Jump to content

strawberryB

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

strawberryB's Achievements

Decaf

Decaf (2/10)

-3

Reputation

  1. 1) How do you know what percentage of humanities listings or searches use identity as a basis for selecting a candidate? The vast majority of recent searches that I have seen are happening at institutions that have adopted policies similar to those I've referenced. 2) "Departments that are 100% white faculty?": Why don't you link to the English Departments in the United States that have 100% white faculty? And also provide your criteria for whiteness, and your confidence level that you can discern the whiteness of each individual faculty member in the offending department because that is implicitly the ability you claim to have. Then, if you do find an offending department, let's check in with the faculty to see how they identify against how you identify them. I'm not saying you won't find such a department, but the ease with which you make this pronouncement suggests an extraordinary ability. Also, what would you deem an appropriate number of non-white faculty in each department? 3) "Job postings that openly exclude LGBT applicants (and two cycles ago, there were SEVERAL such positions)": Could you link to the several such positions in English/humanities departments? Or are you referring to the BYU ads in STEM fields at a religious institution? I think you'd have to admit that there are any number of positions in the humanities where queer applicants are strongly encouraged, if not required. I find BYU's discrimination deplorable. 4) "When complaints about "diversity" and "identity" only arise when the "victim" is the straight/white/male trifecta, the issue, as someone said earlier, is one of privilege.": Or maybe it's an issue of being discriminated against and having one's fundamental civil rights violated? The ease with which you excuse these protections for your bogeyman malefactor is deeply troubling. Let's adjust my scenario and make the candidate a straight jewish man--who you'd consider to be white? You'd have no problem with the denial of his civil rights? This is precisely the kind of illogic I would like prospective students to see because it is emblematic of the ideology at the present time. You can value the importance of diversity and inclusion without making recourse to this kind of discriminatory logic. Prestige and the type of work one does should absolutely be considered in a hiring decision. Foremost, they are not legally protected. I think the obsession with institutional prestige is misguided, but a scholar's work is critically important for the evaluation of their abilities. Also, these factors aren't ripe for speculation and prejudice--people can be open about how and why they are evaluating them. As I keep repeating, one of my concerns with the use of identity in hiring is how it often goes undisclosed or without explanation. By "mentalities" I take it you mean "privileged" and bigoted because I disagree with these practices? That has been your refrain. It is precisely this logic that I am taking issue with because I find it deeply damaging, reductive, and prejudiced. For over forty years scholars in the humanities have been insisting on the need to diversify their faculties, and an incredible amount of progress has been made in that time. Our faculties should be diverse, and they should represent a range of views and experiences. But it's as though we are back in the early 1980s where good old boys rule the school as opposed to retiring, dying, and leaving many chairs and deanships in the capable hands of those historically excluded generations ago. Claiming ongoing oppression in these departments and environments allows one to leverage incredible institutional power that would be surrendered if these gains were acknowledged, and there is in fact a threat against the humanities that requires the exercise of power. Sadly, everything fell apart in the aftermath of 2008, and the jobs obviously are not coming back. With so many qualified people desperate for employment and so few opportunities, we have had to figure out a new way to cull candidates. Given the fact that many of us occupy the far left of the political spectrum, we have found it permissible to covertly enforce a program of affirmative action as we define it. The problem is that it is not lawful and it is not accountable. We make haphazard and prejudiced decisions about candidates' identities and we excuse that conduct as ethical and necessary in a political and social culture where we can casually turn "privileged white men" into malefactors without any objections. The people posting on this thread may find those assumptions permissible, but the law and the public at large do not. Nor should they: the overconfidence with which people here seem to think they can define and judge identity should alarm us all.
  2. "Do you not see the issue that these legally protected rights you speak of, if intrepreted your way, will maintain the inequity of the status quo and continue benefitting those who need the least help? I assume that you do, but that you do not care because it falls in line with your argumentation." No, I don't see the issue for some of the very reasons exhibited in this thread. In an earlier post you have disclosed that you are "a cisgendered heterosexual white male (able-bodied, mid-to-upper class, non-religious) who has never been in any graduate cohort (out of, so far, 4) where the majority - the immense majority - did not share those identities (except for gender): boo hoo." And above you have disclosed that "I AM an israeli-born jew and yet, at least for me, your description does not ring true." Of course, you are entitled to identify and describe yourself in whatever way you choose. Someone else might consider themselves non-white with a similar background. My point--and I will repeat it again--is that identity is used as a criteria in academic hiring decisions; the links I have supplied demonstrate that along with any number of other sources. To what extent it is used and under what rubric, we do not know because the practice is not legal and/or skating very close to the line of illegality. The result is that a series of assumptions are used in these decisions that have an impact on who gets hired and why. Obviously, if you were