Diversity and inclusion Gone Wild

[Wahoo Redux]

I have personally seen it in one job interview cycle which I had nothing to do with but a friend did.  Our friend actually said over dinner, "I don't think a straight white guy should get this job" and shrugged, alluding to the many well-qualified Caucasian candidates in the pool.  They hired a reasonably but not outstandingly well-qualified minority professor who everyone liked, who did a good job, and then who left for a better job after one year.

I don't see the problem here. Presumably if you'd hired someone more qualified they also might have left, yes? And as it is, you hired someone else, who was also qualified, and who did a good job for the time they were in post.

Well...the problem was not that the person left; that's incidental (although I wonder if the person would have had as much good luck had hu been Caucasian). 

The problem is that, firstly, I understand that it is illegal to deny someone a job or interview based on gender, race, or orientation (someone correct me if I am wrong or their are nuances); and, secondly, that it is unethical to deny someone a job or interview based on gender, race, or orientation; and, thirdly, while I was not on the search, my understanding is that there were actually more qualified people on paper.

I hate to be all AOL-style trollish here, but reverse the statement and the stakes: "I just don't think a gay black woman should get this job."  What happens next?

Respectfully, you, my friend, are maybe playing a bit obtuse here?

And in one tenure review case a white faculty from the year before was denied tenure with almost the same qualifications as a minority candidate who was granted tenure on a split vote the next year---and no, there was not a big difference in quality of teaching or service between the two.  It didn't help that the white tenure case had the personality of old wet toast, but still....

But still . . . what? There were two tenure candidates with similar qualifications. The one who had the personality of old wet toast didn't make it, and the one who had (I infer) a better personality barely squeaked by.

Ha!  I knew someone would say something like that. 

I do not know where you work, but most places I've worked do not have a "personality test" requirement for tenure.  Most places I've worked have set criteria for tenure, and either an assistant prof meets the requirements or does not.  In this case neither met the requirements, but one got away with it.

The denied prof was lackluster in person, to be sure, but I do not ever remember hearing anything about hu's performance in the classroom, one way or the other.  The eventually tenured prof had a great many students who liked hu, but also had complaints about failure to answer emails or hold office hours and personally insulted a graduate student to the point that the graduate student quit.  I know this because my spouse was in on the tenure decisions.  I should not post such specific stuff, but you asked.

And in any event, tenure is not a popularity contest, right?

There is actually another very problematic issue regarding race and hiring at the this same school, but the details would be too particular to one school and person for me to post----so I won't.  But it is there, in plain sight for anyone to see, and very hard to deny based on objective observation.

Then there are the many backroom comments made about white job candidates, professors, writers, grad students, or just anyone which would cause outrage if the racial or gender makeup was reversed.

That said, we know that white men have ruled the roost for many years and that the experiences, real and/or perceived, of minorities can be very fraught.  And sure, we have a lot of dyed-in-the-wool wolfs-in-sheep's clothing among the ranks.

Let's just not minimize other people's perceptions or misstate what they experience either.

I don't deny that this happens. But the fact remains that one group is suffers a lot more than another from these sorts of comments and hiring decisions directed against them, and the group that suffers more is also the group that is has had generations of opportunities abridged and lost. So when I decide how to prioritize my outrage---and there is enough cause for outrage that I must prioritize it---I do not put the straight white guys first. So I guess it must be a good thing that there are evidently other people who are willing to step in and fill that gap.

This may be true in other industries (the Chicago police department was just in the news) but this is not the case in academia as far as I have seen.  And regardless, let's just call a turtle a turtle; as the kids like to say, "It is what it is."  Rightly or wrongly, we have this dynamic in academe and we call it, rightly or wrongly, "reverse discrimination."

I am NTT so generally I don't worry about this stuff at all.  But my spouse had to vote on tenure, and when the minority candidate who did not meet requirements came up for the vote I urged my spouse just to vote yes and live with it: I was afraid of the outrage machine and the potential for lawsuits no matter how illegitimate.  It is what it is.  Spouse voted hu's conscience, BTW.

