A professor admits she faked her racial identity

[Ruralguy]

Yes, some sub-fields (and even some large fields in general) have to broaden the sense of what they consider to be diverse even if it doesn't officially tick a box. But we shouldn't think we know everyone available today based on 10+ years ago, or even 5. Situations change. I know in some of the sciences, especially when you consider non-citizens working in the US (I realize not all jobs can do that) or people applying from overseas (ditto), its not 100% clear what someone's race or ethnicity really is in any official sense. How or when do you ask that if you don't know? I know that sounds kind of dorky, and I don't mean to sound ignorant, but if you want to meet some specific goal, but don't know how people fit into that goal, what do you do?

To me, increasing diversity is more about opening yourself up to more options that weren't previously considered, or maybe prioritize or at least seriously consider certain sub-fields with higher percentage of URM's. 

[AvidReader]

Last time this subject came up I was instructed by somebody in a well-known theory of job placement in academia: one of the criteria for a job candidate can and should be how well said hypothetical candidate relates to students from certain backgrounds, even if that is not spelled out in the job ad.   It's back there somewhere.  In other words, we need minority faculty to relate to minority students.

And this "I don't have a problem with people wanting to hire more candidates from backgrounds which are underrepresented in the field or at an institution" is exactly it.  Call it what you will or explain it how you will, this is the privileging of race and gender.   

I really didn't want to post on this thread, but this sticks out at me.

I teach at a reasonably large state school in the South, but I have also taught at community colleges on the East Coast. My current school is just over 30% non-white (mostly black, because it's the South) but my last two schools were almost 50% non-white (pretty equal parts black, Hispanic, and Asian). I teach humanities, and specifically general education courses required for nearly every student. My current department has 50+ full-time faculty members. As far as I can tell (it's harder with masks), just one is non-white. Our school is not very discerning in its student selection, so many of our students seem to drop out after a semester or year, and this seems to be disproportionately true among the non-white students, who comprise 50% of my first-year classes at the moment.

Humanities is overrun with good, qualified scholars of all races. 50 equally qualified people could apply to teach here next year, and 5 might be non-white. All other qualifications being equal (and that's an essential point; this isn't about hiring an inferior candidate), I think a non-white faculty member would be able to support some students (not all) in ways that I (a white woman) cannot. I try to make it clear to my students that I am willing to advocate for them, but I don't expect them to take my word for that. Many of them have already been exposed to systemic racism in local secondary schools and communities. Why should they trust me? I can earn their trust, but if it takes the whole semester, some will already be failing out of school by the time they believe that I am an advocate. Representation matters. Of course this privileges a certain race, but it does so in a way that can significantly and directly benefit 30% of the student body. Inasmuch as I work to treat all my students equitaby, it would take me decades of effort to be able able to support my non-white students as ably and easily as someone from their same background(s) can.

AR.

[marshwiggle]

Humanities is overrun with good, qualified scholars of all races. 50 equally qualified people could apply to teach here next year, and 5 might be non-white. All other qualifications being equal (and that's an essential point; this isn't about hiring an inferior candidate), I think a non-white faculty member would be able to support some students (not all) in ways that I (a white woman) cannot. I try to make it clear to my students that I am willing to advocate for them, but I don't expect them to take my word for that. Many of them have already been exposed to systemic racism in local secondary schools and communities. Why should they trust me? I can earn their trust, but if it takes the whole semester, some will already be failing out of school by the time they believe that I am an advocate. Representation matters. Of course this privileges a certain race, but it does so in a way that can significantly and directly benefit 30% of the student body. Inasmuch as I work to treat all my students equitably, it would take me decades of effort to be able able to support my non-white students as ably and easily as someone from their same background(s) can.

AR.

You've identified the problem. If 90% of your applicants are white, then it's pretty much only by explicitly eliminating them on that basis alone that you're going to be likely to hire someone that isn't. (And it's also statistically unlikely with those odds that all other qualifications are equal.)

Wanting a diverse faculty which more closely reflects your student body is a noble goal, but the question to consider is what (if any) limits there ought to be on how to achieve that.

[Caracal]

Yes, some sub-fields (and even some large fields in general) have to broaden the sense of what they consider to be diverse even if it doesn't officially tick a box. But we shouldn't think we know everyone available today based on 10+ years ago, or even 5. Situations change. I know in some of the sciences, especially when you consider non-citizens working in the US (I realize not all jobs can do that) or people applying from overseas (ditto), its not 100% clear what someone's race or ethnicity really is in any official sense. How or when do you ask that if you don't know? I know that sounds kind of dorky, and I don't mean to sound ignorant, but if you want to meet some specific goal, but don't know how people fit into that goal, what do you do?

