IHE: White Faculty Applicant Sues Over Racism

[marshwiggle]

The strength of the rule is that it acknowledges the role played by structural racism in the field.

"Assumes" might be a better choice of word. "Acknowledges" implies that it always has, currently does, and potentially always will have tangible effects on the outcome.

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.

Here's an example of the problem above. If  "relaxed criteria" are employed to bring in more diverse candidates, then if it turns out that they usually were not significantly underestimated by the "standard" criteria, you'll wind up rejecting them in a higher proportion than candidates to whom the standard criteria were applied, and this will seem like yet more evidence of discrimination.

(See threads live "Favorite student emails" for countless examples of people who feel the standard criteria really don't accurately evaluate their incredible brilliance.)

[Caracal]

[
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.

I agree with that. It isn't really necessary to use the term. The basic question isn't any different than asking someone how they think about relating to first gen students or rural students or anything else. Teaching involves figuring out how to deal with students who aren't like you in a variety of ways.

[mahagonny]

[
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.

I agree with that. It isn't really necessary to use the term. The basic question isn't any different than asking someone how they think about relating to first gen students or rural students or anything else. Teaching involves figuring out how to deal with students who aren't like you in a variety of ways.

So by your reckoning the applicant gave a satisfactory answer by explaining she could relate to persons of lower socio-economic status, having been a poor single mother herself. But the committee needed to tell her, in writing, no less, that she 'missed the mark' with that answer.
There is no such thing as wokeism-lite. Her failure was not confessing to whiteness. The DEI culture erases commonality and demotes whiteness. They need to hear this affirmed. That is why sensible people have decided to fight them, but not in an arena where you can only lose.
Actually it might not be that hard to just read the school's DEI webpages before interviewing. That way you would know practically word for word what the acceptable answers are. Get the job, if you can stand the company. Sometimes adjunct work is pretty solitary anyway. As long as the students aren't complaining about you you're OK. By being so easily to discard, you don't elicit a lot of scrutiny.

[apl68]

[
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.

I agree with that. It isn't really necessary to use the term. The basic question isn't any different than asking someone how they think about relating to first gen students or rural students or anything else. Teaching involves figuring out how to deal with students who aren't like you in a variety of ways.

Yes.  There are ways to address the issue without using the polarizing jargon that makes people so defensive and suspicious.

[marshwiggle]

[
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.

I agree with that. It isn't really necessary to use the term. The basic question isn't any different than asking someone how they think about relating to first gen students or rural students or anything else. Teaching involves figuring out how to deal with students who aren't like you in a variety of ways.

The ironic thing in all of this is that the most challenging "difference" for people teaching is academic; if all students were clever and hard-working, teaching would be easy-peasy despite any of those recognized "diversity" issues.

[mahagonny]

[
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.

I agree with that. It isn't really necessary to use the term. The basic question isn't any different than asking someone how they think about relating to first gen students or rural students or anything else. Teaching involves figuring out how to deal with students who aren't like you in a variety of ways.

The ironic thing in all of this is that the most challenging "difference" for people teaching is academic; if all students were clever and hard-working, teaching would be easy-peasy despite any of those recognized "diversity" issues.

The serious students will learn even with a mediocre teacher. No one worries about them too much in most schools. It's the students who really shouldn't be there that we're beating the bushes to enroll.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=donna+johnston+%27missed+the+mark%27+bridgewater&t=h_&ia=web

This writer poses the question if Johnston loses the case does that mean it will now be OK to interrogate black job applicants about their race and how this may affect their fitness for the environment.

"I certainly agree that this will be a tough case in light of the fact that two of the three successful applicants were white. There is also a credible claim that the interview process was meant to test an applicant in her response to expected questions in the classroom.

"However, it could raise equally tough countervailing questions for a court on whether minority applicants could be asked to defend or respond to their race in such interviews.  The court could conclude that a black applicant could legitimately be challenged on how she would respond to race-based comments or criticisms.  Yet, that would run counter to prior cases where the interjection of race in interviews was viewed as creating a hostile or discriminatory environment for applicants."

But I don't see how the fact that they hired two whites absolves the school of interrogating the applicant over her skin color. That's the equivalent of the reviled 'some of my best friends are black' defense.

[Ruralguy]

Bullshit. They'll get by because they are experts in getting by, because they do what they are told and are conscientious. Sure, many are naturally bright, but that doesn't mean they don't need some inspiration, a caring attitude, and someone who can explain things reasonably well. Also, even though bright, they are young,
and need guidance of good mentors (who don't necessarily need to be great classroom teachers, but it helps).

But whether or not a committee hires a great teacher, a great researcher, a great colleague or someone who is diverse or all of the above is really going to depend on institutional mission and goals. That doesn't mean sacrifices in any of these categories *don't* lead to clear deficiencies. You just have to be willing to live with it, in accordance with the mission or think of ways to be great in everything!

As for diversity being more broadly defined to include various types of oppressed and from other nations: I'm on board. But that has to be part of the conversation, and you won't be invited into that conversation if you shut the whole thing down.

[mahagonny]

Can you show me some conversations on campus policy where an adjunct faculty member played a role? I'm curious.

[Ruralguy]

Only a limited number, but some. What's your point?

[Ruralguy]

One in particular was the last review of our president. That involved all faculty, including adjuncts. I think only a couple participated (we only have about 15 now at most). Another is the constitution of our policy committee in general. We do not require tenure or even tenure track status on that committee. However, we don't allow adjuncts who have not been reviewed for long term status. So far, only one non -TT faculty member has served on it, although 1 or two others were nominated in the past. I don't expect you to say "Hooray for Ruralguy!" based on that, but thought I'd just answer your question directly...I think!

