A professor admits she faked her racial identity

[Wahoo Redux]

eh... "legal" isn't that relevant if it isn't enforced. Take a scholarship at Columbia University about 20 years ago that had been endowed decades in the past for a student from the same state as the grantor of the trust that also specified the recipient must be white. Courts have routinely reversed these conditions, either removing the restriction or allowing the trust corpus to revert to the estate of the decedent after dissolution, depending on what state and how it was drafted. The former happened in this instance.

When I applied to a graduate program after 9/11, I was admitted and told the NY-based department had no "general fellowships" that year but several specialized ones that I should look at and they'd try to nominate me. Nearly every single one of them specified that the recipient must be a member of a specific gender, racial group or both. If you take out other non-race/gender requirements (a specific undergraduate GPA, state of origin, outside interest, etc) I wasn't eligible to be considered for any of them. This was even at a state institution. To my knowledge, NY courts that overturned the Columbia scholarship trust conditions have not been overrun with similar requests to remove restrictions from this institutions endowed fellowships that do not allow white (or in some instance other) applicants.

I have been a minority in the literal definition of the word in all three major cities I've lived in as an adult. I guarantee that if I am ever "underrepresented" based on population percentage  for any opportunity and affirmative action were ever used by an institution to advantage me or other whites, you can take it to the bank that any courts view on the legality of AA practices or nonsense arguments such as "one of many factors" will change immediately.

Yes, life has obviously been difficult and hard for you as a white man.

Supposing your sarcasm has a serious intent (and maybe it doesn't)....

Firstly, what good is a comment like that?

And secondly, you do realize that even white men with all their "privilege" must struggle in life?

And thirdly, what about your own attitude?

I was actually in a room with several other graduate students when a student who was a member of a minority group, instead of celebrating the success of her colleague who had just gotten a really sweet gig teaching minority studies at a really good uni, said aloud for everyone to hear, "He's a white guy" as if that should disqualify him. We know what would have happened had someone said of a Shakespeare scholar, "He's a [minority] guy" as if that disqualified him.

If we simply want to antagonize each other in life and culture, okay.  But if we don't want to antagonize each other...

Reasonable people recognize the many historical and current disadvantages heaped on minority groups in our culture, academia has seen itself for a generation at least as a corrective element to this.

[Stockmann]

OMG, if incentives are created for people to lie about their race (minority hires) people lie about their race - who could possibly have ever foreseen that? /s

[Dismal]

The first post in this thread stated that she had been a diversity hire.  I haven't seen that stated anywhere.  She presumably was hired because of her expertise in the history of the African diaspora and what made her work especially appealing was her own lived experiences as a Black latina with parents or grandparents from both north African and the Caribbean.  on the other had, there is some discussion on Twitter that some of her awards or fellowships were intended for BIPOC.

Her department has a very strong statement on their website:  https://history.columbian.gwu.edu/our-statement-jessica-krug

[Hegemony]

I think few people are going to be tempted to pretend they're of a race they really aren't, just to get a diversity hire. Diversity hires don't just hire you because you're X, and then you've got a great gig. They typically are in the field your race is related to, e.g. African-American. So you'd have to start preparing years in advance to be an expert in the field of African-American literature, history, or whatever, and be prepared to devote your career of 20-40 years' length to the field. Then you'll be expected to mentor African-American students, to participate in outreach to the African-American community, to be up to speed on controversies related to African-American issues, to be asked/pressured to be on every committee possible, for diversity and for the appearance of diversity. You'll also have to be ready to be the target of bigotry, condescension, potential violence, overtly expressed convictions that you're actually stupid and badly prepared but you got the job because you are a minority, and the not negligible disadvantages that come with being identified with a vilified group. You could pass for white when you need to, because actually you are white, but you will be treated as Black by anyone who knows your professed identity, and I'd bet not all of those people are kindly and supportive.

So I think you'd have to be all-in if you were going to launch a career by identifying yourself as a member of a group that you're actually not in. Why these particular people chose to do it, who's to say. I have my suspicions, but they aren't about the cold calculation of professional advantage.

