next »

[onion]

]it is disingenuous to continually assert that AA is not what it manifestly is, namely reverse discrimination against white males.  It can be spun any way one likes, but if one gets positive employment credits for being other than a white male, well... that means it is a negative consideration to be a white male.

This assertion rests on the assumption that the AA/EEO candidate--black, gay, female, disabled, what-have-you--is not qualified for the position.  That's not what AA/EEO aims to do--it levels the playing field for equally qualified applicants.

[beacon1]

Now I'm starting to see a more defensive, insecure side. You feel that economic diversity should be enough diversity, yes? Okay: so convince the next search committee that your economic background will be beneficial for their students.

It is a shame that I should have to resort to the retelling of sad stories to receive a job. There are plenty of similar sad stories out there. I just want to be judged for the quality of my work.

Again, as I said in earlier posts, I am not complaining about AA/EEO policies. I am trying to get a grasp on why diversity, which I think is a specious buzz word, is relevant. I can, on some level, go with the idea of richer cultural experience, but show me how that is relevant in a non-cultural study field.

Once more, I am not complaining about not being able to find a job. I am employed and can feed my family. I have received offers, but because of negatives of where the U was located (similar socioeconomic status to where I was raised) I refused.

As for benefiting from privilege; Why is it called privilege every time a white guy gets a job? Why cant it be because he worked hard and was good at what he did. Yes, I have experience discrimination based on both race and regional attributes. I was once told by one of my professors, at a moderately prestigious U, that with my dialect I would never get a job. This was intended as an insult (not a teaching moment) and came from the diversity teacher no less. It was very hurtful, so I do understand the pain involved.

I certainly understand there will never be a level playing field, and hate the terrible injustices that exists. But it does not make sense to me to single out groups and call them oppressors based on there race. I am oppressive to someone? It feels somewhat dehumanizing to me. Cant you just learn to understand who I am and cast blame where blame belongs. My family was not one of privilege. It produces an invisible other out there which is largely a fantasy. This is not to say there aren't ruthless rich white guys out there- there certainly are. This does not deny that the mens' network does not exist, it is alive and well. I can honestly say, I am not a part of the mens network, white privilege, etc. As for being a future member, I don't want a free pass. I place a high value on hard work. My experience tells me that few doors can resist the flood of one person's persistence.

It can be spun any way one likes, but if one gets positive employment credits for being other than a white male, well... that means it is a negative consideration to be a white male.

I like this comment. Why I say we live in an anti white male movement is not based simply on employment issues. There are multiple reasons. Next time you take a gander at the TV, watch a sitcom. What I see when I watch is the white guy who is the butt of others jokes. The white guy is portrayed as emotionally unavailable, buffoonish, and entitled.

I'm not even saying that the movement is a bad thing. On some level, it is intended to remedy past wrongs.

 

[beacon1]

it is disingenuous to continually assert that AA is not what it manifestly is, namely reverse discrimination against white males.  It can be spun any way one likes, but if one gets positive employment credits for being other than a white male, well... that means it is a negative consideration to be a white male.

response

This assertion rests on the assumption that the AA/EEO candidate--black, gay, female, disabled, what-have-you--is not qualified for the position.  That's not what AA/EEO aims to do--it levels the playing field for equally qualified applicants.

I think this should be explored. How does it level the playing field? Does it give the applicant a boost somehow?  or is the applicant just allowed to compete for the position.

[beacon1]

beacon1, what bothers me about your posts is your basic premise that somehow women and minorities advance only at the expense of white males. 

I never said this. Many advance on their own merit. This quote sums up my belief.

it is disingenuous to continually assert that AA is not what it manifestly is, namely reverse discrimination against white males.  It can be spun any way one likes, but if one gets positive employment credits for being other than a white male, well... that means it is a negative consideration to be a white male.

Also you assume that women and minorities in positions of influence behave with the same systematically narrow self-interest that has typified white male dominance.

Why would it be any other way. I think power intends to maintain power. What makes women and minorities more altruistic than white men.

[joey_fan]

My original question is why is diversity a good thing? Diversity is different than AA, EEO, and social injustice. It means culturally diverse. What are the benefits?

beacon_1, I understand you are trying to understand why diversity is important beyond the AA/EEO "redress for past injustices" angle and I wonder if this makes sense as an explanation.

