Search Committee Process

[marshwiggle]

I don't think that's what candidates are really doing when they mention, say, a difficult pregnancy. I likely only gets a brief mention (or I hope so) and perhaps a references says a bit more, but also greatly backs up the candidate's bona fides. We're all humans. Can't we mention human circumstances?

When I was proctoring exams once, a student (not one of mine) came up to her prof as she handed in her exam and said something like "I really didn't do very well on the exam. I wrote you a little note." (Emphasis mine) What is the prof supposed to do with the note?????

In the Olympics, there are 2 100m track events; men and women. In the paralympics, there are 16 100m events.

• 100m T11 (Men/Women)
• 100m T12 (Men/Women)
• 100m T13 (Men/Women)
• 100m T33 (Men)
• 100m T34 (Men/Women)
• 100m T35 (Men/Women)
• 100m T36 (Men/Women)
• 100m T37 (Men/Women)
• 100m T38 (Men/Women)
• 100m T47 (Men/Women)
• 100m T51 (Men)
• 100m T52 (Men)
• 100m T53 (Men/Women)
• 100m T54 (Men/Women)
• 100m T63 (Men/Women)
• 100m T64 (Men/Women)

The reason there are so many events is that the organizers (wisely, in my opinion), don't try to equate different categories of disability, or come up with some sort of numerical "correction factors" for different situations. The only fair way to have people compete is with others who have the same limitations.

There is no fair way to compare circumstances, especially in regard to what effects they "ought" to have on productivity.

[Ruralguy]

There's probably no way fair way to do this across schools , that's for sure, but within searches, the committee can agree on how they might handle something like this.

I don't think the idea is to come up with a table of discounts (many of which would apply to men as well) , but just if someone mentions the circumstances, *and* is an otherwise worthy candidate, to think about whether or not the candidate is worth some small amount of risk depending on the circumstances and whether or not that really hampered productivity. So, I am, I don't know about others, am talking about a small amount of accommodation at the margins. If nobody mentions anything like that, I'd be inclined to offer little or no accommodation, so its better that they do.

But if diversity is a goal, it has to be treated as a separate worthy goal and shouldn't be written off as unattainable.

[marshwiggle]

There's probably no way fair way to do this across schools , that's for sure, but within searches, the committee can agree on how they might handle something like this.

I don't think the idea is to come up with a table of discounts (many of which would apply to men as well) , but just if someone mentions the circumstances, *and* is an otherwise worthy candidate, to think about whether or not the candidate is worth some small amount of risk depending on the circumstances and whether or not that really hampered productivity. So, I am, I don't know about others, am talking about a small amount of accommodation at the margins. If nobody mentions anything like that, I'd be inclined to offer little or no accommodation, so its better that they do.

But this effectively works against the person (or people) who assumes that their responsibility is to deal with their own circumstances, rather than demand that their employer accommodate it.

i.e. the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If it's better to mention these kinds of situations, then it follows that it's better to try to see as many things as possible as eligible for accommodations. Victimhood is an asset; self-reliance is a liability.

[Ruralguy]

This discussion is pointless. You are completely mischaracterizing my post and me. Just stop making everything into this know nothing culture war crap.

[Vid]

mleok; I donot feel this is --"This is why there needs to be broad buy-in from your senior faculty, because hiring women is really just the start of the challenge"-- a wise statement! I know many successful female faculty and they have the potential as much as their male peers!


Ultimately, America's answer to the intolerant man is diversity, the very diversity which our heritage of religious freedom has inspired. ~ Robert Kennedy

I feel we should recognize, accept, and celebrate our differences, NO IMPOSEMENT!

How is this relevant to the job specfications again? This is why such issues need to be addressed head on prior to the evaluation of candidates. If diversity is a priority, then there should be a clearly articulated policy statement about how it should be addressed in the evaluation process, and the pedagogical and institutional benefits that accrue from it. In addition, one needs to distinguish between improving the representation of women in your department, and increasing the representation of women who are also parents. While there is of course an overlap between these two categories, they are not equivalent. It also requires a serious discussion of family accommodations in university policy, such as maternity and childcare leave, and the impact it should have on promotion and tenure policies. Put another way, it's not simply a question of attracting more women to apply, interviewing more women, hiring more women, but also the question of retention and advancement once they are hired. This is why there needs to be broad buy-in from your senior faculty, because hiring women is really just the start of the challenge.

[mleok]

mleok; I donot feel this is --"This is why there needs to be broad buy-in from your senior faculty, because hiring women is really just the start of the challenge"-- a wise statement! I know many successful female faculty and they have the potential as much as their male peers!

Ultimately, America's answer to the intolerant man is diversity, the very diversity which our heritage of religious freedom has inspired. ~ Robert Kennedy

There are plenty of highly successful female faculty, but if you think that hiring female faculty candidates with half the research productivity and grants is the end of the story, then you are being hopelessly naive. At the very least, you'll also need to have a discussion about tenure standards.

Also, please learn to add a space between "donot."

[mleok]

I also wanted to strongly push back on the insinuation that only "intolerant" faculty members would consider candidates with half the research productivity and grants of other candidates to be less strong or meritorious.

[Hegemony]

There are also some unidentified variables here. Like: are the women candidates in this case more junior than the male candidates? If they are of equal seniority, are these really the best women candidates in the field? My guess is not. Where was the position advertised? Are there are already a majority of men in the department? Did they reach out to their circles, who were predominantly male, while there were fewer women to reach out to those circles? In other words, was there an imbalance in the people who heard of the job, and who applied for the job? Maybe some more vigorous spreading of the news needs to happen. Maybe women need to be encouraged to apply to a position that they may have heard is a no-go because Professor Blowhard is a bigot and there's no point in even applying and your life will be hell even if you get the job. Etc. It's not just a matter of looking at the applicant pool, but of making things more equitable all along the pipeline. Now, maybe this was done, or maybe it wouldn't have mattered in this case. But it's worth considering before Professor Blowhard just says "We had three female candidates and they don't pass muster, end of story."