[ergative]

. . . Unless we're some sort of Borg collective, it makes very little sense to refer to decisions about individuals as having some great significance for any group to which they may belong.

That's exactly the type of reasoning that for so long was used to justify not hiring minorities. 'It's not that we're racist or anything; we just think that the individual who was straight is a better fit for our heteronormative department than the individual who was gay.' Or whatever.

Yes, we should make decisions about individuals. But we can't pretend to be blind to the larger societal pressures that inform our decisions about those individuals.

[ciao_yall]

Define "qualified." And "more qualified" or "less qualified."

And in that context, discuss the importance of representation to students from under-represented backgrounds.

[Wahoo Redux]

Define "qualified." And "more qualified" or "less qualified."

I think maybe you're talking to me?  And I suspect you probably have at least as much or even more experience hiring people than I do?  So come on.  I mean, what do you think those terms mean?  There's a job ad, and candidates either meet qualifications, exceed qualifications, or fail to meet qualifications.  I don't think job ads have requirements for race, gender, etc. although they do "encourage" women and minority candidates to apply. 

This is what I meant by a can of worms opening.

And in that context, discuss the importance of representation to students from under-represented backgrounds.

Yeeeeesssss we all know this is a justification for specifically hiring more under-represented academics, and all other considerations become secondary.  I think it has some validity.  Does that qualify someone for a job in our line of work, however?  It means that we sometimes hire people based on the presumed socioeconomic relationship to students and a presumed shared experience based on race, gender, etc.  And we also assume that a majority person cannot relate to under-represented student groups as well as someone from an under-represented group.  Should we specifically look for profs who grew up in the suburbs so they can relate to the white middle class kids who disproportionately populate our colleges?  And it does nothing to address the legal problem of hiring someone based on race or gender.

[mahagonny]

I have personally seen it in one job interview cycle which I had nothing to do with but a friend did.  Our friend actually said over dinner, "I don't think a straight white guy should get this job" and shrugged, alluding to the many well-qualified Caucasian candidates in the pool.  They hired a reasonably but not outstandingly well-qualified minority professor who everyone liked, who did a good job, and then who left for a better job after one year.

I don't see the problem here. Presumably if you'd hired someone more qualified they also might have left, yes? And as it is, you hired someone else, who was also qualified, and who did a good job for the time they were in post.

Well...the problem was not that the person left; that's incidental (although I wonder if the person would have had as much good luck had hu been Caucasian). 

The problem is that, firstly, I understand that it is illegal to deny someone a job or interview based on gender, race, or orientation (someone correct me if I am wrong or their are nuances); and, secondly, that it is unethical to deny someone a job or interview based on gender, race, or orientation; and, thirdly, while I was not on the search, my understanding is that there were actually more qualified people on paper.

I hate to be all AOL-style trollish here, but reverse the statement and the stakes: "I just don't think a gay black woman should get this job."  What happens next?

Respectfully, you, my friend, are maybe playing a bit obtuse here?

And in one tenure review case a white faculty from the year before was denied tenure with almost the same qualifications as a minority candidate who was granted tenure on a split vote the next year---and no, there was not a big difference in quality of teaching or service between the two.  It didn't help that the white tenure case had the personality of old wet toast, but still....

But still . . . what? There were two tenure candidates with similar qualifications. The one who had the personality of old wet toast didn't make it, and the one who had (I infer) a better personality barely squeaked by.

Ha!  I knew someone would say something like that. 

I do not know where you work, but most places I've worked do not have a "personality test" requirement for tenure.  Most places I've worked have set criteria for tenure, and either an assistant prof meets the requirements or does not.  In this case neither met the requirements, but one got away with it.

