treatment of faculty of color

[Brego]

I am one of two faculty of color in a department of more than 35 people.

Recently my department was asked to create a statement in response to the ongoing civil rights actions nationwide.  I made it abundantly clear that I wanted to participate, but the statement is being drafted without any input from me.

The other faculty of color is in an administrative position; they rarely teach organized courses in the department.  They have openly told others they resent my presence in the department; they refer to themselves as the "token _______."  I don't know whether they are participating in the statement but would assume so, given their efforts to make themselves highly visible in college activities. 

I have been told by allies within the department that many white faculty are committed to upholding the status quo of a majority-white department. 

Is it reasonable that only some faculty of color are involved in ongoing efforts to diversify the university?  In a majority-white department, should faculty of color just keep quiet?  If that is not the case, what recourses are available to junior faculty of color who do not yet have tenure?  Or do I not have just cause of complaint?

[mamselle]

From a cynical "optics" point alone, the administrative person organizing the group is an idiot (my opinion).

But (also my opinion) the intersect between racists, whether latent or "out"/self-declared, and idiots is about 100%.

So the first sentence may be a tautological one. (Transparency: I am not a person of color).

I can't speak to what you should do, I'm not in a position to be able to say.

I strongly suspect you do have a just cause of complaint, but the wisdom of the fora often suggests that junior, untenured TT faculty be careful in such situations.

Whether this case is egregious enough to ignore that dictum, I don't feel qualified to say.

I'd certainly think you've got a case to make; the question is the wisdom in making it, or determining if other strategies exist that might be less costly and more efficacious.

Most of all, I'm very sorry it even, ever, has to come to something like this.

Every time people come up with a way to exclude others from significant efforts, they lose the valuable input those others could have had.

Which is itself tautological, since that's the underlying stupidity in racism: in addition to its heinous social costs, it denies society the contributions of those being excluded.

At least, one can say this: good for you for getting where you have, since it was probably never easy.

Be of good courage.

M.

[mahagonny]

I am one of two faculty of color in a department of more than 35 people.

Recently my department was asked to create a statement in response to the ongoing civil rights actions nationwide.  I made it abundantly clear that I wanted to participate, but the statement is being drafted without any input from me.

(1) What would your input have been?

(2) only answer if you are comfortable, if not, it's fine: I am wondering what type of department?

I have been told by allies within the department that many white faculty are committed to upholding the status quo of a majority-white department. 

Not sure what to make of this. If you get tenure that's still only two out of thirty-five.

[polly_mer]

I would let this go because it's not a good use of your time and energy.

Group statements change nothing ever.

As untenured faculty, your responsibility is to your career and your students.

If you must be an activist, then at least put your energy into something that matters--a group writing assignment is never something that matters.

As the advice columns say, when you have clear evidence through actions of who the group is, believe the evidence and then decide what your action is.

[Hegemony]

I agree with Polly. Group statements change nothing ever. If someone notices and asks, "Hey, did you contribute to the So-and-So Department Statement on Diversity?" you can say, "Why, no — no one ever consulted me about it." Which will say enormous amounts about the situation more clearly than any PR statement.

These statements, which everyone is falling over themselves to publish, are pretty much window dressing. I mean, better at least to give lip service to these causes than oppose them, but a lot of it is going to stop at lip service. Meanwhile I think it's only right that you, as a faculty member in a demographic that's already running a marathon, should reap some small benefit from this. In this case, the benefit is that you don't have to endure the tortuous pontificating and writing-a-statement-by-committee meetings that will go into this PR exercise. I'd vote for doing something good for yourself instead, like publishing up a storm, getting a better and higher-paying job, and leaving them in the dust.

[mamselle]

Yes, and after now reading your other post, it sounds like you already have so much to do that it's a blessing in disguise that you weren't asked.

M.

[financeguy]

When you say "faculty are committed to upholding the status quo of a majority white department" do you mean that they are actively seeking to thwart minority applications and/or apply an informal reverse quota or that they simply do not wish to achieve diversity by applying race based preferences in the decision making process?

[marshwiggle]

When you say "faculty are committed to upholding the status quo of a majority white department" do you mean that they are actively seeking to thwart minority applications and/or apply an informal reverse quota or that they simply do not wish to achieve diversity by applying race based preferences in the decision making process?

That was my question too. I find it really hard to imagine a department "committed to" actively rejecting the best applicant for a position simply because the person wasn't white. That would be the definition of racism.

[polly_mer]

When you say "faculty are committed to upholding the status quo of a majority white department" do you mean that they are actively seeking to thwart minority applications and/or apply an informal reverse quota or that they simply do not wish to achieve diversity by applying race based preferences in the decision making process?

That was my question too. I find it really hard to imagine a department "committed to" actively rejecting the best applicant for a position simply because the person wasn't white. That would be the definition of racism.

This comes back to the idea of 'fit'.

