strawberryB

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. 

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.

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.