[mahagonny]

Only a limited number, but some. What's your point?

Well, for starters, adjunct faculty are outsiders. We don't benefit from this wokeness that higher ed has been infecting society with. We're not part of the conversation; we're not peddling our wokeism research publications in order to get another promotion. We are shut off from any process involving promotion, merit raises, advancement.  Yet we are expected to be on board with this moronic, negative, white bashing, sorting people into victim and oppressor categories nonsense. We are expected to be allies. Why?
So your advice was

As for diversity being more broadly defined to include various types of oppressed and from other nations: I'm on board. But that has to be part of the conversation, and you won't be invited into that conversation if you shut the whole thing down.

I'm not invited to the conversation no matter what. I can take zoom seminars and get 'trained' if I want to. If i were part of a conversation, it would be foolish to out myself as a conservative.
The issue is not really oppression, not so much. It's whether having a hard life makes you qualified to state you have had periods in your life that were hard and have white skin at the same time without some jackass chanting 'white privilege! white privilege!' at you.

You abuse people, you make enemies.

ETA: Of particular annoyance to me recently, one of my schools doesn't even have tenure and has still gone full throttle wokeist, because that's what colleges do. The tenure track itself is nearly monolithic, politically. People like Glenn Loury or Wilfred Reilly will tell they are vividly aware they are outliers.

[Ruralguy]

There are certainly people of different political flavors fighting for all sorts of candidates, as far as I have ever seen. I can see liberals fighting the merit fight, and conservatives making points about diversity. I think a lot of it depends on where they see their department, and only some of it depends on whether they are woke or are devoted to some all encompassing American woke-ism. I am not saying it isn't a force in academia--just that you are overselling this point, Mahagonny.

I don't know what to say about your role as an adjunct other than to say (a) don't adjunct (b) find places that care more about adjuncts or (c) have work stay same but find other aspects of life to balance it out and don't stress about it

[downer]

[
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.

I agree with that. It isn't really necessary to use the term. The basic question isn't any different than asking someone how they think about relating to first gen students or rural students or anything else. Teaching involves figuring out how to deal with students who aren't like you in a variety of ways.

Yes.  There are ways to address the issue without using the polarizing jargon that makes people so defensive and suspicious.

Well, it is standard language for some. I had a student use it in a presentation today and no one batted an eyelid.

[mahagonny]

Well, it is standard language for some. I had a student use it in a presentation today and no one batted an eyelid.

There you are. What's all this about the 'decline of tenure?'

There are certainly people of different political flavors fighting for all sorts of candidates, as far as I have ever seen. I can see liberals fighting the merit fight, and conservatives making points about diversity. I think a lot of it depends on where they see their department, and only some of it depends on whether they are woke or are devoted to some all encompassing American woke-ism. I am not saying it isn't a force in academia--just that you are overselling this point, Mahagonny.

Do you really think the tenured world is going to have a serious discussion that acknowledges any way to be see oneself as against racism other than the crap from the Kendi/Crenshaw/Diangelo clique? You're not stupid, Ruralguy. We know there isn't.
What might happen to change the landscape would be activity in the courts. If you can interrogate a white job applicant over her skin color, why can't you do the same with anyone, and how does that square with anti discrimination laws? Academia can be counted on to continue its monotone with help from Huffpost, The Atlantic, Slate, NYT, NPR and similar biased outlets, unless they get some nudging from somewhere.
ETA: Anything written by a Wilfred Reilly, John McWhorter or Glenn Loury, no matter how many smart people agree with it, is steamrolled by your school's DEI staff. They don't have a voice in the academic world. They do have things like FAIR though. They need to make their case to wider America. 'Flyover country' etc.

I don't know what to say about your role as an adjunct other than to say (a) don't adjunct (b) find places that care more about adjuncts or (c) have work stay same but find other aspects of life to balance it out and don't stress about it

Don't worry about me. I'm not here for advice. I'm just trying to convey how wider America has lost its respect for the academic world. At least I'm not part of it.
Red wave coming. There's no one else i could possibly put any trust in.

[Wahoo Redux]

So, to sum up:

---in order to amend the inequities of the past with the eventual goal of erasing racism, gender inequality et al.

---we will privilege some skin tones, genders, et al. in the hiring process

---predicated upon the notion that, overall, minority candidates would have been as successful as their white, W.A.S.P., male peers except that "white / male / W.A.S.P. privilege" has given this demographic group unfair advantages throughout their lives

---and  even though in some instances minority candidates are not as successful as their majority population peers

---and even though we know that many minority job candidates are stellar in all regards while many majority population candidates are very lackluster despite their "white" and / or "male privilege."

If we are to follow this protocol, we tacitly acknowledge that skin tone, gender et al. trumps raw achievement in the job market for the betterment of society.

Right?

I took this from Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Recruitment
It is also illegal for an employer to recruit new employees in a way that discriminates against them because of their race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

For example, an employer's reliance on word-of-mouth recruitment by its mostly Hispanic work force may violate the law if the result is that almost all new hires are Hispanic.

Application & Hiring
It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against a job applicant because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. For example, an employer may not refuse to give employment applications to people of a certain race.

An employer may not base hiring decisions on stereotypes and assumptions about a person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

So how can colleges, or anyone for that matter, get around the law with "diversity hires?"