The denied prof was lackluster in person, to be sure, but I do not ever remember hearing anything about hu's performance in the classroom, one way or the other.  The eventually tenured prof had a great many students who liked hu, but also had complaints about failure to answer emails or hold office hours and personally insulted a graduate student to the point that the graduate student quit.  I know this because my spouse was in on the tenure decisions.  I should not post such specific stuff, but you asked.

And in any event, tenure is not a popularity contest, right?

I suppose it's interesting to hear about concerns that are peculiar to the minority of college faculty (tenure track)  from time to time.

[Aster]

I suppose it's interesting to hear about concerns that are peculiar to the minority of college faculty (tenure track)  from time to time.

Yeah. Some things are just bizarre and insulting to part-time faculty.

For example, Big Urban College's leadership is obsessed right now over faculty diversity.

But for some reason not told to anyone, part-time faculty are not counted as "faculty". Only the tenure track professors are counted.

But most of our professors are part-timers, and most of our courses and students (over half of the student body) are taught by part-timers.

My own department only has a handful of tenure track professors in it. But we have nearly 20 part-timers. None of those part-timers are included in the colleges faculty diversity reports. It's as if they don't exist as people, or "count" as professors.

[ciao_yall]

I suppose it's interesting to hear about concerns that are peculiar to the minority of college faculty (tenure track)  from time to time.

Yeah. Some things are just bizarre and insulting to part-time faculty.

For example, Big Urban College's leadership is obsessed right now over faculty diversity.

But for some reason not told to anyone, part-time faculty are not counted as "faculty". Only the tenure track professors are counted.

But most of our professors are part-timers, and most of our courses and students (over half of the student body) are taught by part-timers.

My own department only has a handful of tenure track professors in it. But we have nearly 20 part-timers. None of those part-timers are included in the colleges faculty diversity reports. It's as if they don't exist as people, or "count" as professors.

If they counted PT faculty in the diversity numbers, it would be clear what the REAL, visible difference was between tenured and adjunct faculty.

[Aster]

I suppose it's interesting to hear about concerns that are peculiar to the minority of college faculty (tenure track)  from time to time.

Yeah. Some things are just bizarre and insulting to part-time faculty.

For example, Big Urban College's leadership is obsessed right now over faculty diversity.

But for some reason not told to anyone, part-time faculty are not counted as "faculty". Only the tenure track professors are counted.

But most of our professors are part-timers, and most of our courses and students (over half of the student body) are taught by part-timers.

My own department only has a handful of tenure track professors in it. But we have nearly 20 part-timers. None of those part-timers are included in the colleges faculty diversity reports. It's as if they don't exist as people, or "count" as professors.

If they counted PT faculty in the diversity numbers, it would be clear what the REAL, visible difference was between tenured and adjunct faculty.

Well, including most of the college's professors would be valid for statistical purposes at any rate.

Currently, the way we are doing it is stupid. Most of our departments have maybe 1,2, or 3 tenure track faculty in them. Such a low (n) per department grossly skews reporting and makes the statistics pretty screwed up. But the college insists on measuring diversity by department only. Just including tenure track faculty, this means that most departments will only show as being 100%, 50%, 34%, or 0% diverse.  Adding or removing a single female or minority can alter the data outcome by as much as 100%.

[ciao_yall]

I suppose it's interesting to hear about concerns that are peculiar to the minority of college faculty (tenure track)  from time to time.

Yeah. Some things are just bizarre and insulting to part-time faculty.

For example, Big Urban College's leadership is obsessed right now over faculty diversity.

But for some reason not told to anyone, part-time faculty are not counted as "faculty". Only the tenure track professors are counted.

But most of our professors are part-timers, and most of our courses and students (over half of the student body) are taught by part-timers.

My own department only has a handful of tenure track professors in it. But we have nearly 20 part-timers. None of those part-timers are included in the colleges faculty diversity reports. It's as if they don't exist as people, or "count" as professors.

If they counted PT faculty in the diversity numbers, it would be clear what the REAL, visible difference was between tenured and adjunct faculty.