[financeguy]

This has not been my experience. I've had many people tell me they need to "fill the role with an x" where x is either a woman or racial minority. Of course these things are not in the advertisement or openly stated, but you don't need to be a statistician to figure out when a very small percentage of participants in a given specialty are members of group x yet all three in person finalists are members of x that this didn't just happen by chance. I was the undergrad student rep on a search where this happened in 1998, finding out the following year that the "big name" who interviewed was not hired. Apparently the wrong plumbing. Over 20 years later and the person hired is still not as prominent by a long shot as the guy that was turned down more than two decades ago. No one who attends does so to study with this person who is clearly not in the league of many in the department who are not just "good" but the best in the world at what they do. These decisions do not come without a cost.

[Caracal]

eh... "legal" isn't that relevant if it isn't enforced. Take a scholarship at Columbia University about 20 years ago that had been endowed decades in the past for a student from the same state as the grantor of the trust that also specified the recipient must be white. Courts have routinely reversed these conditions, either removing the restriction or allowing the trust corpus to revert to the estate of the decedent after dissolution, depending on what state and how it was drafted. The former happened in this instance.

When I applied to a graduate program after 9/11, I was admitted and told the NY-based department had no "general fellowships" that year but several specialized ones that I should look at and they'd try to nominate me. Nearly every single one of them specified that the recipient must be a member of a specific gender, racial group or both. If you take out other non-race/gender requirements (a specific undergraduate GPA, state of origin, outside interest, etc) I wasn't eligible to be considered for any of them. This was even at a state institution. To my knowledge, NY courts that overturned the Columbia scholarship trust conditions have not been overrun with similar requests to remove restrictions from this institutions endowed fellowships that do not allow white (or in some instance other) applicants.

I have been a minority in the literal definition of the word in all three major cities I've lived in as an adult. I guarantee that if I am ever "underrepresented" based on population percentage  for any opportunity and affirmative action were ever used by an institution to advantage me or other whites, you can take it to the bank that any courts view on the legality of AA practices or nonsense arguments such as "one of many factors" will change immediately.

Yes, life has obviously been difficult and hard for you as a white man.

Supposing your sarcasm has a serious intent (and maybe it doesn't)....

Firstly, what good is a comment like that?

And secondly, you do realize that even white men with all their "privilege" must struggle in life?

And thirdly, what about your own attitude?

I was actually in a room with several other graduate students when a student who was a member of a minority group, instead of celebrating the success of her colleague who had just gotten a really sweet gig teaching minority studies at a really good uni, said aloud for everyone to hear, "He's a white guy" as if that should disqualify him. We know what would have happened had someone said of a Shakespeare scholar, "He's a [minority] guy" as if that disqualified him.

If we simply want to antagonize each other in life and culture, okay.  But if we don't want to antagonize each other...

Reasonable people recognize the many historical and current disadvantages heaped on minority groups in our culture, academia has seen itself for a generation at least as a corrective element to this.

Oh stop. Finance guy was whining about the difficulties of life as a white man in academia. Obviously, I was making fun of that assertion, not making comments about his life difficulties. More to the point, minority groups are hugely underrepresented, not overrepresented in academia. This hasn't changed over the last decade. So, the assertion that somehow white people are being systematically disadvantaged in academia, is to put it politely, garbage. The grad student is a jerk and a fool, who cares? For some reason, these are always the kind of arguments people make on here. It boils down to "racial discrimination against white academics is real, because once somebody said something mean to me."

[Kron3007]

I think few people are going to be tempted to pretend they're of a race they really aren't, just to get a diversity hire. Diversity hires don't just hire you because you're X, and then you've got a great gig. They typically are in the field your race is related to, e.g. African-American. So you'd have to start preparing years in advance to be an expert in the field of African-American literature, history, or whatever, and be prepared to devote your career of 20-40 years' length to the field. Then you'll be expected to mentor African-American students, to participate in outreach to the African-American community, to be up to speed on controversies related to African-American issues, to be asked/pressured to be on every committee possible, for diversity and for the appearance of diversity. You'll also have to be ready to be the target of bigotry, condescension, potential violence, overtly expressed convictions that you're actually stupid and badly prepared but you got the job because you are a minority, and the not negligible disadvantages that come with being identified with a vilified group. You could pass for white when you need to, because actually you are white, but you will be treated as Black by anyone who knows your professed identity, and I'd bet not all of those people are kindly and supportive.

