IHE: White Faculty Applicant Sues Over Racism

[research_prof]

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?"

In Canada, there are faculty positions that mention only minority applicants are eligible. I had seen a bunch of those last year when I applied to some universities in Canada. In the US, search committees and departments are "warned" that unless they interview/hire someone that belongs in a minority group, they will not be able to hire at all, because the university will cancel the search.

[Parasaurolophus]

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?"

In Canada, there are faculty positions that mention only minority applicants are eligible. I had seen a bunch of those last year when I applied to some universities in Canada. In the US, search committees and departments are "warned" that unless they interview/hire someone that belongs in a minority group, they will not be able to hire at all, because the university will cancel the search.

Section 15.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly allows that.

[downer]

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

I don't know who this "we" is. Different people in the hiring process are responding to different pressures. They don't necessarily have much of an ideology except to get through the day.

Universities in particular do make strong efforts to hire POC in some positions. That can be a challenge because there continues to be a lack of POC candidates in many areas.

We can debate which approaches are fair and which are unfair. But that debate has been going on for a long time. It is very familiar terrain. The current situation isn't suddenly different from 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago. What is striking to me is how little things have changed. There's been a slight change in terminology. That's about it.

[marshwiggle]

Universities in particular do make strong efforts to hire POC in some positions. That can be a challenge because there continues to be a lack of POC candidates in many areas.

Understatement of the year regarding the fundamental problem in all of this.

The implicit assumption in affirmative action initiatives is that well-qualified candidates have historically been overlooked because they weren't from the majority group. Now that everyone is falling all over themselves to be seen to be addressing that, the fact that there may be few candidates at all from some targeted group, (which may have been historically true, and the real reason so few were hired in the past), creates an optics problem.

[mahagonny]

I don't know who this "we" is. Different people in the hiring process are responding to different pressures. They don't necessarily have much of an ideology except to get through the day.

They are working together on a practical problem. The ruling elite looks too white. Making it darker consolidates their power.

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't know who this "we" is. Different people in the hiring process are responding to different pressures. They don't necessarily have much of an ideology except to get through the day.

We can debate which approaches are fair and which are unfair.

They are exactly the same "we." 

"We" = those of us in academia.

I still wonder how this approach is legal.

[downer]

I don't know who this "we" is. Different people in the hiring process are responding to different pressures. They don't necessarily have much of an ideology except to get through the day.

We can debate which approaches are fair and which are unfair.

They are exactly the same "we." 

"We" = those of us in academia.

I still wonder how this approach is legal.

Then the answer is, as with everything in academia, that there is a large variety of views and a lot of shoulder shrugging. A lot of people are pretty much done discussing these issues. It's often a big "whatever." Let the drama queens do their thing.

[Wahoo Redux]

Then the answer is, as with everything in academia, that there is a large variety of views and a lot of shoulder shrugging. A lot of people are pretty much done discussing these issues. It's often a big "whatever." Let the drama queens do their thing.

Beg to differ, mon amie.  I agree that this debate has been rumbling along for a long time, but I think people are still plenty het up about it.

This thread, among many on the subject here and elsewhere, is evidence of this.

[downer]

Then the answer is, as with everything in academia, that there is a large variety of views and a lot of shoulder shrugging. A lot of people are pretty much done discussing these issues. It's often a big "whatever." Let the drama queens do their thing.

Beg to differ, mon amie.  I agree that this debate has been rumbling along for a long time, but I think people are still plenty het up about it.

This thread, among many on the subject here and elsewhere, is evidence of this.

You might be right. I'd like to see more evidence. I don't know if people are doing surveys on it. The people who do care about the issues say "everyone is up in arms." The people who don't care about the issues go to lunch or get on with their work.

One factor is that Republicans and Libertarians are all vocal about these issues, and the only conscienable stance is to oppose them totally on every issue, because, well, Trump and the trumpets.

[marshwiggle]

Then the answer is, as with everything in academia, that there is a large variety of views and a lot of shoulder shrugging. A lot of people are pretty much done discussing these issues. It's often a big "whatever." Let the drama queens do their thing.

Beg to differ, mon amie.  I agree that this debate has been rumbling along for a long time, but I think people are still plenty het up about it.