Well, including most of the college's professors would be valid for statistical purposes at any rate.

Currently, the way we are doing it is stupid. Most of our departments have maybe 1,2, or 3 tenure track faculty in them. Such a low (n) per department grossly skews reporting and makes the statistics pretty screwed up. But the college insists on measuring diversity by department only. Just including tenure track faculty, this means that most departments will only show as being 100%, 50%, 34%, or 0% diverse.  Adding or removing a single female or minority can alter the data outcome by as much as 100%.

My point is that I would suspect most of the tenured faculty are older and white, while the younger adjuncts are much more diverse. Then it becomes a question of why the institution suddenly is not willing to pay "can't afford" full-time faculty of color.

[mahagonny]

I suppose it's interesting to hear about concerns that are peculiar to the minority of college faculty (tenure track)  from time to time.

Yeah. Some things are just bizarre and insulting to part-time faculty.

For example, Big Urban College's leadership is obsessed right now over faculty diversity.

But for some reason not told to anyone, part-time faculty are not counted as "faculty". Only the tenure track professors are counted.

But most of our professors are part-timers, and most of our courses and students (over half of the student body) are taught by part-timers.

My own department only has a handful of tenure track professors in it. But we have nearly 20 part-timers. None of those part-timers are included in the colleges faculty diversity reports. It's as if they don't exist as people, or "count" as professors.

If they counted PT faculty in the diversity numbers, it would be clear what the REAL, visible difference was between tenured and adjunct faculty.

Well, including most of the college's professors would be valid for statistical purposes at any rate.

Currently, the way we are doing it is stupid. Most of our departments have maybe 1,2, or 3 tenure track faculty in them. Such a low (n) per department grossly skews reporting and makes the statistics pretty screwed up. But the college insists on measuring diversity by department only. Just including tenure track faculty, this means that most departments will only show as being 100%, 50%, 34%, or 0% diverse.  Adding or removing a single female or minority can alter the data outcome by as much as 100%.

My point is that I would suspect most of the tenured faculty are older and white, while the younger adjuncts are much more diverse. Then it becomes a question of why the institution suddenly is not willing to pay "can't afford" full-time faculty of color.

Or it becomes a question of why is the institution fixated on questions of diversity when it has no interest in issues pay equity irrespective of race, gender, etc.? If you can't recognize unfairness, your not a social justice advocate.

[Anselm]

I suppose it's interesting to hear about concerns that are peculiar to the minority of college faculty (tenure track)  from time to time.

Yeah. Some things are just bizarre and insulting to part-time faculty.

For example, Big Urban College's leadership is obsessed right now over faculty diversity.

But for some reason not told to anyone, part-time faculty are not counted as "faculty". Only the tenure track professors are counted.

But most of our professors are part-timers, and most of our courses and students (over half of the student body) are taught by part-timers.

My own department only has a handful of tenure track professors in it. But we have nearly 20 part-timers. None of those part-timers are included in the colleges faculty diversity reports. It's as if they don't exist as people, or "count" as professors.

What do these reports look like?  How are they measuring diversity?  If it includes race then how do they know for sure how to describe someone?  Do they ask everyone to self identify?

[eigen]

Where are you people working that you have so many unqualified candidates applying?

Honestly, where I've worked most of the short list were more than well-qualified for the job, and the missing pieces were "fit".

I think the bigger piece that no one is discussing is how you attract qualified candidates who are also from underrepresented backgrounds to apply. If you're not getting them, maybe you should ask "why". The best intervention I've seen is to not look at demographics of the short list, but rather look at demographics of the pool as a whole.

If you don't have a diverse pool of applicants, then look at how you're advertising to see if you can attract one.

Then, select the best people from a pool that is already diverse.

