IHE: White Faculty Applicant Sues Over Racism

[mahagonny]

'According to Johnston's complaint, filed in Massachusetts Superior Court, Bridgewater State interviewed her in June over Zoom for open instructor/assistant professor positions in the School of Social Work. Judith Willison, then an associate professor of social work at Bridgewater State, allegedly asked Johnston during the approximately 40-minute interview about Johnston's ability to relate to students of lower socioeconomic status. Johnston says she replied, "I was a welfare mother. I understand poverty up close and personal."'

She might have added 'I'll be in a good position to do this well because I'll be working for your shitty adjunct pay.'

OTOH  the person who did the interview sounds like a good one to not have to work with. Woke-ism on steroids.
https://www.bridgew.edu/department/school-of-social-work/dr-judith-willison

[Caracal]

IHE: Asked to Discuss Her Whiteness

The concept of racism on campus is out of hand in all respects.

I wonder if the college will settle to make the case go away. I imagine search committee chairs all over are made nervous by this sort of thing.

It seems pretty common for search committees to ask something like "what steps do you take to relate to a diverse student population?" Probably that's coded language for race. Is it racist to ask someone how they relate as teachers to students of different ethnicities and traditions? Is it something that search committees would actually benefit from knowing? If I were on a search committee at a place with a significant minority population, I might well be curious about what some candidates would say about that. Though I might not be looking for the standard answers.

It seems relevant that the candidate indemnified herself as white in the lead up to the question.

Unless I missed something, it was only the interviewer who identified herself as white.

The only point from the candidate was:

The topic then turned to race, with Johnston mentioning that she had discovered one of her ancestors was Indigenous, according to the complaint.

I guess I could be wrong, but I assumed the candidate said she identified as white based on what the interviewer said...

[marshwiggle]

IHE: Asked to Discuss Her Whiteness

The concept of racism on campus is out of hand in all respects.

I wonder if the college will settle to make the case go away. I imagine search committee chairs all over are made nervous by this sort of thing.

It seems pretty common for search committees to ask something like "what steps do you take to relate to a diverse student population?" Probably that's coded language for race. Is it racist to ask someone how they relate as teachers to students of different ethnicities and traditions? Is it something that search committees would actually benefit from knowing? If I were on a search committee at a place with a significant minority population, I might well be curious about what some candidates would say about that. Though I might not be looking for the standard answers.

It seems relevant that the candidate indemnified herself as white in the lead up to the question.

Unless I missed something, it was only the interviewer who identified herself as white.

The only point from the candidate was:

The topic then turned to race, with Johnston mentioning that she had discovered one of her ancestors was Indigenous, according to the complaint.

I guess I could be wrong, but I assumed the candidate said she identified as white based on what the interviewer said...

Only a pompous virtue-signaller would claim to "identify as white". It seems unlikely the candidate would have used such language, given how she took the interviewer's question.

[mahagonny]

IHE: Asked to Discuss Her Whiteness

The concept of racism on campus is out of hand in all respects.

I wonder if the college will settle to make the case go away. I imagine search committee chairs all over are made nervous by this sort of thing.

It seems pretty common for search committees to ask something like "what steps do you take to relate to a diverse student population?" Probably that's coded language for race. Is it racist to ask someone how they relate as teachers to students of different ethnicities and traditions? Is it something that search committees would actually benefit from knowing? If I were on a search committee at a place with a significant minority population, I might well be curious about what some candidates would say about that. Though I might not be looking for the standard answers.

It seems relevant that the candidate indemnified herself as white in the lead up to the question.

Unless I missed something, it was only the interviewer who identified herself as white.

The only point from the candidate was:

The topic then turned to race, with Johnston mentioning that she had discovered one of her ancestors was Indigenous, according to the complaint.

I guess I could be wrong, but I assumed the candidate said she identified as white based on what the interviewer said...

Only a pompous virtue-signaller would claim to "identify as white". It seems unlikely the candidate would have used such language, given how she took the interviewer's question.