I am a minority who teaches at a university. In my experience, I have been approached by students who were of my racial/ethnic background coming into office hours seeking my advice even when it was not even related to my class or even the subject matter of the course. Many times these particular students needed someone who could understand cultural/linguistic/familial issues relevant to their career goals or personal development, etc. I felt they were seeking me out not only as a role model who "looked/talked like them," but also as someone besides their own parent(s) who could understand their circumstances and offer some guidance and perspective to their lives.

As stated in my previous response to you, this is all "intangible" stuff. And this type of mentoring/guidance is NOT in my job description, and I was certainly not hired specifically as minority who could/would perform these duties. BUT there is still a benefit to having diverse faculty who can be there as a resource for students (particularly if there is a diverse student body).

[jackie_d]

I like this comment. Why I say we live in an anti white male movement is not based simply on employment issues. There are multiple reasons. Next time you take a gander at the TV, watch a sitcom. What I see when I watch is the white guy who is the butt of others jokes. The white guy is portrayed as emotionally unavailable, buffoonish, and entitled.

Actually, WhiteBoy was my favourite in VH1 show "I love New York". And he did look just fine as a cabana boy.

You really don't get it: the wrongs are not past, there here and now. In the university where I am teaching, 95% of Latinos employed are gardeners, janitors,... And guess what: they are not really University workers, because they're employed through an external society. This move allows the university to pay them less than the minimum wage for university workers.

About the job market: each department hires the candidate that meets in the best way the department's need. It's not always the smarter, more prepared, more well-read candidate who gets the job. Maybe the best scholar of the pool is too fat, annoying, black, pregnant, gay, white, smelly, tall, to be a good fit for the department in question. I cannot feel any guilt/shame if eventually being a "minority" will make someone a better candidate for some departments: I doubt it is like that now, and I doubt it will ever be.

BTW: your post reminds me the one of a guy who claimed to have been "discriminated" by a search committee because he was gay. My question to you and him is the same: If they wanted to discriminate against you, why did they interview you in the first place?

[notaprof]

I think the majority of the time, applicants are being judged on the quality of their work and how well their qualifications and abilities fit the stated and unstated needs of the institution.  I think that race and gender can be convenient and ego satisfying issues to blame for why an applicant didn’t get the job.  White males want to believe they didn’t get the job because the SC gave preference points to minority or female candidates.  White and minority females can blame all males for the fact that they didn’t get the job.  White females can also choose to blame AA if they need another rationale.  Minority candidates can blame white privilege for the reason they did not get the job.  The practice of blaming race or gender discrimination apparently provides a level playing field, there is equal opportunity to blame the other, whoever that other may be.

It is so much more ego soothing to blame something that can’t be changed for why I didn’t get a job I wanted than to imagine someone was actually more qualified, a better fit or that there were simply 200 too many candidates for one job.  There is also some consolation in blaming some nonsensical preference by the SC for staples over paperclips, or an evil HR department who disqualified my application for failure to dot all the i’s or cross all the t’s or just because HR’s are incompentent. It is reassuring to my ego to imagine that it was one of these things that hindered my chance at the job of my dreams rather than to have to believe I wasn't the best candidate for the job at this time.  

Applicants may want to keep in mind that SC includes the word “committee.”  Everyone knows the jokes about decisions made by committees.  Search committee members include people with good intentions (sometimes misguided), people who are clueless and people with personal agendas (sometimes actually better for the institution) competing for power over the search.  Committees are made up of human beings and humans are fallible organisms.  Everyone would be better off starting with the premise that the job search process is not perfect so even if I am the “perfect candidate,” this game may not end with me as the winner.  

Perhaps the only truly “fair” way then to award a tt job would be to hold a drawing from all candidates that have two or three crucial qualifications.  I have never heard anyone blaming white privilege or AA/EEO as the reason they didn’t win the Mega Millions Lotto.    

I am not saying that white privilege or anti-white male bias has not been a factor in a choice of who to hire (see fallible humans above) but I can never know why a search committee ultimately made their decision, even if a SC member gives me inside information (see personal agendas above).  I just don’t see any point in spending too much energy on all the “what if’s.”  If I don’t get the job I want, I am going to console myself with some treat I enjoy, the same treat I would have rewarded myself with if I had gotten the job, and move on.  It is healthier for me to handle my disappointment this way but your mileage may vary.  