To me, increasing diversity is more about opening yourself up to more options that weren't previously considered, or maybe prioritize or at least seriously consider certain sub-fields with higher percentage of URM's.

I agree. Part of the problem is that if you start with the assumption that obviously the best candidate is the one who went to the fanciest grad program, wrote 3 articles while in grad school and already has a book contract, you are going to end up with a less diverse faculty. It isn't just that you are going to have a racially homogenous faculty, it is also that you are going to have a pretty homogenous group of people in general with less varied and interesting research and teaching.

[Caracal]

Humanities is overrun with good, qualified scholars of all races. 50 equally qualified people could apply to teach here next year, and 5 might be non-white. All other qualifications being equal (and that's an essential point; this isn't about hiring an inferior candidate), I think a non-white faculty member would be able to support some students (not all) in ways that I (a white woman) cannot. I try to make it clear to my students that I am willing to advocate for them, but I don't expect them to take my word for that. Many of them have already been exposed to systemic racism in local secondary schools and communities. Why should they trust me? I can earn their trust, but if it takes the whole semester, some will already be failing out of school by the time they believe that I am an advocate. Representation matters. Of course this privileges a certain race, but it does so in a way that can significantly and directly benefit 30% of the student body. Inasmuch as I work to treat all my students equitably, it would take me decades of effort to be able able to support my non-white students as ably and easily as someone from their same background(s) can.

AR.

You've identified the problem. If 90% of your applicants are white, then it's pretty much only by explicitly eliminating them on that basis alone that you're going to be likely to hire someone that isn't.

That doesn't actually make any sense.

[Wahoo Redux]

Humanities is overrun with good, qualified scholars of all races. 50 equally qualified people could apply to teach here next year, and 5 might be non-white. All other qualifications being equal (and that's an essential point; this isn't about hiring an inferior candidate)...

Well, this is where your experience and my experience diverge.  Or perhaps it is better to say----my experience has been that the "inferior" candidate can and probably will win once we believe in the concept that we majority people cannot relate to our minority students in the same manner that a minority faculty would (which I don't know that I buy or should necessarily be a factor).

I have taught at two open-admissions, highly un-selective universities.

One uni was primarily white and rural and spent a great deal of its resources on recruiting African-American students from one of the state's large segregated cities, often with less than success.

Our current uni is urban in a very poor part of the country and approximately 25 percent minority students.  Our overall success rate is not good for a variety of reasons.

What I have seen at both places is that race can be the defining factor in both hiring and tenure decisions.

[Wahoo Redux]

I agree. Part of the problem is that if you start with the assumption that obviously the best candidate is the one who went to the fanciest grad program, wrote 3 articles while in grad school and already has a book contract, you are going to end up with a less diverse faculty.

Wait, wait, wait!

You've just described an excellent candidate.  THAT person should not get the job simply because hu does not fit a diversity profile!!!????

That, my friend, is reverse discrimination.

Do we not have minority candidates who have a name degree, have written three articles, and have a book contract!!!???  Or this is person going to an Ivy?

[Kron3007]

Humanities is overrun with good, qualified scholars of all races. 50 equally qualified people could apply to teach here next year, and 5 might be non-white. All other qualifications being equal (and that's an essential point; this isn't about hiring an inferior candidate), I think a non-white faculty member would be able to support some students (not all) in ways that I (a white woman) cannot. I try to make it clear to my students that I am willing to advocate for them, but I don't expect them to take my word for that. Many of them have already been exposed to systemic racism in local secondary schools and communities. Why should they trust me? I can earn their trust, but if it takes the whole semester, some will already be failing out of school by the time they believe that I am an advocate. Representation matters. Of course this privileges a certain race, but it does so in a way that can significantly and directly benefit 30% of the student body. Inasmuch as I work to treat all my students equitably, it would take me decades of effort to be able able to support my non-white students as ably and easily as someone from their same background(s) can.

AR.

You've identified the problem. If 90% of your applicants are white, then it's pretty much only by explicitly eliminating them on that basis alone that you're going to be likely to hire someone that isn't. (And it's also statistically unlikely with those odds that all other qualifications are equal.)

Wanting a diverse faculty which more closely reflects your student body is a noble goal, but the question to consider is what (if any) limits there ought to be on how to achieve that.

As most of us would agree, for academic hiring fit is as important as most quantifiable characteristics.  This is true at least among applicants that make it through the first pass.

From here, we need to know what defines the most qualified candidate or best fit?  If the intention of the role is to provide mentorship for minority students, I would argue that the candidate's racial background would impact this.  So, if you look at it only based on academic pedigree, publications, grants, etc., you may find it is the white candidate, but for some specific hires that is not all that matters. 

