next »

[au_fait]

Sorry southprof, we were posting at the same time. Yes. I also mention your point.
IT'S GROWTH, NOT REPLACEMENT! (I'm rude for yelling, but I feel that whispering, speaking, and writing aren't getting the point across. It's time to yell.)

[jackie_d]

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."

My point is that if such an anti-white-male conspiracy would really exist, Latinos - for example - wouldn't be mopping floors on which the white man walks.

I am sorry if I am being too rhetorical and not really argumentative, but a guy that claims:
1) to be discriminated because white,
2) that considers Holocaust as a "poor treatment" that not all of the members of the Jew race deserved,
3) that compares the destiny of the Jews under Nazism with the one of white males in the U.S. under a presumed AA regime

makes me kind of upset.

[au_fait]

OP, what's your current profession again? And did you say you have children?

[aardvark]

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.

Last time I was on a SC that tried to make a diversity hire, DAMN STRAIGHT it was discrimination.  We were looking for exactly the candidate we wanted, and didn't intend to compromise on any of the qualifications unless we were forced to.  We were looking for a person who:

1. was deeply trained in exactly the sub-field we wanted, so that it would fit our existing departmental/ college needs
2. had 5 years or more of post-PhD experience (for an entry level job, mind you)
3. had a book in press or out (still an entry level job)
4. went to a mid-tier PhD program.  I didn't personally agree with this one, but my Dean had a history, at least in his own head, of being burned by the Ivy League/ Stanford/ etc. type of candidate
5. was a diversity hire.

Let's get one thing straight:  it was our SC, our college, our department, our Dean; WE decided who to hire, and yes, we discriminated.  Alas, the first choice candidate also discriminated.

[beacon1]

5. was a diversity hire.

Anybody but a white guy.

[aardvark]

5. was a diversity hire.

Anybody but a white guy.

Damn tootin'.  Our hire, our call.

[aardvark]

5. was a diversity hire.

Anybody but a white guy.

Damn tootin'.  Our hire, our call.

Actually, I typed too soon.  White women weren't eligible, either. Indeed, where I was, women didn't count as "diversity" anywhere below the most senior levels, because we already had about a 50-50 mix.  Not every college (or field) can say that, but many can.

And we were just as serious about Discrimination Factors 1-4 as the DF 5.  So the white folk who didn't have all the pubs and experience and narrow expertise we were after were being Discriminated Against on many counts.

Mind you, NONE of this was said in the ad. We took it for granted that we MIGHT NOT get someone with 5 years of experience or a book (for an entry-level position), so of course we had to make sure we had a bigger pool of applicants just in case.  But we knew what we were after, and we did some serious discriminatin'.

[beacon1]

Here is a thought that I have. To the relief of many of you, It will probably be my last post.

I think all social systems are built on power structures. There are big fish that eat big, and little fish that get the left overs. This is easily identifiable in India where the caste system is in place. The untouchables or pariah caste is the lowest of low, the down trodden. From the bottom, there are increasing levels of how much one gets to feed off the culture.

In our culture, the power structure was started by white males, and as a consequence, white males are still at the top of the food chain. It is intresting to note that some immigrants, despite being white, where not giving privilege for their race. In fact, Irish had a lower social status than slaves and were often asked to do jobs that slaves would not do. An example was the building of the New Orleans drainage canals and boat dock workers in New England. Both of theses occupations employed Irish because their deaths was not as great of a financial loss as slaves.

Something that is great about our culture is the idea of ascendancy - you can raise your social class. Ascendancy is slow through social classes, but it is possible. Ascendancy in our culture seeks no other goal than more MONEY. That is because our culture is capitalistic. Having more money, as seen in our culture, gives a person more value. Thats why most everyone is involved with keeping up with the Jones. We all want to be valued more. This is more than just a shallow undertaking, it is at the core of who we are. When the stock market crashed during the Great Depression, folks jumped from windows not because they had lost all their money and would not be able to make it, but the had lost their self worth. Culture gives us an deep sense of who we are and what our intrinsic worth is. Our culture is built on capitalism plain and simple. Money gives us esteem. Volumes could be written about this.

I believe race and gender does have something to do with why a person can not get more power (MONEY). The culture, particularly those at the top, have an investment in keeping things the way they are. It is more difficult for you to rise through the system if you are of particular races or female.