[kaysixteen]

If the playing field needs to be leveled by AA, we might well ask ourselves how many African-American PhDs, desiring professor positions, do not get a tt job within, oh, say two years of looking for one, and compare this to the comparable percentage for white males.  I suspect if the stats are available somewhere, they will not show a continued need for 'leveling the playing field'.  Indeed, levelling the playing field suggests that, without AA doing this, American higher ed professor SCs will indeed actively discriminate against qualified minority/ white female PhDs.  Is there any evidence that this would be the case?  Any evidence that there is any academic constituency left for racism and sexism, which would need to be counterbalanced by AA programs?

[antifessor]

You really don't get it: the wrongs are not past, there here and now. In the university where I am teaching, 95% of Latinos employed are gardeners, janitors,... And guess what: they are not really University workers, because they're employed through an external society. This move allows the university to pay them less than the minimum wage for university workers.

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion.  The university hires a contractor to perform a service.  The ethic makeup of the contractor's workforce is dependant on the available labor pool.   Should the university require that the contractor hire more Anglo, African-American or Asian groundskeeping staff?

Actually, WhiteBoy was my favourite in VH1 show "I love New York". And he did look just fine as a cabana boy.

This, on the other hand, is completely relevant to the discussion as to why some people feel there is an anti-white male attitude afoot.



************
notaprof,

You post sums up my own attitude - and far more clearly than I could have said it myself.

[larryc]

If the playing field needs to be leveled by AA, we might well ask ourselves how many African-American PhDs, desiring professor positions, do not get a tt job within, oh, say two years of looking for one, and compare this to the comparable percentage for white males.  I suspect if the stats are available somewhere, they will not show a continued need for 'leveling the playing field'.  Indeed, levelling the playing field suggests that, without AA doing this, American higher ed professor SCs will indeed actively discriminate against qualified minority/ white female PhDs.  Is there any evidence that this would be the case?  Any evidence that there is any academic constituency left for racism and sexism, which would need to be counterbalanced by AA programs?

These are fair questions that proponents of diversity ought to be willing to address. 

I think that nearly every search committee these days is sufficiently pro-diversity that very little active discrimination exists.  I may be naive but I cannot see any search committee saying "Candidate X sounds Hispanic, he'll be coming in late every day, let's hire someone more Caucasian." 

On the other hand, there is the mysterious factor of "a good fit for our department," a criterion that often comes into hiring decisions.  Fit can often translate into "someone like us." Since the professoriate is still dominated by white males, this can skew decisions against minority candidates.

Note: I have no statistical evidence for either of these factors.

The main point I always want to make about AA, however, is the tiny influence that it has in academic hirings.  There are so vanishingly few minorities in most doctoral programs. When we advertise a history job we get 100+ applications, only 1 or 2 of which are any kind of minority. In most fields your chances of being a finalist pool with a minority candidate are vanishingly small.

Your chances of being the person who lands the job are also vanishingly small.  And it is a natural human reaction to try and find external reasons for one's failure. But the real problem is the market, not AA.

[jackie_d]

You really don't get it: the wrongs are not past, there here and now. In the university where I am teaching, 95% of Latinos employed are gardeners, janitors,... And guess what: they are not really University workers, because they're employed through an external society. This move allows the university to pay them less than the minimum wage for university workers.

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion.  The university hires a contractor to perform a service.  The ethic makeup of the contractor's workforce is dependant on the available labor pool.   Should the university require that the contractor hire more Anglo, African-American or Asian groundskeeping staff?

I think this is pretty relevant. If the bigotry of the anti white-male movement dominated the ivory tower as suggested by the OP, I cannot understand how come non-white males and females are confined to mop the floors and trim the bushes in my university. But I teach in a public and "progressive" university on the West coast: maybe over here we are not as bigots as people in private and conservative institutions.

The fact that labor pools are racialized, should suggest also to the OP that is a bit unfair to depict white men as the new "wretched of the earth."

Wait.

My bad.

White males are discriminated in getting those jobs as well.

[prytania3]

This thread is giving me wicked deja vue.

[antifessor]

I think this is pretty relevant. If the bigotry of the anti white-male movement dominated the ivory tower as suggested by the OP, I cannot understand how come non-white males and females are confined to mop the floors and trim the bushes in my university in getting those jobs as well.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you're saying - especially the "confined" part.  When a non-white male or female applies for a faculty position, does your university say "Sorry, but we have couple of positions available mopping floors and trimming bushes that you might be interested in."

