next »

[anonforthis]

Then let me start off the discussion!

We hear that, under the banner of diversity, we should hire more faculty of type X because diversity is good and that faculty member will serve as a mentor of type X students.

Fair enough. Then does this mean that after the hire of a type X faculty, those faculty of type Y are relieved from

1. funding type X students
2. advising type X students
3. mentoring type X students

Put more bluntly, can type Y faculty be allowed to only deal with type Y students?

If not, why not?

[dale1]

I'm glad that this forum has been reinstituted, though I fear its life will likely be short.

I do not argue for diversity on the grounds that diverse faculty members will serve as mentors for certain populations of students.  I do not believe that ethnicity, gender, or other factors are the most important when it comes to mentoring.

I argue for diversity on the grounds that it improves learning outcomes, which has been substantiated by research.  In particular there was a study by a philosopher from UCF, I think, who studied the issue.  Those with diverse backgrounds (broadly defined, not solely defined by a person's ethnicity) typically have diverse viewpoints and perspectives on issues, which (a) benefits the learning environment, and (b) should assist in developing novel research.

On your question, if it's not obvious above:  X faculty should not be obliged to mentor solely members from X class, nor should Y faculty with Y.

[anon4now]

I argue for diversity on the grounds that it improves learning outcomes, which has been substantiated by research.  In particular there was a study by a philosopher from UCF, I think, who studied the issue.  Those with diverse backgrounds (broadly defined, not solely defined by a person's ethnicity) typically have diverse viewpoints and perspectives on issues, which (a) benefits the learning environment, and (b) should assist in developing novel research.

I support the idea that being in an environment that contains many different kinds of people, many different viewpoints, many different backgrounds has got to be good for students' learning, for their general opening-up.  And to have the range of those kinds-views-backgrounds-perspectives represented both in the student population and in positions of authority would seem an obvious, necessary addon. 

But two of the things that worry me here are:
1) a thought-police element that would have to crop up in hiring (and admissions): "oh! we haven't hired a blonde person with a historicist method and a single-mom background, and skills in music and weaving. We'd better hurry and hire one!" And if blondes with some other intellectual formation apply---perfectly good musical weavers who are also single moms, but just not "historicist enough"---then do we hire them, or hunt some more? I just hate to see anything become a litmus test, even a diversity I agree is a good thing. 

2) there is a real danger of essentialism:  just because I'm Asian and female, does that mean that I necessarily bring, or HAVE to bring, a particular world view or perspective or background?  When we hire an african american male, and he turns out not to be a second malcolm X, are we disappointed in him on some level?
And why is it that my redheaded friend of scottish american descent who is a gifted teacher of african american literature cannot seem to get a job---do all people have to "look like" the specialty in which diversity is supposed be expressed in the curriculum? Can we not make better distinctions than to blur personal ethnic, racial, socioec background with the "X Studies" that's only ever supposed to be taught by people of X background?  Can curricular and personal diversities be achieved separately, or must we always blur them, use one as a substitute for the other, mistake one for the other, assume one is a sign f the other? We have not as a field parsed this well, much less developed a semiotics that works.

I'm obviously in favor of the idea of achieving a campus community and a curriculum built on "diverse" elements, but I think even the most well-meaning and well-informed among us get caught in some dangerous pitfalls and fallacies... 

anon4now (not to be confused with anonforthis, who takes a very different line on these things) (and yet I celebrate a forum that allows this diversity of views!)

[dale1]

But two of the things that worry me here are:
1) a thought-police element that would have to crop up in hiring (and admissions): "oh! we haven't hired a blonde person with a historicist method and a single-mom background, and skills in music and weaving. We'd better hurry and hire one!" And if blondes with some other intellectual formation apply---perfectly good musical weavers who are also single moms, but just not "historicist enough"---then do we hire them, or hunt some more? I just hate to see anything become a litmus test, even a diversity I agree is a good thing. 

2) there is a real danger of essentialism:  just because I'm Asian and female, does that mean that I necessarily bring, or HAVE to bring, a particular world view or perspective or background?  When we hire an african american male, and he turns out not to be a second malcolm X, are we disappointed in him on some level?
And why is it that my redheaded friend of scottish american descent who is a gifted teacher of african american literature cannot seem to get a job---do all people have to "look like" the specialty in which diversity is supposed be expressed in the curriculum? Can we not make better distinctions than to blur personal ethnic, racial, socioec background with the "X Studies" that's only ever supposed to be taught by people of X background?  Can curricular and personal diversities be achieved separately, or must we always blur them, use one as a substitute for the other, mistake one for the other, assume one is a sign f the other? We have not as a field parsed this well, much less developed a semiotics that works.


Thanks for these points.

On 1:  I don't think admissions decisions are made at such a micro level, at least for the vast majority of institutions.  Only a small percentage of US institutions can devote that time and scrutiny to its applicants.  Often we think of these issues as they relate to the flagships and private R1s, etc.  This is unfortunate, as the vast majority of students will attend and be taught at small regionals, privates, CCs, etc.  For most of the students, issues such as diversity won't really be in play because it's not a zero-sum type game.  My institution will take as many qualified students as there are, regardless.  So there's no need to seek certain types of diversity, though we try to place diverse students in the pipeline so that those which are qualified will be able to enter.

On 2:  I do not use ethnicity as a proxy for beliefs and perspective, so let me relate this to faculty hiring.  I believe that efforts for diversity in the faculty are highly flawed, insofar as they use ethnicity and other attributes as proxies for certain points of view.  E.g. substituting white male for conservative heterosexual, or, conversely, substituting African-American female for liberal, and so on.  I cannot support this way of thinking, because behavior is not causally linked to ethnicity or other "arbitrary" traits.  I do believe, though, that if faculty searches were conducted in a manner to bring out diverse perspectives, we could have a faculty which included your Scottish-American friend on the African and African-American Studies dept.  All of us have to work to ensure we move toward this.