next »

[to Fiona]

Fiona wrote:

> To Junior Faculty--An unsuccessful applicant wouldn't have
> grounds to sue, unless s/he could show that the sending of
> postcards prevented her/him from getting the job.


I don't think an unsuccessful applicant could sue, but what if someone get's into trouble in his current job due to the fact that everybody knows now that he is on the market? Let's say someone doesn't get tenure and suspects that his perceived lack of commitment to his institution is part of the reason. Or, on a somwhat lower level, someone can't get hold of precious lab space because a disgruntled department chair thinks he doesn't really need it any more if he is going to leave soon anyway?

[Fiona]

The scenarios you list are painful and terrible, but not illegal. You can't win (or in most cases, file) a lawsuit based on what you think other people perceive.

People can and are denied tenure for many reasons, and the courts won't touch tenure denials unless written procedures have been violated. And disgruntled department heads have the power to take away lab space for any reason they want to.

It's difficult to prosecute bad people for doing bad things, unless what they do is egregiously and publicly illegal.



to Fiona wrote:

> Fiona wrote:
>
> > To Junior Faculty--An unsuccessful applicant wouldn't have
> > grounds to sue, unless s/he could show that the sending of
> > postcards prevented her/him from getting the job.
>
>
> I don't think an unsuccessful applicant could sue, but what
> if someone gets into trouble in his current job due to the
> fact that everybody knows now that he is on the market? Let's
> say someone doesn't get tenure and suspects that his perceived
> lack of commitment to his institution is part of the reason.
> Or, on a somewhat lower level, someone can't get hold of
> precious lab space because a disgruntled department chair
> thinks he doesn't really need it any more if he is going to
> leave soon anyway?

[%sig%]

[to Fiona]

If there is no law that prevents a committee from spilling YOUR beans, then there SHOULD be one! You can sue for so many silly things (including your own clumsiness in drinking a cup of coffee). Why is it that you have no rights whatsoever when it comes to employment?



Fiona wrote:

> The scenarios you list are painful and terrible, but not
> illegal. You can't win (or in most cases, file) a lawsuit based
> on what you think other people perceive.
>
> People can and are denied tenure for many reasons, and the
> courts won't touch tenure denials unless written procedures
> have been violated. And disgruntled department heads have the
> power to take away lab space for any reason they want to.
>
> It's difficult to prosecute bad people for doing bad things,
> unless what they do is egregiously and publicly illegal.
>
>
>
> to Fiona wrote:
>
> > Fiona wrote:
> >
> > > To Junior Faculty--An unsuccessful applicant wouldn't
> have
> > > grounds to sue, unless s/he could show that the sending
> of
> > > postcards prevented her/him from getting the job.
> >
> >
> > I don't think an unsuccessful applicant could sue, but
> what
> > if someone gets into trouble in his current job due to the
> > fact that everybody knows now that he is on the market?
> Let's
> > say someone doesn't get tenure and suspects that his
> perceived
> > lack of commitment to his institution is part of the
> reason.
> > Or, on a somewhat lower level, someone can't get hold of
> > precious lab space because a disgruntled department chair
> > thinks he doesn't really need it any more if he is going
> to
> > leave soon anyway?
>

[Troll]

There was nothing silly or frivilous about that lawsuit.  It was a great act of justice for decades of fast food-beverage-related injuries.  

The only problem with the suit was the judicial outcome.  Rather than write "contents hot," fast food chains should have been required to write "contains an unknown superheated substance that can disintigrate human flesh on contact."

People think it was frivilous becaus they think the the litigant was trying to hold McDonalds Inc responsible for her clumsy coffee drinking.  The Gods honest truth is, whatever is in those pressurized cups, aint freaking coffee.

[a canadian]

I am still shuddering at the image of a post-card 'rejection', and it is really warm outside today!   But I've become more philosophical about these 'rejection' letters now as the last ones drift in:  I compare the writing styles (giving an A for originality and effort, so to speak) and then rip them up in a true bacchic frenzy!

[%sig%]

[marta]

Gee JF - where do you work? Sing Sing College ;-) Devil's Island University? ;-)

Are you sure these are state laws and not school laws? Like, a law covering procedures to hire teachers? I can understand the confidentiality issue, but the other issues you mentioned in your message - I'm surprised.... well, unless it's a military school, then I could see how...

cheers,

m





Author: Junior Faculty
Date:   06-04-05 13:49

First of all--no search committee I have every been associate with has ever used postcards--our state law requires very strict confidentiality that would make postcard notification illegal.

However, for the person who was hurt that a search committe chair/friend did not personalize the rejection letter, or that finalists get the same "no" as the long list, please understand that these same laws tie our hands. I had to submit to the AA/EEO and university legal office the letter notifying the long list that they were no longer considered. This not only took two weeks to get approval, they cut out all material except "you are no longer being considered." I was told flat out not to write anything by hand or to do _anything_ that made any rejection different from any other. They all had to be mailed on the same day (so I signed batches of 25 at a time and sent them all out when finished). To send a different letter to the short list requires me to submit another for approval (and I expect to get the same results--edited down to a simple "no") so I might as well use the first one and save two weeks waiting.