on a hiring committee, you would have your own answers to the questions I posed. "Cryss" seems to think that the issue in my scenario is with "unpopular political belief" rather than possible discrimination on the basis of religion and/or ethnicity. These differences in perspective about identity--and the frequent prejudice they can entail--is precisely the reason why it is impermissible to use them in hiring decisions. What compounds this prejudice is the fact that it cannot be discussed because of 1) The legal liability, and 2) The ideological assumptions that often cannot be questioned. It is a denial of reality--and demonstrates an ignorance of these practices-- to pretend like candidates aren't pitted against one another all the time in the framework of the identity hierarchy. This is the consequence of using this criteria to inform a hiring decision--it requires judgment or what might better be described as prejudice. What's more, Jews, especially zionists, are the object of frequent derision in the academy, and it is willful ignorance to pretend like inclusivity does not come with its own exclusions. On a side note, Bakke is about admissions standards, which involves different--although related--legal issues from those in the hiring context. The consequences are even more severe in a hiring context, especially in a highly constrained job market, because it might very well mean the denial of a career or livelihood. As far as my "bad faith" and "neutrality" goes, this continues to be an ad hominem and irrelevant point. Respond to the concerns and stop trying to imagine and denigrate the person making them. I know it is energizing to cast judgment on my perceived motives and character, but it shuts downs the opportunity for meaningful disagreement and debate about these issues--even vehement disagreement. I believe that it is a real problem to evaluate candidates implicitly or explicitly on the basis of their identity precisely because it calls into question the line between merit and prejudicial favoritism. I never suggested that candidates with different identities were inherently without merit or getting jobs exclusively because of their marginalized identity; the concern I have expressed is with the practice of considering identity in the academic hiring equation and how that happens.
  3. Someone like me on the committee? Again, you presume that I am not in your words a “marginalized person” because we implicitly disagree about how and why legally protected factors should play a role in academic hiring. And because we disagree not only am I in your estimation not marginalized, but I might also suffer from “white fragility” and “the rage of privilege denied.” So again, we are in the ad hominem mode of attack trying to imagine my person rather than addressing the points of concern I have raised. These are troubling reflexes for a profession that is supposed to be based on critical thought and reasoning, and I fear that the ideology surfacing in this thread is symptomatic of an increasing trend toward throwing out a bunch of jargon terms in the face of disagreement that we are all supposed to accept as unquestionably true. If this uncritical posturing were confined to academic discourse that would be one thing, disturbing and troubling as it is, but it is in your estimation clearly a reasonable ground to deny people legally protected rights. It is astonishing to me that you cannot even acknowledge the potential problem here with how we determine who is worthy of being targeted for a diversity opportunity over another. Here is a thought experiment for you: Imagine a Jew on the academic job market who openly supports Israel. Their father was born in Israel and emigrated to the United States as a child after the war. Sadly, much of the extended family was killed in the Holocaust. The candidate’s father has inherited a great deal of trauma. When he arrived here, the candidate’s father was taunted in school for being a Jew, and he was rejected from attending college because of the quotas. In fact, his family had to move houses a couple of times because the neighbors did not want Jews in the neighborhood. Growing up, the candidate did not feel that things were right in the family. Their father often seemed distant and fearful. He did not want to discuss the family history. In fact, there was not much family to discuss. The candidate had their own encounters with antisemitism growing up. And when they arrived at college in Oberlin, they encountered a great deal of opposition to Israel. In fact, one of the faculty members there posted antisemitic tropes on her social media account. Some of their classmates said it was immoral to support Israel, but this person thinks it is important because of their family history. When they arrived at their English PhD program, they were denied a diversity fellowship after they described some of these experiences in the application. Fast forward to this person on the academic job market in English who identifies as a Jew and who supports Israel. I would like to know the following since those posting on this thread seem quite adept at determining who is privileged and worthy of advancement in the profession based on their identity: Is this candidate privileged? Is this candidate white? Is this candidate marginalized? Is this candidate a victim? Is this candidate a “good fit” given the fact that they support Israel? How should this candidate be judged against a Queer candidate, a Trans candidate, a Latinx candidate, or a Muslim candidate?