[southprof77]

I am surprised that no one picked up on my main point: the explosion of minorities and women is largely a result of _growth_ not replacement. . .Most institutions are exponentially larger than they ever were, and though percentages of white students and professionals in have altered, I suspect the numbers have actually grown.  AA policies tend not, for instance, to ensure that when a white guy retires a person of color or a woman fills the vacancy.  More realistically, they ensure that there is an institutional awareness that their past tendency has been not to ignore minorities and women altogether.  And the benefit of cultural diversity is this: a useful public sphere and a productive private one that is mindful of the constitution of this nation.
    300,000,000 people and very soon, less than 50% will be white.  If popular culture is the only practical manner in which students of any background learn about cultural difference and crosscultural interaction, students will be at a marked disadvantage in our society and in the world and the marketplace.  And let's face it, it was never a meritocracy.  Even when blacks and women weren't allowed to play, admissions and hiring practices have never been completely a numbers game--besides the disturbing picture Jerome Karabel paints in The Chosen there is always the fact that, any number of top schools could fill every slot with 1600, straight-A, private school kids. . . but why do that?  These students would contribute to an angular environment lacking in interpersonal skills, social engagement, and, yes, diversity they'd be burdens to whatever field they entered before anything else.

[au_fait]

If the playing field needs to be leveled by AA, we might well ask ourselves how many African-American PhDs, desiring professor positions, do not get a tt job within, oh, say two years of looking for one, and compare this to the comparable percentage for white males.  I suspect if the stats are available somewhere, they will not show a continued need for 'leveling the playing field'.  Indeed, levelling the playing field suggests that, without AA doing this, American higher ed professor SCs will indeed actively discriminate against qualified minority/ white female PhDs.  Is there any evidence that this would be the case?  Any evidence that there is any academic constituency left for racism and sexism, which would need to be counterbalanced by AA programs?

These are fair questions that proponents of diversity ought to be willing to address. 

I think that nearly every search committee these days is sufficiently pro-diversity that very little active discrimination exists.  I may be naive but I cannot see any search committee saying "Candidate X sounds Hispanic, he'll be coming in late every day, let's hire someone more Caucasian." 

On the other hand, there is the mysterious factor of "a good fit for our department," a criterion that often comes into hiring decisions.  Fit can often translate into "someone like us." Since the professoriate is still dominated by white males, this can skew decisions against minority candidates.

Note: I have no statistical evidence for either of these factors.

The main point I always want to make about AA, however, is the tiny influence that it has in academic hirings.  There are so vanishingly few minorities in most doctoral programs. When we advertise a history job we get 100+ applications, only 1 or 2 of which are any kind of minority. In most fields your chances of being a finalist pool with a minority candidate are vanishingly small.

Your chances of being the person who lands the job are also vanishingly small.  And it is a natural human reaction to try and find external reasons for one's failure. But the real problem is the market, not AA.

LarryC you make an excellent point.

K16, read G. Smitherman, E. Richardson, K. Gilyard, among others. They are all black (or African American, depending on preference of terminology) and talk about the struggles of minorities in higher ed. Smitherman mentored Richardson and talks about the need for minority mentors for minority students.

For example, if you go to another country where you don't know the customs or culture but you do speak the language, and you find someone (in a different field of study, say) who acts like you do (has the same beliefs, cultural customs, whatever). You will seek that person out as a source of strength, especially if you feel distanced by your peers.

This happens in graduate school, which is ONE reason why there are fewer minorities with advanced degrees. It also can happen in the work place. Being the "token black" (or whatever race) isn't a warm-fuzzy feeling.

When departments actively seek out applicants to diversify their departments, it could very well be an effort to correct previous searches, whose SC's discriminated against applicants b/c of preconceived notions or racism/sexism. It can be an effort to change. It could also be because the SC knows that having a diverse department brings value that isn't always easily represented on a CV.

• being a mentor for minority (race or gender) students
• being a role model for said students
• bringing a new perspective to the uni b/c of background/experiences
• helping students prepare to work with people other than their own race (this may or may not be a factor for many universities)

Seeking diversity does not equal being anti-white-male.

Furthermore, what about traditionally female dominated fields? e.g. nursing, secretarial work (now administrative assistant), child care, teaching grades k-6, etc. For some reason, said fields are stratified as "lower" status. Is it because they are "female fields"? There are plenty of opportunities in these valuable and rewarding fields for both sexes, but men often do not apply, and these fields still do not represent minorities of color.

The "huge shift" is seen b/c positions are becoming less gendered and b/c women aren't all "stay at home" moms, wives, etc. The shift is obvious because, as another poster said, the LACK of minority presence was so obvious.