So I think you'd have to be all-in if you were going to launch a career by identifying yourself as a member of a group that you're actually not in. Why these particular people chose to do it, who's to say. I have my suspicions, but they aren't about the cold calculation of professional advantage.

I'm sure many diversity hires are what you say, but you shouldn't stereotype an entire group like this and many are not.  I am currently working with an indigenous hire in chemistry.  They were not hired to teach indigenous chemistry, but they were hired because they were indigenous.  That being said, they are great, and fully qualified, but have had a hard time with colleagues based on their status.

As a white male in academia, I think anyone who says we are poorly treated it crazy.  I have never had anyone question my credentials, why I was hired, or anything of that nature.  I've been on several hiring committees and have never seen anyone suggest we should, or shouldn't, hire anyone based on their race, skin colour, or gender.  I'm sure that has happened somewhere, but from my experience, it has always gone to the most qualified person.  Diversity hires represent a small number of positions and it is likely necessary to slowly shift the balance.

[Caracal]

I think few people are going to be tempted to pretend they're of a race they really aren't, just to get a diversity hire. Diversity hires don't just hire you because you're X, and then you've got a great gig. They typically are in the field your race is related to, e.g. African-American. So you'd have to start preparing years in advance to be an expert in the field of African-American literature, history, or whatever, and be prepared to devote your career of 20-40 years' length to the field. Then you'll be expected to mentor African-American students, to participate in outreach to the African-American community, to be up to speed on controversies related to African-American issues, to be asked/pressured to be on every committee possible, for diversity and for the appearance of diversity. You'll also have to be ready to be the target of bigotry, condescension, potential violence, overtly expressed convictions that you're actually stupid and badly prepared but you got the job because you are a minority, and the not negligible disadvantages that come with being identified with a vilified group. You could pass for white when you need to, because actually you are white, but you will be treated as Black by anyone who knows your professed identity, and I'd bet not all of those people are kindly and supportive.

So I think you'd have to be all-in if you were going to launch a career by identifying yourself as a member of a group that you're actually not in. Why these particular people chose to do it, who's to say. I have my suspicions, but they aren't about the cold calculation of professional advantage.

It is an outgrowth of colorblind thinking. I think it is true, that if my resume stayed the same but I suddenly  became an underrepresented minority, I would have a better chance of getting a closer look in interviews for some tenure track positions. I'm in a field where the market is very tight. It is also an overwhelmingly white field. There are lots of qualified candidates for most positions, so anything that makes you stand out helps.

However, there are two problems with claiming this means that white candidates are disadvantaged. One is that there just aren't enough minority candidates for this to significantly impact my chance of getting an interview or a job. Just because a department might want to hire someone who would bring a different perspective, all things being equal, doesn't mean they will actually do that when only a few minority candidates are in the application pool. Like all candidates, most of those people will probably not fit for various reasons. And again, if you look at the actual hiring numbers, there aren't enough jobs going to non white candidates for it be impacting me much.

This highlights the second problem, which is that you assume there are no barriers to everyone getting the same qualifications. I attended a fairly small grad program, but if I think about the cohorts within 3 years of me either direction, I can think of one Black American out of somewhere around 80 people. There's no one simple explanation for this, and my program may have been worse than many, but that basic pattern holds pretty well. It is pretty clear that it is not a simple or easy path.

[Wahoo Redux]

Oh stop. Finance guy was whining about the difficulties of life as a white man in academia. Obviously, I was making fun of that assertion, not making comments about his life difficulties. More to the point, minority groups are hugely underrepresented, not overrepresented in academia. This hasn't changed over the last decade. So, the assertion that somehow white people are being systematically disadvantaged in academia, is to put it politely, garbage. The grad student is a jerk and a fool, who cares? For some reason, these are always the kind of arguments people make on here. It boils down to "racial discrimination against white academics is real, because once somebody said something mean to me."

Seems to me we've been down this exact path before and I think you've said very much the same thing before.  I've posted my own anecdotal experiences observing minority hiring and retention in academia, which while admittedly a weak form of evidence would militate against what you've just said above.