Exactly. A pompous virtue signaler would have landed the job had they handled the question that followed according to script. Virtue signaling is not pompous to progressives. It's a confession to say you're white. You're submitting to the will of the cult. It feels good until something happens like you've lost your job. This is what we see more and more. Progressives forming a circular firing squad. One is always more holy than the next.
From our perspective the entire cult is pompous because they are so antagonistic to infidels and so certain of themselves.
Well, I don't have a transcript of the whole conversation either, but that's my hunch.
Her offense was saying 'I understand poverty because I've been a poor single Mom.' In the woke world, the 'white' person is not permitted to presume to understand anything the black person experiences. It is rude to even delve into it.
The person who looks white is branded automatically. They don't have to say they identify as white. They just are.
ETA: At the same time, doesn't it appear that by mentioning a distant connection to indigenous Americans, she was trying to soft-pedal her whiteness? Which would be understandable, psychologically, given the lay of the land (modern day academia).

[downer]

IHE: Asked to Discuss Her Whiteness

The concept of racism on campus is out of hand in all respects.

I wonder if the college will settle to make the case go away. I imagine search committee chairs all over are made nervous by this sort of thing.

It seems pretty common for search committees to ask something like "what steps do you take to relate to a diverse student population?" Probably that's coded language for race. Is it racist to ask someone how they relate as teachers to students of different ethnicities and traditions? Is it something that search committees would actually benefit from knowing? If I were on a search committee at a place with a significant minority population, I might well be curious about what some candidates would say about that. Though I might not be looking for the standard answers.

It seems relevant that the candidate indemnified herself as white in the lead up to the question. If the school interviews a black candidate and they just ask "as a black person, how do you relate to white students?" that is a problematic question. However, if the candidate said "as a black person, students relate to me differently than they do to white instructors" it would be perfectly appropriate to ask how they think that plays out with white students. Of course the question couldn't be couched in a way that implies a black instructor would be less effective or that students wouldn't respect them or something like that. Same thing here and I don't think there's an issue with the phrasing. They didn't imply she wouldn't be able to relate to or interact with black students-they just asked how she would do that as someone who just said they identified as white.

I'd hope that the legal standards for proving prejudice are fairly high. But who knows how it will play out in Texas courts, which are highly politicized.

If I were asking questions, I'd avoid the phrase "white privilege." I think it is reductive to suppose it applies to every white person. It's more useful as a class term, and even then, I find it somewhat problematic. It's too psychological, assuming bad intent on the part of the individual. I might well ask something similar to what the questioner asked, using different language.

Given that some schools are declaring themselves anti-racist institutions (e.g. U Mass Boston), it would seem that all interviewing will need to include questions about candidates' anti-racist stances.

[marshwiggle]

Given that some schools are declaring themselves anti-racist institutions (e.g. U Mass Boston), it would seem that all interviewing will need to include questions about candidates' anti-racist stances.

It might also be good to ask about their anti-child pornography and anti-genocide stances.

[mahagonny]

Given that some schools are declaring themselves anti-racist institutions (e.g. U Mass Boston), it would seem that all interviewing will need to include questions about candidates' anti-racist stances.

'I am glad you asked that question. I am firmly anti-racist. Consequently, I oppose the platform of much of today's progressive party which holds that black Americans are of inferior intellect and so it would be unfair to expect of them such things as answering math problems by providing the single correct answer.'

'So sorry. You missed the target.'

Given that some schools are declaring themselves anti-racist institutions (e.g. U Mass Boston), it would seem that all interviewing will need to include questions about candidates' anti-racist stances.

It might also be good to ask about their anti-child pornography and anti-genocide stances.

As my father-in-law used to tell his children before he went out 'don't put beans in your ears.'

[Wahoo Redux]

I am firmly anti-racist. Consequently, I oppose the platform of much of today's progressive party which holds that black Americans are of inferior intellect and so it would be unfair to expect of them such things as answering math problems by providing the single correct answer.'

You can't be that dumb or that indoctrinated, Marshy.