Once you have risen in the system, and you make a lot of cash, what do you do to ensure that things stay as they are? You support causes that do little to help others ascend. I think modern diversity is little more than throwing crumbs to peasants and saying "let them eat cake". If you make it to our Ivory Tower, by God, we'll open the doors and let you in.We will embrace your struggle and share the wealth. We all get rich, be happy and thumb our noses at the poor unfortunate hacks at the bottom. Then we'll beat the war drum and say it was angry white guys that oppressed you. We'll pit those at the bottom against each other and keep them fighting over race long enough that their chance at ascendancy will pass.

If you are really interested in diversity, encourage socio economic diversity as a criteria for university admission. Then pay the down troddens' way through school. This creates great opportunity for ascendancy.

In short, everyone wants a piece of the American pie. Is Cornell West really suffering because of his race now. Or John Edwards with his two Americas speech. Come on, its a classic bait and switch. These fat cats are making it big off the American Dream.

How bout you?

[kaysixteen]

Two random points:

Juris, are you at a public institution?  If so, you do realise that it is not 'your call' to hire only people of a certain race/ ethnicity/ gender, right?  It is, in fact, illegal for public institutions to discriminate on these grounds, and should be.

AA advocates these days would have a much stronger case if they were to advocate for class-based AA, which would of course prevent some black kid whose daddy is a psychiatrist from Grosse Pointe from getting credits ahead of Bubba from East Muleshoe, KY.  That probably wouldn't be a bad thing, now would it, if 'diversity' and 'economic opportunity' really are the important issues here, right?

[aardvark]

Two random points:

Juris, are you at a public institution?  If so, you do realise that it is not 'your call' to hire only people of a certain race/ ethnicity/ gender, right?  It is, in fact, illegal for public institutions to discriminate on these grounds, and should be.

AA advocates these days would have a much stronger case if they were to advocate for class-based AA, which would of course prevent some black kid whose daddy is a psychiatrist from Grosse Pointe from getting credits ahead of Bubba from East Muleshoe, KY.  That probably wouldn't be a bad thing, now would it, if 'diversity' and 'economic opportunity' really are the important issues here, right?

In the States, all my jobs were at private institutions.  And of course we never in any case only hired people of particular gender, race, etc.  We had a wish list and we took as many things from the wish list as we could get.  As a practical matter, it doesn't come up much in my field anyway; virtually all the candidates are white, whatever we may desire.  And that is true of most fields.  And as I said, the last time I was involved in an attempted minority hire, it turns out the (minority) candidate was just as discriminating as we were:  he (not she) went somewhere that paid much better and had a lighter teaching load, more research money, etc.  So we took a white guy (what're ya gonna do?)

The class-based affirmative action is a good call.  I'd guess it's a more relevant distinction re: college and professional school admissions than it is by the time you're trying to hire a PhD-holder with 5 years of teaching experience plus a book.  Those criteria were pretty much set in stone with us.  (Not surprisingly, although my mention of our diversity criterion appeared in a list of 5 criteria, those responding to my post emphasize only the criterion that's their hobby horse, diversity.  Is no one alarmed that for an ENTRY LEVEL JOB we expected 5 years post-PhD experience and a book?  And guess what people-- at the end of the day we couldn't get our "diversity" hire, but we got a hire who met those other "entry level" qualifications).

In the event that we had gotten our diversity hire, all the white candidates could have felt free to sue the college.  "Reverse discrimination" would have been hard to prove, especially given that 3 of the 4 we interviewed were white. 

Anyway, if you're in a humanities or social science field like I am, whatever the theories we banter about, almost every job you (or I) apply for and don't get DOES go to a white person.  That's just the way it is.

[beacon1]

And as I said, the last time I was involved in an attempted minority hire, it turns out the (minority) candidate was just as discriminating as we were:  he (not she) went somewhere that paid much better and had a lighter teaching load, more research money, etc.

This is absurd. The candidate doesn't have the power. The university does. It is crafty to mix the word discriminate with the loaded word DISCRIMINATION. It is implicit in this discussion that DISCRIMINATION is selection based on race, gender,  illegal and morally reprehensible.

Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

5. was a diversity hire

.

Anybody but a white guy.

Damn tootin'.  Our hire, our call

Does it matter that you are breaking the law if diversity means anybody but a white guy?

[aardvark]

And as I said, the last time I was involved in an attempted minority hire, it turns out the (minority) candidate was just as discriminating as we were:  he (not she) went somewhere that paid much better and had a lighter teaching load, more research money, etc.

This is absurd. The candidate doesn't have the power. The university does. It is crafty to mix the word discriminate with the loaded word DISCRIMINATION. It is implicit in this discussion that DISCRIMINATION is selection based on race, gender,  illegal and morally reprehensible.