I've also been looking around at the actual numbers---and it is interesting.

I probably won't stop.  And that wasn't what I talking about, anyway.  I don't cotton much to some poster's commentary myself----I think some folks are ridiculous and adolescent.

What I was more interested in was your actual approach and what you think you can accomplish from it.  It's "garbage" is not a convincing argument.  You, my friend, sound as reactionary as these other folks.

Just out of curiosity, would would be the proper ratio/percentage/whatever of minority faculty and why?

However, there are two problems with claiming this means that white candidates are disadvantaged. One is that there just aren't enough minority candidates for this to significantly impact my chance of getting an interview or a job. Just because a department might want to hire someone who would bring a different perspective, all things being equal, doesn't mean they will actually do that when only a few minority candidates are in the application pool. Like all candidates, most of those people will probably not fit for various reasons. And again, if you look at the actual hiring numbers, there aren't enough jobs going to non white candidates for it be impacting me much.

That only works if one is not actively on the job market and/or has not seen a job go to a less-qualified (on paper anyway) candidate. 

[mahagonny]

What if they do a study that finds there aren't enough black adjunct faculty because black people have more common sense?

[financeguy]

As long as we have the attitude that a difference in representation relative to the population as a whole means oppression, there's no reason to further the conversation under that assumption. The NBA analogy of underrepresented whites is getting pretty worn out. Oppression is one possible reason for representation differing from the general population, as are preferences, innate group differences, or even the undetermined reasons, which can easily be the most likely answer if a field is too small to even be representative. Trying to "represent the population" in a field graduating less than 100 people a year nationwide, for example, is probably not going to happen for many reasons, oppression being least likely.

And btw, I've not stated that I've had a "hard life" at all, which can be said of 0% of people in pursuit of a graduate education in the United States, minority or otherwise. Once you walk onto that campus, you are privileged relative to the vast majority of the world to such an insane degree that it's almost an embarrassment to even argue over who got the history job at Duke and for what reason. This is a very different statement than I have lost opportunities based on race and some have received them based on race. I'm still in a good place either way and will continue to be because I'll make it happen regardless, even if that means business ownership on my own outside of an academic environment. My own quality of life isn't really the point.

[Kron3007]

I think few people are going to be tempted to pretend they're of a race they really aren't, just to get a diversity hire. Diversity hires don't just hire you because you're X, and then you've got a great gig. They typically are in the field your race is related to, e.g. African-American. So you'd have to start preparing years in advance to be an expert in the field of African-American literature, history, or whatever, and be prepared to devote your career of 20-40 years' length to the field. Then you'll be expected to mentor African-American students, to participate in outreach to the African-American community, to be up to speed on controversies related to African-American issues, to be asked/pressured to be on every committee possible, for diversity and for the appearance of diversity. You'll also have to be ready to be the target of bigotry, condescension, potential violence, overtly expressed convictions that you're actually stupid and badly prepared but you got the job because you are a minority, and the not negligible disadvantages that come with being identified with a vilified group. You could pass for white when you need to, because actually you are white, but you will be treated as Black by anyone who knows your professed identity, and I'd bet not all of those people are kindly and supportive.

So I think you'd have to be all-in if you were going to launch a career by identifying yourself as a member of a group that you're actually not in. Why these particular people chose to do it, who's to say. I have my suspicions, but they aren't about the cold calculation of professional advantage.

It is an outgrowth of colorblind thinking. I think it is true, that if my resume stayed the same but I suddenly  became an underrepresented minority, I would have a better chance of getting a closer look in interviews for some tenure track positions. I'm in a field where the market is very tight. It is also an overwhelmingly white field. There are lots of qualified candidates for most positions, so anything that makes you stand out helps.

However, there are two problems with claiming this means that white candidates are disadvantaged. One is that there just aren't enough minority candidates for this to significantly impact my chance of getting an interview or a job. Just because a department might want to hire someone who would bring a different perspective, all things being equal, doesn't mean they will actually do that when only a few minority candidates are in the application pool. Like all candidates, most of those people will probably not fit for various reasons. And again, if you look at the actual hiring numbers, there aren't enough jobs going to non white candidates for it be impacting me much.