[marshwiggle]

I am firmly anti-racist. Consequently, I oppose the platform of much of today's progressive party which holds that black Americans are of inferior intellect and so it would be unfair to expect of them such things as answering math problems by providing the single correct answer.'

You can't be that dumb or that indoctrinated, Marshy.

That quote was from mahagonny. Here's the original:

Given that some schools are declaring themselves anti-racist institutions (e.g. U Mass Boston), it would seem that all interviewing will need to include questions about candidates' anti-racist stances.

'I am glad you asked that question. I am firmly anti-racist. Consequently, I oppose the platform of much of today's progressive party which holds that black Americans are of inferior intellect and so it would be unfair to expect of them such things as answering math problems by providing the single correct answer.'

[Wahoo Redux]

My apologies, Marshy.

I should have checked.

[dismalist]

Thomas Sowell wrote somewhere, "If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules ... that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago, and a racist today."

[research_prof]

I can give you an example based on a search my department ran a couple of years back. The head of the search committee was a woman of color. Due to the lack of diversity in the pool of selected applicants, the university admins demanded that the committee includes minority applicants in the list of candidates that will visit the campus regardless of merit. The head of the search committee (who again is a woman of color) refused to do that because the merit difference in the eyes of the committee between minority applicants and selected applicants was substantial. The university admins decided to cancel the position.

This year my department was forced to do the same in order to be able to hire. Faculty have been saying that the difference between the "forced by the admins" applicants and the rest of the pool is substantial in terms of publication records and other qualifications. And guess what: we (the faculty) know nothing about which applicant was forced by admins and which one was selected by the committee--all we know is that university admins forced the committee to do the same as a couple of years back and can see a couple of outliers among the candidates that are visiting us.

It is a fact that certain racial groups have been traditionally disadvantaged compared to others and we should absolutely do whatever we can to fix that. Does that mean merit plays no role anymore?

I believe our society (and I am talking about people on both sides of the aisle) is overly sensitive nowadays. We all need to chill, take a deep breath, and probably decide if merit matters after all or we should make hiring decisions purely based on racial, sexual, or whatever other identities might matter and we can come up with. I am not expressing an opinion against/for one way or another--we just have to decide in a universal manner what is more important today. Racial identities are immutable, however, what is mutable is the track record of individuals. What is more important?

I have my own opinion, but I would rather keep it to myself.

[Ruralguy]

Pardon the expression, but it isn't so black or white. A very valid goal of the search can be to increase diversity. If this is a primary goal, it might mean that other goals take a hit, including , say, raising the level of grant funding or whatever. Of course I am not saying that all minority/"diverse" candidates are going to be *worse* in this regard, I am just saying that one goal might supersede the other. If you think other goals are more important, say, teaching experience, also things like grant funding or scholarship production rate will take a hit. So, it isn't *just* diversity that can maybe lower your particularly desired merit level (which for you, is focused on scholarship). Your school, department or program needs to have an earnest discussion about goals, and then maybe you will be able to improve the diversity of the faculty without serious hits to what you see as merit (merit is squishy, since some people see it like raw intellect, and others see it more as a combination of skills, such as scholarship, teaching, collegiality, service, leadership, etc). Anyway, as you suggest, it doesn't have to be so politically or socially charged, but people will shut down if you take a "Merit or Die!" attitude since it seems as if you don't want to be flexible and listen to others.

[Caracal]

I can give you an example based on a search my department ran a couple of years back. The head of the search committee was a woman of color. Due to the lack of diversity in the pool of selected applicants, the university admins demanded that the committee includes minority applicants in the list of candidates that will visit the campus regardless of merit. The head of the search committee (who again is a woman of color) refused to do that because the merit difference in the eyes of the committee between minority applicants and selected applicants was substantial. The university admins decided to cancel the position.

This year my department was forced to do the same in order to be able to hire. Faculty have been saying that the difference between the "forced by the admins" applicants and the rest of the pool is substantial in terms of publication records and other qualifications. And guess what: we (the faculty) know nothing about which applicant was forced by admins and which one was selected by the committee--all we know is that university admins forced the committee to do the same as a couple of years back and can see a couple of outliers among the candidates that are visiting us.