This thread, among many on the subject here and elsewhere, is evidence of this.

You might be right. I'd like to see more evidence. I don't know if people are doing surveys on it. The people who do care about the issues say "everyone is up in arms." The people who don't care about the issues go to lunch or get on with their work.

One factor is that Republicans and Libertarians are all vocal about these issues, and the only conscienable stance is to oppose them totally on every issue, because, well, Trump and the trumpets.

I'm not sure if my sarcasm detector is just broken, or if you're being serious here.

[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.

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.

I wouldn't put it that way. If you had taught me in Spanish in college, you would have thought I was neither clever nor hard working. I don't have an aptitude for languages and I didn't stretch myself- I did just enough to get Bs and managed to learn very little in the process. I can really think of only one class where I was hard working but not very clever-which probably says something not great about my character. When I was taking classes in my major I was certainly clever. I probably usually seemed hard working enough-I did the reading which wasn't difficult for me. I was lucky enough to have some professors who pushed me to actually work hard.

What's difficult about teaching is that most of our students are not going to be like we were in college. They don't start off with an innate interest in the things we are trying to teach them and with the skills to do it well. The goal is to find ways to reach more of those students so that they can learn something. But, part of that is understanding that motivation and engagement aren't stable traits. Students can be motivated for some classes and not others and it can sometimes be possible to motivate them or at least engage them if they aren't.

[Wahoo Redux]

Then the answer is, as with everything in academia, that there is a large variety of views and a lot of shoulder shrugging. A lot of people are pretty much done discussing these issues. It's often a big "whatever." Let the drama queens do their thing.

Beg to differ, mon amie.  I agree that this debate has been rumbling along for a long time, but I think people are still plenty het up about it.

This thread, among many on the subject here and elsewhere, is evidence of this.

You might be right. I'd like to see more evidence. I don't know if people are doing surveys on it. The people who do care about the issues say "everyone is up in arms." The people who don't care about the issues go to lunch or get on with their work.

One factor is that Republicans and Libertarians are all vocal about these issues, and the only conscienable stance is to oppose them totally on every issue, because, well, Trump and the trumpets.

Hmmmm....I think one just needs to pay attention.  This thread on its own (one of many) is pretty good evidence.

[marshwiggle]

Then the answer is, as with everything in academia, that there is a large variety of views and a lot of shoulder shrugging. A lot of people are pretty much done discussing these issues. It's often a big "whatever." Let the drama queens do their thing.

Beg to differ, mon amie.  I agree that this debate has been rumbling along for a long time, but I think people are still plenty het up about it.

This thread, among many on the subject here and elsewhere, is evidence of this.

You might be right. I'd like to see more evidence. I don't know if people are doing surveys on it. The people who do care about the issues say "everyone is up in arms." The people who don't care about the issues go to lunch or get on with their work.

One factor is that Republicans and Libertarians are all vocal about these issues, and the only conscienable stance is to oppose them totally on every issue, because, well, Trump and the trumpets.

Hmmmm....I think one just needs to pay attention.  This thread on its own (one of many) is pretty good evidence.

Generally Sometimes people who say "I don't believe X is really that common" in fact tend to be people that think that if X was absolutely everywhere it would be OK.

[Ruralguy]

I definitely don't think full on Wokeism should be dominant and unquestioned. However, I do think we'd be better off if we didn't use "status quo" (disguised as chasing merit or whatever) as a default system because "it ain't broke."  It may not be broke enough for *some* to spend any time trying to fix anything, but for other its very much "broke."

[marshwiggle]

I definitely don't think full on Wokeism should be dominant and unquestioned. However, I do think we'd be better off if we didn't use "status quo" (disguised as chasing merit or whatever) as a default system because "it ain't broke."  It may not be broke enough for *some* to spend any time trying to fix anything, but for other its very much "broke."

The argument that "merit" can be open to interpretation is reasonable, as is the argument that what counts depends on the goals of the organization. The real test of whether changes to the status quo are legitimate attempts to address that rather than just wokeness run amok is whether things like broadening the criteria used to evaluate candidates apply equally to all candidates, (or whether the "required" response to questions is the same for all candidates),  whether the criteria are cherry-picked to select the "right" candidates, or only applied in certain searches, etc.