My 1986-1993 gender discrimination tenure case against the University of California, Berkeley is well known, but aspects of the settlement in the public domain are not. From the very beginning, I only asked for a new and fair review, free from any question of gender bias. A large monetary settlement was not my goal. When the University and I agreed to settle, both sides came up with a master list of dozens of mathematicians from the Berkeley mathematics department and others from around the country that were generally thought to be distinguished and unbiased. A number of people from the department were consulted during the settlement discussions, especially some who had taken strong, public positions against tenure, and they agreed on the list. The Vice Chancellor later told me that the University had actively sought a consensus from both sides in the math department over the settlement before signing the agreement. The objective was to end up with a final tenure decision that was binding and that all parties would accept, bringing an end to the dispute. Seven from the master list were chosen by the Vice Chancellor to form a tenure review committee. Their identities were kept strictly confidential to protect their autonomy. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Vice Chancellor agreed to include two members of the math department from the master list who had not taken any sides in the case. If a majority of the review committee voted against me, I agreed to walk away, with no appeal. If a majority voted for me, I would be reinstated. The committee met in secret and studied my file, along with the files of ten people who had gotten tenure at about the time I had been denied tenure. My file included everything I had done since the original tenure review. Not only had the Seifert Conjecture papers been accepted for publication, but I had, by this time, developed a new theory of calculus on fractals including a broad generalization of Stokes' theorem. The committee was unanimous in ranking the quality of my work to be on a par with these ten distinguished faculty and that I should be granted tenure. They next considered whether I should become an associate professor or a full professor, and were again unanimous in recommending the latter. Chancellor Tien had complete freedom to make the final decision, and appointed me as a full professor in July, 1993.
Unfortunately, some of the vocal opponents were displeased when I got tenure and immediately complained that the settlement agreement had not been fair. A rumor was started that the University had simply caved in and given me tenure. Since most of the faculty were not aware of the existence of the distinguished tenure review committee, nor of the great care and consultation on both sides that went into its creation, nor of my new work, a year of turmoil ensued. Vice Chancellor Heilbron called me into his office, clearly angry with the members of the department that he believed had renegged on the agreement. He named Robion Kirby, who had been a particularly vocal opponent, and said if I wanted to sue him, the University would not try to protect him and would not give him any legal support. I was exhausted from the preceding seven years of conflict and decided in that moment not to bring suit, believing that, in the end, mathematics would prevail and the department would regain its center with the help of positive mathematical input from me. There were, after all, a large fraction that were openly supportive and who made daily life in the department pleasant and collegial. I believed then, and still do, that the great majority of mathematicians are rational, fair-minded people who will pay more attention to concrete mathematical results than to rumors and hearsay.
Twelve years have passed and I am now seldom reminded of those days as I go about my duties as a professor of mathematics. People sometimes ask me if the experience had been worth the eight years of struggle and I can say that it was, although it was hard on me, personally. Changes were brought about to the tenure review system for the entire UC system as a result of this case, making tenure more fair for men and women alike. For example, all candidates for tenure now have access to their confidential files and can respond to anything questionable so that errors may be corrected before unnecessary damage is done. Solicitation letters from a department, asking reviewers for their professional opinions, cannot invite a particular response, either positive or negative, and have to be phrased in a neutral manner. Both of these safeguards would have made a difference for me, and I am glad if they are now in place to help protect others. All I want to do in my life is mathematics as the pursuit and discovery of essential truths has been so deeply rewarding. I am grateful that I am now able pursue this passion without major distractions and in good health, with the support of my mathematicial friends and colleagues.