My college wanted to hire this person; this person didn't want us to hire him when he got another job.  He got his way; my college didn't get its way.  Some power my college had.  This is supply and demand, and when institutional demand is larger than candidate supply, um... Econ 101... the institution doesn't have the power.

We didn't feel we were being morally reprehensible.  You may disagree.  Our "customers" frequently complained that there weren't more people who looked like them (lots of minorities).

But since a white guy got the job after the powerless candidate exercised his powerless choice to go for the other offer (and a white person, male or female, has gotten the job every time I've been involved with the hiring), please don't put this episode into your fantasy world about an "anti white male movement."  If such a movement exists, it is badly executed and is being thoroughly routed by the white men and women. 

Illegal... well, I get one vote, that's all I get, and when I vote I'm going to vote for whatever candidate I prefer.  At the entry level, whoever has written the best book usually gets my vote.

I repeat:  if, like me, you are in a humanities/ social science field, then *almost* every academic job you've missed out on in America (and I've personally missed out on LOTS) has gone to a white person. 

[beacon1]

Our "customers" frequently complained that there weren't more people who looked like them (lots of minorities).

I understand what your customers want, but as the employer you can not engage in hiring practices selecting one candidate over another based on race. The point is that it happens all the time to minorities and majorities alike. What about fairness?

My whole point in the post is simply to say diversity means we are going for the non-white male candidate because we are tired of seeing them around here. I'm not even saying that it is a bad practice (even though it may be illegal); just naming it for what it really is.

I'm also trying to make the point that all white males are not the same. It is a myopic view to believe that all white males have lived a privileged life. I believe in white privilege but I can promise you it wasn't doled out to folks where I grew up. Everyone was poor and underprivileged.

If you claim that diversity is about giving underprivileged a chance, how does the forementioned white underprivileged group benefit from it?

The only credible claim I can see for diversity is a more rich cultural experience. This seems critical to me for humanities. But why in hard sciences? I don't care if my teacher is from Bangladesh because I'm not learning about a cultural topic.

Something else that is an unintended consequence of seeking diversity is passing over of American citizens born and raised in this culture. Shouldn't a US citizen have the first shot at jobs created by the federal government by our tax dollars?

[aardvark]

.

I'm also trying to make the point that all white males are not the same. It is a myopic view to believe that all white males have lived a privileged life. I believe in white privilege but I can promise you it wasn't doled out to folks where I grew up. Everyone was poor and underprivileged.

If you claim that diversity is about giving underprivileged a chance, how does the forementioned white underprivileged group benefit from it?

The only credible claim I can see for diversity is a more rich cultural experience. This seems critical to me for humanities. But why in hard sciences? I don't care if my teacher is from Bangladesh because I'm not learning about a cultural topic.

Something else that is an unintended consequence of seeking diversity is passing over of American citizens born and raised in this culture. Shouldn't a US citizen have the first shot at jobs created by the federal government by our tax dollars?

As a white American living bountifully off the state in an Asian country, I'm going to recuse myself from addressing your point about taking care of Americans first.  I view the job market as global, but I recognize that not everyone does. In any case, the next 6 foreigners you see taking American academic jobs you may regard as an exchange for myself and 5 other Americans on my floor.

You haven't heard me say (I don't think, but who can remember, and I'm too lazy to look) that diversity is to give the underprivileged a chance.  Certainly not in the context in which I've been involved-- university faculty hires.  I want the person who wrote the best book, like I said.  Diversity is an added factor, a subjective one as I called it earlier, and I'll agree with your point about a "more rich cultural experience."  If there is to be affirmative action to redress historical grievances-- and I'm not going to get into that topic but will leave it for others-- then it's almost pointless to implement at this level, where we're stuck with the reality of who has the PhDs and who has written the books.  It would have to be a matter for a much earlier stage of the process.

And I think I grew up in the same neighborhood as you did, basically (as I said before).

But again, in the humanities/ social sciences, we DO end up hiring a white person when all is said and done... almost every time.

By the way, if you're in America, am I keeping you awake overnight?  It's a lazy Sunday afternoon here.

[splinter]

Did anyone else watch the South Park episode when humans from the future arrive and start getting employment? "Dey turk ma jerrrrb! "Derka der!"

Something else that is an unintended consequence of seeking diversity is passing over of American citizens born and raised in this culture. Shouldn't a US citizen have the first shot at jobs created by the federal government by our tax dollars?