I am also not allowed to use e-mail because state law requires each candidate to submit a signed form authorizing us to contact them by phone or e-mail (with a special box to check if it is okay to leave a phone message). About 80% of the candidates either blew this off or sent an angry message (that I was not able to respond to) that this was a "hoop" they wouldn't do.

I know that most states might not be like this, but mine is, and I have to follow the rules. They are actually meant for candidate privacy, not to torture them

[Junior Faculty]

Nope, state law, and in one of the bluest states--no need for the dig at "military schools".  Most of the ties stem from an extremely protective law about privacy and official records--this has produced procedures like keeping candidate material under lock and key, signed out to one person at a time, one file at a time, causing it to take a long time for everyone to see them.  _Some_ highly bureaucratic parts of our search procedure are governed by out union-negotiated, uberliberal contract.  As it was explained to me, every one of these rules is in place because there was an issue about fairness, or AA/EEO, or illegal questions (or a message left on answering machine and heard by ex-husband).  Many people in these forums complain about committees, but don't realize that the downside of rules to aid in a search being totally, scrupulously private, and fair and blind to anything but qualifications is that huge amounts of time are spent, and bureaucratic boorishness often results in the eyes of the candidates.  

I had a candidate find my home phone number and call me this evening to yell at me for not e-mailing him, even though the refused to sign the permission for for me to do so.  Sometimes it seems like no matter what a search committee does, someone will be pissed about it, even if the rules are meant to protect them.

[anon]

Thanks for the sensible response. To many people seem to think that
search committees are unpaid therapists.

And the people who are *unprofessionally*  and *illegally* using their
current job's resources and mailing address for a job search
shouldn't complain about postcards -- they should consider that
in state schools, using government resources for non-official purposes
is illegal.

> Well, I guess I got told what for . . .  *sarc*
>
> But I have to disagree . . . there is a limit to courtesy and
> personal service in a search process where there are several
> dozens to hundreds of applicants, shrinking staff resources,
> and a need to move forward with the primary priorities of a
> department -- teaching, research, and service to our
> community.
>
> There just isn't time to hold the hands of all the
> individuals who have become emotionally codependent on the
> interview process to affirm their self-worth.  That's what your
> friends are for.  We're only a prospective employer, not your
> lover or your counselor or your parent.

[marta]

wow -- thanks for the info...

It's amazing to hear how different the standards are for academia and corporations... Unless corporations in your state need to follow the same rule/law...

Can you imagine ebay, yahoo, or google having to go through the same process with all the candidates? They receive hundreds of resumes per opening and interview many people due to high turnover rates in hi-tech. It's almost like a revolving door of people coming in and getting out...

When I come to think about it, based on the ads I've seen so far for faculty in California schools, yes - it might be the law here too... hmmm... Most state Us. and other schools here require applications on paper via regular mail etc etc...

Well, it's been very educational and as I learn more about high ed hiring processes, I'll keep that in mind... (it can be kind of scary, ouch! ;-)

Cheers,

Marta




Author: Junior Faculty
Date:   06-05-05 23:36

Nope, state law, and in one of the bluest states--no need for the dig at "military schools". Most of the ties stem from an extremely protective law about privacy and official records--this has produced procedures like keeping candidate material under lock and key, signed out to one person at a time, one file at a time, causing it to take a long time for everyone to see them. _Some_ highly bureaucratic parts of our search procedure are governed by out union-negotiated, uberliberal contract. As it was explained to me, every one of these rules is in place because there was an issue about fairness, or AA/EEO, or illegal questions (or a message left on answering machine and heard by ex-husband). Many people in these forums complain about committees, but don't realize that the downside of rules to aid in a search being totally, scrupulously private, and fair and blind to anything but qualifications is that huge amounts of time are spent, and bureaucratic boorishness often results in the eyes of the candidates.

I had a candidate find my home phone number and call me this evening to yell at me for not e-mailing him, even though the refused to sign the permission for for me to do so. Sometimes it seems like no matter what a search committee does, someone will be pissed about it, even if the rules are meant to protect them.

[fun]

I had one interview where the chair of the search committee was pretty rude and unfriendly. I emailed all of the other search committees immediately when I got an offer. I "forgot" to email them.   I haven't heard from them, either, 2 months later. I probably never will. I feel friendly towards the members of all the other search committees, and emailed some to say I hope we stay in touch. I hope NOT to stay in touch with these people. Someone's comments about not needing to be rude if there is another preferred candidate were very apt. At least I now feel I have had my fun now that I have an offer, although it is slightly guilty fun, as I feel I should have written right away. I got my offer in the airport coming home from this interview from hell.



                                                      having fun