Someone who really wants to make changes that matter like:

* bridge programs for entering students that support for a minimum of two years with support that is much more than tutoring

* consistent, sustained outreach to K-12 classrooms and individual students/families to ensure a pipeline to the bridge programs

* childcare, eldercare, and other dependent care to allow people of all types to participate fully as students and faculty

* changing timing of meetings and/or people at the meeting (e.g., having student representatives or requiring representatives for specific groups/views instead of tapping the same few individuals as tokens.)

* modifying curriculum to allow for planned part-time attendance for the entire degree and/or for what current students need prioritized over what faculty want to teach

will be deemed 'poor fits' instead of being the wrong protected group.

Diversity is great as long as it's a checkbox category instead of actually being different.

[fizzycist]

It is not reasonable and you are justifiably enfuriated. I think it is fine to let your opinion be known internally within your department and to anyone who asks. But filing a formal complaint on this particular matter does not seem worth the energy. I would consider another dept. Or if I really wanted to stay and shake things up, start organizing with your few faculty allies and the students over the broader issues.

[adel9216]

Hello, PhD student here.

I understand exactly how you feel. I am also a WOC. However, I am very careful about what I say and do, because of the politics regarding academia and because I want a job after graduation. We're in minority in these universities, and that makes us vulnerable and I'm very well aware of that.

That being said, I am not saying 'don't talk', I am saying to do so strategically. Especially since you're not tenured (but even for tenured profs, I still think you need to be strategic in how to speak up about these things). For that, if I were you, I'd seek for mentorship from another tenured professor of your community either within or even outside your university.

[adel9216]

I agree with Polly. Group statements change nothing ever. If someone notices and asks, "Hey, did you contribute to the So-and-So Department Statement on Diversity?" you can say, "Why, no — no one ever consulted me about it." Which will say enormous amounts about the situation more clearly than any PR statement.

These statements, which everyone is falling over themselves to publish, are pretty much window dressing. I mean, better at least to give lip service to these causes than oppose them, but a lot of it is going to stop at lip service. Meanwhile I think it's only right that you, as a faculty member in a demographic that's already running a marathon, should reap some small benefit from this. In this case, the benefit is that you don't have to endure the tortuous pontificating and writing-a-statement-by-committee meetings that will go into this PR exercise. I'd vote for doing something good for yourself instead, like publishing up a storm, getting a better and higher-paying job, and leaving them in the dust.

I agree. Even all those companies who are making all these statements or even media industries....when you look at power positions within their organizations, there are little to no people of color. And they don't acknowledge it in their statements. It's mostly performative in my opinion. And thousands of testimonies from people of color, woman of color, working in academia, or in these companies or in the media proves so. A lot of them tried to speak up multiple times within their work environements and were shut down in various ways.

[fishbrains]

I would let this go because it's not a good use of your time and energy.

Group statements change nothing ever.

As untenured faculty, your responsibility is to your career and your students.

If you must be an activist, then at least put your energy into something that matters--a group writing assignment is never something that matters.

As the advice columns say, when you have clear evidence through actions of who the group is, believe the evidence and then decide what your action is.

This. Such group statements are pretty much the equivalent of "thoughts and prayers" after a school shooting.

Cynical, late-middle-aged, white guy speaking though.

[marshwiggle]

I agree with Polly. Group statements change nothing ever. If someone notices and asks, "Hey, did you contribute to the So-and-So Department Statement on Diversity?" you can say, "Why, no — no one ever consulted me about it." Which will say enormous amounts about the situation more clearly than any PR statement.

These statements, which everyone is falling over themselves to publish, are pretty much window dressing. I mean, better at least to give lip service to these causes than oppose them, but a lot of it is going to stop at lip service. Meanwhile I think it's only right that you, as a faculty member in a demographic that's already running a marathon, should reap some small benefit from this. In this case, the benefit is that you don't have to endure the tortuous pontificating and writing-a-statement-by-committee meetings that will go into this PR exercise. I'd vote for doing something good for yourself instead, like publishing up a storm, getting a better and higher-paying job, and leaving them in the dust.

I agree. Even all those companies who are making all these statements or even media industries....when you look at power positions within their organizations, there are little to no people of color. And they don't acknowledge it in their statements. It's mostly performative in my opinion.

I just read an article about how antibiotics given to children under a year old leads to a higher incidence of asthma later. How is this relevant? When a parent has a sick child, they want something to be done instantly.  So doctors will try to satisfy them by prescribing something, even if the cause of the illness is unclear or viral, in which case the antibiotics won't help.

The more demand there is for immediate results in demands for equality, the more "performative" the actions are going to be. If most executives in a company have 10 or more years of experience, (for instance), then a sane examination of their progress on equality among executives needs to be based on their workforce 10 years ago, rather than at present.

But in a world where instantaneous Twitter reaction is taken as the voice of God, there's no patience for the kind of careful analysis (and action) required. Quick token gestures will calm the mob more readily.

[bento]

Where is your department chair in all this, and could someone please wake them up?