This highlights the second problem, which is that you assume there are no barriers to everyone getting the same qualifications. I attended a fairly small grad program, but if I think about the cohorts within 3 years of me either direction, I can think of one Black American out of somewhere around 80 people. There's no one simple explanation for this, and my program may have been worse than many, but that basic pattern holds pretty well. It is pretty clear that it is not a simple or easy path.

Except that the research shows that if you have an "ethnic" sounding name you are automatically at a disadvantage.  This is also.tru if you have a female name, you are automatically downgraded based on this, before they even look at your qualifications.  To assume you are advantaged as a minority flies in the face of any research I have seen.

[adel9216]

I think few people are going to be tempted to pretend they're of a race they really aren't, just to get a diversity hire. Diversity hires don't just hire you because you're X, and then you've got a great gig. They typically are in the field your race is related to, e.g. African-American. So you'd have to start preparing years in advance to be an expert in the field of African-American literature, history, or whatever, and be prepared to devote your career of 20-40 years' length to the field. Then you'll be expected to mentor African-American students, to participate in outreach to the African-American community, to be up to speed on controversies related to African-American issues, to be asked/pressured to be on every committee possible, for diversity and for the appearance of diversity. You'll also have to be ready to be the target of bigotry, condescension, potential violence, overtly expressed convictions that you're actually stupid and badly prepared but you got the job because you are a minority, and the not negligible disadvantages that come with being identified with a vilified group. You could pass for white when you need to, because actually you are white, but you will be treated as Black by anyone who knows your professed identity, and I'd bet not all of those people are kindly and supportive.

So I think you'd have to be all-in if you were going to launch a career by identifying yourself as a member of a group that you're actually not in. Why these particular people chose to do it, who's to say. I have my suspicions, but they aren't about the cold calculation of professional advantage.

It is an outgrowth of colorblind thinking. I think it is true, that if my resume stayed the same but I suddenly  became an underrepresented minority, I would have a better chance of getting a closer look in interviews for some tenure track positions. I'm in a field where the market is very tight. It is also an overwhelmingly white field. There are lots of qualified candidates for most positions, so anything that makes you stand out helps.

However, there are two problems with claiming this means that white candidates are disadvantaged. One is that there just aren't enough minority candidates for this to significantly impact my chance of getting an interview or a job. Just because a department might want to hire someone who would bring a different perspective, all things being equal, doesn't mean they will actually do that when only a few minority candidates are in the application pool. Like all candidates, most of those people will probably not fit for various reasons. And again, if you look at the actual hiring numbers, there aren't enough jobs going to non white candidates for it be impacting me much.

This highlights the second problem, which is that you assume there are no barriers to everyone getting the same qualifications. I attended a fairly small grad program, but if I think about the cohorts within 3 years of me either direction, I can think of one Black American out of somewhere around 80 people. There's no one simple explanation for this, and my program may have been worse than many, but that basic pattern holds pretty well. It is pretty clear that it is not a simple or easy path.

Except that the research shows that if you have an "ethnic" sounding name you are automatically at a disadvantage.  This is also.tru if you have a female name, you are automatically downgraded based on this, before they even look at your qualifications.  To assume you are advantaged as a minority flies in the face of any research I have seen.

This.

[dismalist]

Except that the research shows that if you have an "ethnic" sounding name you are automatically at a disadvantage.  This is also.tru if you have a female name, you are automatically downgraded based on this, before they even look at your qualifications.  To assume you are advantaged as a minority flies in the face of any research I have seen.

This.

So we name our kids nice Anglo-Saxon male, and the problem is gone within a generation. :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

Except that the research shows that if you have an "ethnic" sounding name you are automatically at a disadvantage.  This is also.tru if you have a female name, you are automatically downgraded based on this, before they even look at your qualifications.  To assume you are advantaged as a minority flies in the face of any research I have seen.

This.
[/quote]

Well...maybe.

I'm ambivalent and not necessarily an opponent of minority hiring, Affirmative Action, etc.  And I've actually worked on two "diversity initiatives" in my time.

But you know that there is also a body of research on the term "reverse discrimination," for and against the term, some from the '70s, some recent. 

And we were talking about academic jobs anyway.

Is there any research into ethnicity and academic job markets?