  4. 1) I made my post to underline the fact that identity is playing a role in academic hiring at the present time. I included links to sources that demonstrate that fact. This is not obvious to everyone who aspires to enter this profession, and they should know about these practices before they decide to enter it. I purposefully underlined in my original post that I was not commenting on the merits of these practices because that was not the issue. 2) When asked to clarify my position, I explained further about my perspective on this practice and some of the concerns that I have. This is not "manipulative" or "bad faith" or "dishonest," although I realize that disagreement over these particular issues often leads to any number of accusations about the immorality of the person raising objections---in other words, ad hominem. Yes, it is possible for someone to comment on one aspect of an issue and have other thoughts about it that are contiguous and involve greater degrees of judgment. 3) I did not write anywhere that "diversity is evil." "Diversity" at this point is a throwaway term that can mean any number of things. I'm addressing the specific practice in academia of hiring people based on the perception or self-identification of their protected class. And I'm raising concerns about that practice, especially in the context of a decimated job market. It's entirely possible that someone can value a diversity of opinions, beliefs, experiences, backgrounds, identities, and take issue with these practices. 4) Title VII of the Cilvil Rights Act prohibits employers from basing hiring decisions on a candidate's protected class; this applies to every academic job search. Needless to say, critical race theory is not the law, and one should think very carefully about what it means to haphazardly make judgments about what identities are privileged over others; for anyone with any experience working with a diverse array of people, you quickly find that human beings and their backgrounds are deeply complex and nuanced. One of the objections I have to these hiring practices is that they are underhanded and often prejudiced because they rely on the perception that someone is diverse without disclosing the criteria used to make those judgments or that they are even happening. I don't think I need to spell out all the reasons why essentializing identity might be a problem.
  5. These wonderfully ad hominem, self-righteous, and presumptuous responses nicely illustrate the concern. For those of you out there silently wondering if this is the mentality in academia at the present time, especially in the humanities, you can see it illustrated here: A prejudiced and obtuse confidence in the ability to judge the value of others based on the identity categories considered worthy. Not only is this flagrantly unlawful in the hiring context, but it is also deeply damaging to critical discourse. Anyone who disagrees or even questions these practices (dare I say ideology?) gets labeled as a "bad faith" actor or worse. So much for dialogue, disagreement, argument, and differences in opinion; you either agree with my perspective or you're an unwoke, privileged malefactor.
  6. I posted the above because I think it is important that people realize that this profession is using identity as a basis for hiring and advancement. Whether or not that is right or wrong, is a different question. I have repeatedly been involved in discussions where a promising young scholar is denied a career because of who they are perceived to be in the most prejudiced and superficial ways. I find it repugnant when that happens to anyone. And I am very wary of these institutions' stated commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion, which often seem to be cover for the gross exploitation of faculty labor, especially contingent faculty. I do not know how you can genuinely say you are committed to these principles and screw an entire generation of scholars out of gainful employment. I speculate that some junior academics on the tenure track feel the tokenism that subsumes them within an unjust and hypocritical structure; they are left with the impression that their only way forward is to meet the institution's demands that they play the role the diversity regime assigns. It is all very troubling, and it is all very difficult to talk about on campus. These are not good days for the academy and for young scholars trying to find a life in it.
  7. After reading a number of the threads here regarding concerns about academic employment, I thought it important to make a post about an issue that I have not seen mentioned. But I have certainly seen it in practice in my professional life. There is a great deal of discussion happening here about the collapse of the job market, and it’s certainly correct that it has taken a nosedive. Thousands of promising scholars and teachers will never find gainful employment in our profession. It’s even getting harder for many to find adjunct work. Some major fields of study have no hiring activity. The situation is grim across the board [https://www.mla.org/Resources/Career/Job-List/Reports-on-the-MLA-Job-Information-List]. One thing that needs to be acknowledged and discussed is the tremendous amount of pressure on humanities departments to further the diversity initiatives of their institutions. At the present time, humanities departments are being granted less and less tenure-track positions because undergraduate enrollment is significantly down. There has been a concerted effort by institutions to use the few available jobs in these programs to increase institutional diversity by making hires that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion [https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-to-Do-a-Better-Job-of/237750].This includes the practice of making opportunity hires and cluster hires as well as targeting scholars in specific fields/subfields where a diversity hire is likely to be made [https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2019/02/01/columbia-has-185-million-in-dedicated-funds-why-is-hiring-diverse-faculty-still-so-difficult-9/]. In some versions of opportunity hiring, a national search for a tenure-track position will not be conducted, especially if the diversity candidate is an adjunct or post-doc at the institution [https://diversity.wustl.edu/framework/faculty-advancement-institutional-diversity/support-hiring-faculty/]. This may be important for prospective students to consider because if these practices continue your ability to contribute to the institution’s diversity is a significant factor in your future employability. Keep in mind that this assessment is being made in a job market where there are few if any alternative positions for unsuccessful candidates. Aspects of your identity might play a role in your ability to have an academic career. I am not raising this issue to comment on whether or not these practices are good or bad. They are most certainly happening at many institutions, and one should consider this in their calculus for whether or not this path is the right one for you.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use