[Wahoo Redux]

So, we break down the ideas essentially as:

Hegemony: white people have had the advantage for a long time and they were pretty bad people in this regard; now it's time for minority candidates to occupy the academy because it is only fair (and this is only a minority of positions anyway---as if we have lots of jobs to go around).

Caracal & Kron: even if there are better candidates, race should be the defining factor in order to make minority students more comfortable in the classroom, and this makes perfect sense.

Writingprof & financeguy: Snarl! Time to end this ridiculous liberal takeover.

Marshwiggle: I'm not sure what he is saying.

Wahoo Redux: I am an eyewitness to race as the overarching factor in hiring and tenure; I don't know if that's constant in academia, but everything (including this thread) seems to suggest it is.

[marshwiggle]

Marshwiggle: I'm not sure what he is saying.

Come on. The point I made above is that if 90% of candidates are white, you're going to wind up mostly hiring white people unless you specifically reject them because they're white.

You don't have to agree with me; just don't pretend I'm making some kind of obscure argument. (In this case, I didn't make up the 90% statistic; I was pointing out its significance.)

[apl68]

Mostly what this discussion is telling me is that it is basically impossible for a hiring committee to make a choice that will not end up being second-guessed for one reason or another.  Especially when hiring in a crowded field where there is a diversity of strong candidates.

[apl68]

The psychology of this sort of thing is interesting.  We all know of cases where people tried impersonations like this, only to be exposed and disgraced.  How is it that others keep on convincing themselves that they're going to get away with it?  Do that want to be what they're not so badly that they in a sense convince themselves as well as others?

It's probably a combination of these factors. People genuinely identifying with their research field so much they feel connected to it? People just wanting to give themselves more authority in the field (and yes, whether we agree it is a life advantage overall, there are contexts in which "speaking as a woman of color" is a trump card)? People who are some way mentally ill to begin with?

Numerous scholars have been busted over the years faking their narrative, which to my mind suggests there are more fakers out there (GWU had two there at the same time, Krug and Carrillo!). What if the ones who get busted are only a small proportion?

Carrillo's rollercoaster of an obit

It would be interesting to see what would have happened had "Carrillo" been unmasked while alive.  As a Cuban-American he was an egregious fraud.  But he was authentically gay and of African descent.  I suspect he might well have found apologists/excuse-makers willing to defend him in a way that would have made for some fascinating arguments in the media.  Whereas it's hard to see anybody sticking up for Krug.

[marshwiggle]

Mostly what this discussion is telling me is that it is basically impossible for a hiring committee to make a choice that will not end up being second-guessed for one reason or another. Especially when hiring in a crowded field where there is a diversity of strong candidates.

But AvidReader's example was of a situation where 90% of the candidates shared one very obvious characteristic. Suppose it was that 90% got their PhDs at the same institution, or that 90% had the same sub-field, or pretty much anything else. The fact that the one factor shared by an overwhelming majority was not shared by the successful candidate makes it hard to believe that characteristic was not used to reject all of those candidates.

[Caracal]

I agree. Part of the problem is that if you start with the assumption that obviously the best candidate is the one who went to the fanciest grad program, wrote 3 articles while in grad school and already has a book contract, you are going to end up with a less diverse faculty.

Wait, wait, wait!

You've just described an excellent candidate.  THAT person should not get the job simply because hu does not fit a diversity profile!!!????

That, my friend, is reverse discrimination.

Do we not have minority candidates who have a name degree, have written three articles, and have a book contract!!!???  Or this is person going to an Ivy?

Come on, there's not much point in a discussion if you just are going to put up a straw man and whack it with a stick. I didn't say anything like that.

When you have highly competitive fields, one of the things that can happen is that the minimum qualifications even to be considered keep getting higher and higher. Sometimes that makes sense. If you have hundreds of applications, maybe it isn't worth the risk to even consider people who are ABD. However, qualification creep can eventually result in a real narrowing of perspectives and approaches in a field. It is one thing to consider it a plus if a candidate right out of grad school has a published article (this is the humanities) However, if you make it a minimum requirement, you might be failing to look at candidates who might be doing more interesting work that didn't lend itself to cranking out articles while writing a dissertation. It also might not be a particularly helpful metric for finding a candidate to teach at a SLAC or teaching focused regional school.

[Caracal]

Caracal & Kron: even if there are better candidates, race should be the defining factor in order to make minority students more comfortable in the classroom, and this makes perfect sense.

I don't think that it should be the defining factor. I think it should be balanced along with everything else.