about standards and values.

    — L.L.    Mar 7, 03:20 PM    #

45. With the ProQuest database added, here is her journal article tally. As for #8., still no American Quarterly paper found, though supporters claim there is one. Please fill in if anyone can. #13 and #14 are the same paper, same title, different journals. She may have chosen just one of them for her case. If she submitted both, that would raise eyebrows. 13 of her publications are 5 pages or less. They are commentaries, not research. 4 of them appear longer (features) and more substantial, but not in strong journals.

    1. Not an Indian tradition: The sexual colonization of native peoples
    Andrea Smith. Hypatia. Bloomington: Spring 2003. Vol. 18, Iss. 2; pg. 70
    Document types: Feature
    Publication title: Hypatia. Bloomington: Spring 2003. Vol. 18, Iss. 2; pg. 70
    Source type: Periodical

    2. Beyond Pro-Choice Versus Pro-Life: Women of Color and Reproductive Justice
    Andrea Smith. NWSA Journal. Bloomington: Spring 2005. Vol. 17, Iss. 1; pg. 119, 22 pgs
    Document types: Feature
    Document features: References
    Publication title: NWSA Journal. Bloomington: Spring 2005. Vol. 17, Iss. 1; pg. 119, 22 pgs
    Document Type: Magazine/Journal

    3. Social-justice activism in the academic industrial complex
    Source: JOURNAL OF FEMINIST STUDIES IN RELIGION Volume: 23 Issue: 2 Pages: 140-145 Published: FAL 2007
    Document Type: Editorial Material

    4. Dismantling the master’s tools with the master’s house: Native feminist liberation theologies
    Source: JOURNAL OF FEMINIST STUDIES IN RELIGION Volume: 22 Issue: 2 Pages: 85-97 Published: FAL 2006
    Document Type: Editorial Material

    5. “The one who did not break his promises” – Native Americans in the evangelical race reconciliation movement
    Source: AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST Volume: 50 Issue: 4 Pages: 478-509 Published: DEC 2006
    Document Type: Review

    6. Native American studies.
    Source: JOURNAL OF AMERICAN ETHNIC HISTORY Volume: 25 Issue: 4 Pages: 192-193 Published: SUM 2006
    Document Type: Book Review

    7. Restorative justice and family violence
    Source: VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN Volume: 11 Issue: 5 Pages: 724-730 Published: MAY 2005
    Document Type: Book Review

    8. American Quarterly. Not found.

    9. The color of violence against women
    Andrea Smith. Peacework. Cambridge: Dec 2000/Jan 2001. Vol. 27, Iss. 311; pg. 15, 3 pgs
    Source type: Periodical

    10. Beyond the Politics of Inclusion: Violence Against Women of Color and Human Rights
    Andrea Smith. Meridians. Middletown: 2004. Vol. 4, Iss. 2; pg. 120, 5 pgs
    Author(s): Andrea Smith
    Document types: Commentary
    Publication title: Meridians. Middletown: 2004. Vol. 4, Iss. 2; pg. 120, 5 pgs
    Source type: Periodical

    11. A Building Block of Empire
    Andrea Smith. Against the Current. Detroit: Sep/Oct 2007. Vol. 22, Iss. 4; pg. 21, 2 pgs
    Author(s): Andrea Smith
    Document types: Commentary
    Publication title: Against the Current. Detroit: Sep/Oct 2007. Vol. 22, Iss. 4; pg. 21, 2 pgs
    Source type: Periodical

    12. Conquest and compensation.
    Andrea Smith. Colorlines. Oakland: Jul/Aug 2006. Vol. 9, Iss. 2; pg. 40, 4 pgs
    Abstract (Summary)

    13. Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights and Reparations
    Andrea Smith. Journal of Religion & Abuse. Binghamton: 2006. Vol. 8, Iss. 2; pg. 5
    Author(s): Andrea Smith
    Document types: Feature
    Document features: References
    Publication title: Journal of Religion & Abuse. Binghamton: 2006. Vol. 8, Iss. 2; pg. 5
    Source type: Periodical

    14. Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations
    Andrea Smith. Social Justice. San Francisco: 2004. Vol. 31, Iss. 4; pg. 89, 14 pgs
    Document types: Feature
    Document features: References
    Source type: Periodical

    15. Sexual Violence as a Tool of Genocide
    Andrea Smith. Peacework. Cambridge: Nov 2005. Vol. 32, Iss. 360; pg. 7, 2 pgs
    Author(s): Andrea Smith
    Document types: General Information
    Publication title: Peacework. Cambridge: Nov 2005. Vol. 32, Iss. 360; pg. 7, 2 pgs
    Source type: Periodical

    16. Native American Feminism, Sovereignty, and Social Change
    Andrea Smith. Feminist Studies. College Park: Spring 2005. Vol. 31, Iss. 1; pg. 116, 17 pgs
    Document types: Feature
    Source type: Periodical

    17. Introduction: Native Women and State Violence
    Andrea Smith, Luana Ross. Social Justice. San Francisco: 2004. Vol. 31, Iss 4, pg 1, 7 pgs

    — Journal Tally    Mar 7, 04:18 PM    #

46. Yeah, journals with “feminist” in the title can’t possible be good like those unbiased, objective and rigorous journals for boys.

    — MD    Mar 9, 12:19 AM    #

47. Several of the responses here – in particular, those suggesting (or at least intimating) that Women’s Studies journals aren’t sufficiently scholarly – are unpersuasive. It was WOMEN’S STUDIES who denied Dr. Smith’s tenure. So whatever one might think about the scholarly rigor of Feminist journals (personally, I think they publish some of the strongest and most critically reflexive scholarship out there), the fact of the matter is that she published IN THEIR TOP JOURNALS, in the journals THEY take for granted as being the creme de la creme of their discipline.

    — scratching my head    Mar 11, 03:33 PM    #

48. echoing Post 47, Hypatia is certainly the top journal in feminist philosophy and NWSA is THE journal to write for when you are a WST professor. She’s also got feature essays in Social Justice and Meridians, both are reputable journals I would want to publish in.

    — mn    Mar 13, 04:05 PM    #

49. Someone who doesn’t know that NWSAJ is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal in Women’s Studies and who attempting to reconstruct a tenure file using google is not commenting in good faith, but is trolling.

    — Joanna    Mar 13, 07:03 PM    #

Previous: British Government's Review of Higher Education Could Demand 'Radical Change'
Next: Cuomo Subpoenas Sallie Mae, Questions Textbook and Snack Deals