It is a fact that certain racial groups have been traditionally disadvantaged compared to others and we should absolutely do whatever we can to fix that. Does that mean merit plays no role anymore?

I believe our society (and I am talking about people on both sides of the aisle) is overly sensitive nowadays. We all need to chill, take a deep breath, and probably decide if merit matters after all or we should make hiring decisions purely based on racial, sexual, or whatever other identities might matter and we can come up with. I am not expressing an opinion against/for one way or another--we just have to decide in a universal manner what is more important today. Racial identities are immutable, however, what is mutable is the track record of individuals. What is more important?

I have my own opinion, but I would rather keep it to myself.

Hmm, I have to say that I'm not sure your administration is wrong on this. This was the Rooney rule in the NFL and it was successful for a number of years until teams started violating the spirit of the rule by pretending to consider minority candidates when they had already decided who they were going to offer jobs to. The strength of the rule is that it acknowledges the role played by structural racism in the field. Metrics like publication record might be effected by all kinds of structural factors-and they may not actually be the best way to judge the suitability of someone for the job. If you bring a candidate to campus who has a decent but not stellar publication record, you might end up being impressed by the other strengths the candidate has. Or not, in which case, you don't offer them the job.

[research_prof]

I can give you an example based on a search my department ran a couple of years back. The head of the search committee was a woman of color. Due to the lack of diversity in the pool of selected applicants, the university admins demanded that the committee includes minority applicants in the list of candidates that will visit the campus regardless of merit. The head of the search committee (who again is a woman of color) refused to do that because the merit difference in the eyes of the committee between minority applicants and selected applicants was substantial. The university admins decided to cancel the position.

This year my department was forced to do the same in order to be able to hire. Faculty have been saying that the difference between the "forced by the admins" applicants and the rest of the pool is substantial in terms of publication records and other qualifications. And guess what: we (the faculty) know nothing about which applicant was forced by admins and which one was selected by the committee--all we know is that university admins forced the committee to do the same as a couple of years back and can see a couple of outliers among the candidates that are visiting us.

It is a fact that certain racial groups have been traditionally disadvantaged compared to others and we should absolutely do whatever we can to fix that. Does that mean merit plays no role anymore?

I believe our society (and I am talking about people on both sides of the aisle) is overly sensitive nowadays. We all need to chill, take a deep breath, and probably decide if merit matters after all or we should make hiring decisions purely based on racial, sexual, or whatever other identities might matter and we can come up with. I am not expressing an opinion against/for one way or another--we just have to decide in a universal manner what is more important today. Racial identities are immutable, however, what is mutable is the track record of individuals. What is more important?

I have my own opinion, but I would rather keep it to myself.

Hmm, I have to say that I'm not sure your administration is wrong on this. This was the Rooney rule in the NFL and it was successful for a number of years until teams started violating the spirit of the rule by pretending to consider minority candidates when they had already decided who they were going to offer jobs to. The strength of the rule is that it acknowledges the role played by structural racism in the field. Metrics like publication record might be effected by all kinds of structural factors-and they may not actually be the best way to judge the suitability of someone for the job. If you bring a candidate to campus who has a decent but not stellar publication record, you might end up being impressed by the other strengths the candidate has. Or not, in which case, you don't offer them the job.

You see? That's exactly the limitation with the notion of "diversity" and "structural racism" in the US. It rather captures the situation in the US. What happens with candidates who are not from the US? What happens with candidates from countries where structural disparities and discrimination are based on different criteria rather than the color of one's skin (e.g., religion, "social status", etc.)? What happens with countries where people do not happen to be of black or brown origins, but still historically had been enslaved by other countries for hundreds of years? Do you know what these people (and the generations before them) have gone through to be where they are today? Or you just see someone who is not of the color that someone in the US would perceive as "diverse" and you think they must have been eating with golden spoons for their entire lifetime?

And again, please do not get me wrong. As I mentioned in previous post: there are racial groups that have gone through terrible things and we should absolutely do whatever we can to make sure this does not happen again.