But again, I'd argue that "best" is a nebulous term to define, and that at least where I've been employed, demographics *do* matter to our student retention, and students feeling welcome and comfortable at the school. Diversity also increases the range of opinions and experiences people bring to the school, which is a benefit. And since I've yet to see these cases people bring up where there aren't a plethora of "qualified" candidates for the job... Between otherwise qualified candidates, picking one that brings perspectives and experiences to the school that are missing can certainly make them a better fit.

[apl68]

But again, I'd argue that "best" is a nebulous term to define, and that at least where I've been employed, demographics *do* matter to our student retention, and students feeling welcome and comfortable at the school. Diversity also increases the range of opinions and experiences people bring to the school, which is a benefit. And since I've yet to see these cases people bring up where there aren't a plethora of "qualified" candidates for the job... Between otherwise qualified candidates, picking one that brings perspectives and experiences to the school that are missing can certainly make them a better fit.

That's a good point often lost in all the arguing over questions of social justice.  There are excellent practical reasons for wanting a more representative faculty.  Since tenured faculty careers tend to be long and stable, it's taking a long time for the demographic mix there to change.  It's no wonder some find the slow pace of change frustrating.  And yet there really aren't any quick, simple solutions.

[mahagonny]

But again, I'd argue that "best" is a nebulous term to define, and that at least where I've been employed, demographics *do* matter to our student retention, and students feeling welcome and comfortable at the school. Diversity also increases the range of opinions and experiences people bring to the school, which is a benefit. And since I've yet to see these cases people bring up where there aren't a plethora of "qualified" candidates for the job... Between otherwise qualified candidates, picking one that brings perspectives and experiences to the school that are missing can certainly make them a better fit.

That's a good point often lost in all the arguing over questions of social justice.  There are excellent practical reasons for wanting a more representative faculty.  Since tenured faculty careers tend to be long and stable, it's taking a long time for the demographic mix there to change.  It's no wonder some find the slow pace of change frustrating.  And yet there really aren't any quick, simple solutions.

Here's one: ban tenure. No appointments longer than three or five years. Like college presidents or chairs. There would be other benefits too. People who have tenure but find themselves in a department where the mission has changed, and they haven't changed with it (or cannot stand to) would not have the same incentive to stay and would be more motivated to find out where else they could be working, and happier.

As it is now, with such a hierarchical hiring structure, it should be easy to attract more minority candidates to the adjunct pool, since you don't need a PhD. When was the last time someone started litigation because a 'less qualified' candidate got the part time position? Doesn't happen. But then schools would have to call attention to their adjunct population to advertise their success in hiring diversely. The tenure track won't like that, because they promote the view that adjunct hiring is a stop gap measure instead of a long term strategy. Which everyone knows it is.

Adjunct (part time) has already 'solved' the gender diversity problem that tenure pretends to be standing on its head to correct. Slightly over half of adjunct faculty are women. Yet we never hear about it.

[Wahoo Redux]

Where are you people working that you have so many unqualified candidates applying?

I personally have never seen anyone "unqualified" hop to the short list of anything in my limited experience.  But in my limited experience I have seen candidates who meet basically minimal requirements but of a certain race hopped over candidates who have excellent credentials.  I suspect everyone on these boards has been in the vicinity of this kind of scenario.  That's the issue: race or gender becomes a credential.

Anyone read Richard Rodriquez, Hunger of Memory?  This is a memoir by a faculty from an under-represented group.  He talks about the experience of being a Latino faculty----and his perceptions are not what you might expect.  This was assigned by a minority faculty member to a graduate seminar I attended.  Part this scenario is that sometimes minority success-stories wonder if they really are successful because of their talents and merits...or are they successful because of their birth cultural or racial heritage.  This was the context that we were assigned the text.

Between otherwise qualified candidates, picking one that brings perspectives and experiences to the school that are missing can certainly make them a better fit.

Sure.  This is a perfectly valid argument.  It would be most germane in the liberal arts which teach courses on, say, African American history or Hispanic cultural studies, I suppose.  But we must also simply call it what it is: hiring based on race, gender, etc. and a form of reverse discrimination.