next »

[anotherjobseeker]

I'm looking at an ad from a state university that says " seeks to increase faculty diversity; women and minorities are urged to apply."   I've gotten far too many rejection letters to want to get more needlessly.  If a state university says this, and I happen to know that there are oodles of people who meet that qualification in my field, it would seem to me there's no reason to apply if I'm not in the diversity group.  It would be useless wishful thinking to believe that a white male could be hired under these conditions.  Is that a valid assessment and if not, why not?

[prytania3]

All the ads say that.

[ernestoelche]

Stop being paranoid.
Affirmative Action has never been about hiring UNQUALIFIED women or minority men over QUALIFIED white men. If you are THE BEST candidate for the job, you will be hired no matters you race or gender. Affirmative Action applies only in the case when you have a draw in the final round of interview:
If there are only 2 candidates left
& if these 2 candidates have EQUAL experience
& if these 2 candidates have EQUAL qualification,
& if one of the candidates is a minority man or a woman,
then he will be given preference in hiring.

The case of the black student getting into Harvard with a 2.5 High School GPA is an urban myth that was spread in the 1990s by infamous conservative Dinesh D'Souza.

[genespleen2]

back under that bridge, mister!

[tintern]

Dear anotherjobseeker,

Anything that smacks of an affirmative action discussion is apparently met with hostility on this board.

That said, there are hiring initiatives out there that specifically aim to hire women and/or minorities.  Sometimes this is abundantly clear from the job description (e.g. I once saw a program that was unambiguously called "Program for a Strong Minority Presence").  Sometimes it is less clear, ironically enough because political correctness prevents them from indicating clearly that the search is open only to under-represented populations.

However, the phrase in this job description seems to be one of those throw-in clauses that accompany many position announcements.  As I read it, women and minorities are encouraged to apply, but there is a very good chance that they would consider qualified white males.  If I were you (and if I fit all the other qualifications in the announcement), I would probably apply.

[mrhistory]

Let me tell you two stories from "WASP-man" perspective

1. at progressive U where I did my undergrad, I worked work-study in a dept that really was committed to going from 95% white-northern European stock-male to a better "balance"  one of my jobs was to run paper to the Dean's office.  I ran many, many forms that were "waivers" of AA in searches.  They all said "best candidate for the position in terms of teaching and scholarship is Joe Whiteman"  the Dean signed them all in 10 seconds and I was on my way back to the office so they could call Joe Whiteman.  They weren't running a scam, they often fell back on comfort zone decisions despite good efforts but when they wanted "Joe Whiteman" they hired him.

2. at Current-Job U they talk a lot about diversity and throw in extra boilerplate about "diversity"---then they worry about *numbers* of female and minority candidates so that when they file their waivers they will *look* like they tried hard. They do indeed talk about.

But, I certainly have a job. And, in the four hires since I came?  3 of 4 were "Joe Whiteman" again just like me!  In two of those, anyone sane would have argued for Jane Whitewoman or Joe Minorityman but lots of coded talk about "her publication record is superior, but, I don't know...I think Joe Whiteman is a better fit!" Yeah, he mumbled his way through, complained about humidity and slandered the region mildly at dinner...

"They" are not out there stealing all "our" jobs but it makes a great way to explain everything.  A friend said it best:  "in 1940 I could have had 10 of 10 jobs, now I am only guaranteed 9 of 10.  That one job was obviously *mine!"

[nailman]

I think almost every job I applied for said something like this in the ad, and I'm a white male. However, I also notice that, aside from the AA card (which in many cases is anonymous) they have no way of knowing, until they interview me, whether I'm "diverse" or not (although my gender is obvious from my name).

So far, I have gotten two on-campus interviews from places that said something like this in their ads. I'm pretty sure that this is just in the ad for political/administrative reasons. Although I do occasionally joke that I might be more successful at getting interviews if I changed my first name to "Juan".

[larryc]

In what field are there "oodles" of minority candidates? In history there are so few that your chance of competing with one is infintesimal.

[tenured_feminist]

Making real efforts to diversify the pool of applicants in most fields (which usually means doing a lot more than putting some boilerplate AA/EO approved language in the ad) does not mean that the university will hire a woman or person of color for any given slot.  As others have pointed out, it doesn't seem like white guys are having any tougher a time than anyone else in most fields.  Most professional associations collect placement stats, and most of these stats show that the "minorities are getting all the good jobs at a much higher rate than white men" is a complete myth.

[hello_lunch]

I think it's a mistake, too, to imagine that one can only "be diverse" if one is a gal, racialized, queer, working class, etc. Even white fellows can be "diverse" in their work, their orientation to their students, and their administrative commitments. And since, as others have pointed out, it is still in fact white, upper-middle class people who make it to and through grad school, and since most disciplines are very male-centric, it's very important for majority-type-folks to diversify their worlds in these, and other, ways.

[booknerd]

Interesting.  I was just reading the thread about minority students not taking humanities courses and the conversation about them seeking professional jobs outside academia.  Then I click here and see that there are oodles of minorities vying for a t-t job.  That's some fuzzy math.

Anyway, I think one can be diverse regardless of his/her race/gender/religion/etc.  I'm a total mutt of mixed European and Native American descent, but most in my department just view me as "standard, white male".  However, I live in a deeply multicultural state, married a feminist from Mexico, and teach literature that reflects the diverse background of my students.  Do I fail to contribute to the diversity of my department because of the color of my skin or y chromosome? 

[infopri]

Every academic job I've ever applied for, including non-faculty jobs, has had language about diversity and encouraging women and minorities to apply.  Don't let it stop you from applying from ANY job that you want and are qualified for.  Why do the SC's work for them, and at a disadvantage to yourself?

That said, I'm told that, in the law-school community, there really is a bias against aging white males--but I'm told that mostly by aging white males, who, interestingly enough, are all currently employed at law schools...

[petedondriac]

Every job ad says that, but they do not mean it. At the most, they mean "someone who is exactly like us but is visibly different and can hence be classified as a minority, thus satisfying administrators". Of course, that defeats the alleged reason for wanting diversity in academia: intellectual diversity. Because of socioeconomic and cultural differences, a minority scholar will presumably think differently.  Rest assured and apply; your chances are much better that that of a minority scholar.