[mleok]

There are also some unidentified variables here. Like: are the women candidates in this case more junior than the male candidates? If they are of equal seniority, are these really the best women candidates in the field? My guess is not. Where was the position advertised? Are there are already a majority of men in the department? Did they reach out to their circles, who were predominantly male, while there were fewer women to reach out to those circles? In other words, was there an imbalance in the people who heard of the job, and who applied for the job? Maybe some more vigorous spreading of the news needs to happen. Maybe women need to be encouraged to apply to a position that they may have heard is a no-go because Professor Blowhard is a bigot and there's no point in even applying and your life will be hell even if you get the job. Etc. It's not just a matter of looking at the applicant pool, but of making things more equitable all along the pipeline. Now, maybe this was done, or maybe it wouldn't have mattered in this case. But it's worth considering before Professor Blowhard just says "We had three female candidates and they don't pass muster, end of story."

I've already mentioned the importance of outreach, so that one has a strong applicant pool. The bottom line is that if one is serious about diversity, then it's not something which can be addressed only during search committee meetings, there are things which need to happen before the application deadline, and things which need to happen after the job has been offered and accepted. In any case, it's not something that a young, naive junior faculty member with an inadequate ability to communicate nuance can change on his/her own.

[mleok]

Vid, I suggest you read the NSF strategic plan about enhancing diversity and inclusion in the workforce that you cited upthread, since it focuses in large part on the pipline, barriers, and retention issues that go well beyond just hiring. It should also be noted that the document relates to NSF's diversity efforts with their workforce, as opposed to academia per se. For me, the most broadly compelling arguments for improving the diversity of faculty in higher education relate to the positive impact it can have on student outcomes, reducing barriers, and improving the leaky pipeline, and I suspect you would have a more receptive audience if you took that approach instead.

[Vid]

mleok; I would rather choose better words to describe my colleagues!  I am not a full prof yet but I am a well established faculty and not a "naive"!!!

Anyway...different people remember me for different things and that's great.  But, the one thing I hope I am remembered for is that I tried to make the world a better place. #LoveWins

mleok; I donot feel this is --"This is why there needs to be broad buy-in from your senior faculty, because hiring women is really just the start of the challenge"-- a wise statement! I know many successful female faculty and they have the potential as much as their male peers!

Ultimately, America's answer to the intolerant man is diversity, the very diversity which our heritage of religious freedom has inspired. ~ Robert Kennedy

There are plenty of highly successful female faculty, but if you think that hiring female faculty candidates with half the research productivity and grants is the end of the story, then you are being hopelessly naive. At the very least, you'll also need to have a discussion about tenure standards.

Also, please learn to add a space between "donot."

[marshwiggle]

This discussion is pointless. You are completely mischaracterizing my post and me. Just stop making everything into this know nothing culture war crap.

Imagine a scenario where there are two female candidates for a position of similar age and academic background (hardly a stretch).

Candidate A has taken time off to have a child, which shows up in reduced scholarly activity.
Candidate B has delayed having children to focus on career, which shows up in ongoing scholarly activity.

The problem with "diversity", (i.e. the "know nothing culture war crap") is that whichever candidate gets picked is a potential problem.

• If candidate B is picked, candidate A can claim that she was penalized for having a child, which amounts to being penalized for being a woman.
• If candidate A is picked, candidate B can claim she was not evaluated according to the same standards as a man, which amounts to being penalized for being a woman.

In other words, any decision can be criticised as sexist by the people promoting "diversity".

[Ruralguy]

But no search is that simple. I think a few people used the word "overdetermined". You aren't simply giving people baby prizes or punishing for not bearing children.  It's rare in our searches that anyone mentions anything of the sort. If they do, then I and others simply see whether or not that can even plausibly explain any lacks of anything, assuming any exist. Sometimes they don't. In any case, the only reward is looking into the case slightly more deeply.
That can bring up more negatives than positives. Also, it's not just children that would initiate this process. I say process, but it may be as little as rereading the CV and talking about it for fifteen minutes at the next meeting. As with the OP, it might still very well be a no. Also important to note that we wouldn't be just doing this as a diversity initiative , though it would probably help with that in some ways.

Anyway, for those who wish to see in monochrome and sing in monotone, just go ahead. We see and hear you just fine.

[spork]

1. An ad should be written in language that encourages a diverse applicant pool ("people of diverse backgrounds are encouraged to apply" doesn't cut it).

2. Applications should be blinded as much as is feasible (name, gender, etc.) before being reviewed by the committee.

3. Applications should be evaluated against specific criteria (e.g., rubrics, as has already been mentioned), with committee members submitting their evaluations individually and in secret.

An in-person meeting at which the committee chair says "So what do people think about this guy?" is the worst way to proceed.

[Ruralguy]

Thanks for shifting the focus, Spork.

Rather than making this about whether any particular "weight" can be tantamount to putting the thumb on the scale, lets discuss general practices that would effectively take the thumb *off* the scale more often than not.

On a practical note, we now use Interfolio for all applications (I think we allow mail ins if they contact HR or SC first, but haven't gotten any in several years).
Can we automatically "blind" applications within Interfolio, or does "someone" (HR?) have to blind everything?