“Race” is in quotes in the headline because the lawsuit covered in this article illuminates a definition of “race” that might surprise you.
Tenure Denied, Terminal Year Triggered, Lawsuit Filed
Academia is a self-contained universe. Your employment contract is renewed year to academic year if performance is satisfactory. In year six, the year-to-year probationary period ends, and you apply for tenure. If granted, you’re promoted to associate professor—no more year-to-year contract but now an open-ended contract. If denied tenure, you get a “terminal year,” meaning you can stick around for the next academic year to teach, but then it’s “adios.”
Into this bottle of scorpions stepped Sean Wang, an assistant professor at the Southern Methodist University (SMU) Edwin L. Cox School of Business. Hemang Desai is an influential professor at the school and is Indian-American. (You’ll see why this is important in a minute.)
A key part of being granted tenure is a record of scholarly publications. (Perhaps you’ve heard the phrase “Publish or Perish!” It’s true.) Here, then, are the pertinent allegations in the lawsuit:
- SMU states that the productivity standard for tenure is “at least four (4) top-tier publications within the six (6) year probationary period.”
- It provides a list of 70 journals that count as “top tier” in its promotion and tenure policy manual.
So far, so good. But then comes paragraph 15:
Since at least 2006, when Hemang Desai (an Indian-Origin faculty member) became a full professor at SMU’s Cox School of Business, the Accounting Department granted tenure to 100 percent of Indian-origin candidates (two of two) who met the published “four top-tier publications” standard, while denying tenure to 100 percent of non-Indian candidates (zero of five) who met the same standard.
There are more allegations, but you have the gist of it.
What Do You Sue For?
Wang sued for violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. While national origin discrimination claims made under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 focus on where one is born, Section 1981 focuses on what one is born into. This is a person’s ethnicity, which is intertwined with how a person looks and/or the language the person speaks. Back in 1866, an individual’s race was defined by ethnicity.
Here’s an example: My paternal grandfather immigrated to the United States in 1898 and became a citizen in 1933. His citizenship certificate has a place for race, and listed there is “Polish.”
Here are other illustrations of a Section 1981 claim:
- An employee’s French accent is mocked, and he’s called “Pepe Le Pew,” after the cartoon character.
- An employee from Nigeria is told she believes in voodoo, like all Africans, and is later fired.
- A Jewish or an Arab person sues for wrongful termination because of appearance, ethnicity, or ancestry.
- An employee is terminated because of the employee’s accent.
Wang is of Chinese lineage/descent, which he alleges was disfavored in favor of those of Indian lineage/descent. Trial is set for February 2027. Wang v. Southern Methodist University (N.D. Tex., November 15, 2025).
Bottom Line
This isn’t merely an academic discussion, so to speak. Section 1981 claims are very attractive to employees:
- Per case law, claims by Blacks and whites are covered. Title VII can therefore be sidestepped.
- Section 1981 doesn’t require the filing of a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- There’s a four-year statute of limitations.
- There are no caps on damages.
And finally, the claim makes for a compelling narrative, as we see in Wang’s lawsuit. There’s always another side to the story, and I’ll keep you posted as this lawsuit develops.
Michael P. Maslanka is a professor at the UNT-Dallas College of Law. You can reach him at michael.maslanka@untdallas.edu.