next »

[rockprof]

Has anyone else come across the following?  I was recently on a search committee and Human Resources gave us a form to fill out (and return to them) after we interviewed each candidate.  On the form, it asked US what "race" the applicant was! 

Now, I have to admit in most cases it's pretty obvious but the committee (all tenured professors) discussed this and decided there's no way we were going to fill that out and basically told HR to shove it.  How the heck would we know if a candidate considered themselves white, black, Hispanic, native American, etc.?

[jtsmr]

Has anyone else come across the following?  I was recently on a search committee and Human Resources gave us a form to fill out (and return to them) after we interviewed each candidate.  On the form, it asked US what "race" the applicant was! 

Now, I have to admit in most cases it's pretty obvious but the committee (all tenured professors) discussed this and decided there's no way we were going to fill that out and basically told HR to shove it.  How the heck would we know if a candidate considered themselves white, black, Hispanic, native American, etc.?

Don't you just hate quotas? HR in many places is an utter embarrassment and often a tedious pain in the ass.  This is another example of America's obssession with race which never ceases to amaze me.  What, in fact, is the function of HR? And is discovering an applicants "race" a way of weeding out that applicant?

[icurhere2]

It depends - many institutions have to report on the race of the candidate pools and and interviewee pools, and asking the search committee could be one way of doing so if the option AA/EEO cards aren't distributed to candidates.  It's definitely not an ideal solution, though.

[tenured_feminist]

Yeah, America has been obsessed with race for more than 400 years! Maybe if we all pretend it doesn't exist and forget history, it will go away.

[rockprof]

Yeah, America has been obsessed with race for more than 400 years! Maybe if we all pretend it doesn't exist and forget history, it will go away.

So what's the solution?  Maybe we should get some paint chips from Home Depot, hold them up next to the candidates and assign them points based on their shade (I'm obviously being sarcastic).  Maybe I'm just a naive idealist, but on all the search committees I've been on, we've never once considered the candidates race, skin color, religion, etc.  The real issue is why are we not receiving more applications from people of color (in geology, where I teach, minorities are essentially non-existent).

[helpful]

Course 'race' doesn't even exist as a biological category, but let's not get into that....

Even if 'race' existed, Hispanic isn't a 'race'. It is an ethnic origin, or a bunch of ethnic origins. Or maybe refers to a language of origin.

[new_maisy]

Yes, but we still categorize people by "race" based on phenotypical characteristics (like physical characterisitcs such as skin color, hair texture, etc.).   So even though "race" does not exist, that does not mean that people do not see it, react to it, or make judgements/ stereotypes about people because of their perceived membership in a particular racial/ ethnic group.  Doing away with the concept of "race" won't change this.

Also, the fact is that the academy is overwhelmingly White.  Most of the people who apply for academic jobs are White and most of the people hired are also White.  Collecting data on race because of AA/ EEO has not changed this fact.  Even if a search committee is charged with the task of guessing an applicant's race, most of the time the SCC will encounter an applicant pool that is well over 90% White.  So what difference does it really make? 

[helpful]

Yes, but we still categorize people by "race" based on phenotypical characteristics (like physical characterisitcs such as skin color, hair texture, etc.).   So even though "race" does not exist, that does not mean that people do not see it, react to it, or make judgements/ stereotypes about people because of their perceived membership in a particular racial/ ethnic group.  Doing away with the concept of "race" won't change this.

Also, the fact is that the academy is overwhelmingly White.  Most of the people who apply for academic jobs are White and most of the people hired are also White.  Collecting data on race because of AA/ EEO has not changed this fact.  Even if a search committee is charged with the task of guessing an applicant's race, most of the time the SCC will encounter an applicant pool that is well over 90% White.  So what difference does it really make? 

You should put white with quotation marks around it. "White" could be anything under the sun. Even Hispanic. I think what you mean by "white" is those of Northern 'European background, because where I work, if you are Greek, Italian or Spanish, for example, you are still a minority.

[new_maisy]

I was using the term White in the way that it is generally defined in the U.S. context (the Census Bureau).  In the U.S., Whites are defined as anyone of European, Middle Eastern, North African descent, and Hispanic (White) descent.  Therefore, if you are Greek or Italian for example, you are certainly considered White in the country.  This was certainly not always the case. 

For example, if the average SCC is interviewing someone who is Greek or Italian, they would most likely check the box for White if asked to guess the "race" of the applicant.   This is what most people would see when they look at the applicant.  The options that typically appear on such forms are: White,  Black/ African-American, Hispanic/ Latino, Asian, Native American (with some variations of course).  There are certainly some colleges and universities where being Greek, Italian, or Spanish would mean that you are a minority and they would ask for this information.  The OP's question was about guessing "race".  The sad fact is that in the U.S. we define "race" in a very narrow way--because esentially it boils down to what you appear to be--i.e. whether or not you appear to be White or a member of an American ethnic minority group: African-American, Asian-Indian American, Asian-Pacific American, Hispanic American, Native American, and of course any combination thereof. 

[helpful]

Aren't people with Spanish background considered Hispanic? I am speaking here of Mexicans, for example, who speak Spanish but look very white because they are as their ancestry is traced exclusively to their Spanish ancestry.

[spork]

The search committee chair needs to relay this HR request to the appropriate administrators.  Not only is it a ridiculously inaccurate way to generate data, but there's a good chance it violates a university, state, or federal policy.

The members of the search committee made the correct decision.

Has anyone else come across the following?  I was recently on a search committee and Human Resources gave us a form to fill out (and return to them) after we interviewed each candidate.  On the form, it asked US what "race" the applicant was! 

Now, I have to admit in most cases it's pretty obvious but the committee (all tenured professors) discussed this and decided there's no way we were going to fill that out and basically told HR to shove it.  How the heck would we know if a candidate considered themselves white, black, Hispanic, native American, etc.?

[joey_fan]

I would have just written "human."

Has anyone else come across the following?  I was recently on a search committee and Human Resources gave us a form to fill out (and return to them) after we interviewed each candidate.  On the form, it asked US what "race" the applicant was! 

Now, I have to admit in most cases it's pretty obvious but the committee (all tenured professors) discussed this and decided there's no way we were going to fill that out and basically told HR to shove it.  How the heck would we know if a candidate considered themselves white, black, Hispanic, native American, etc.?

[beacon1]

Aren't people with Spanish background considered Hispanic? I am speaking here of Mexicans, for example, who speak Spanish but look very white because they are as their ancestry is traced exclusively to their Spanish ancestry.

Anyone with a Spanish surname (with the exception of a few Filipinos) can be referred to as Hispanic.

[helpful]

Aren't people with Spanish background considered Hispanic? I am speaking here of Mexicans, for example, who speak Spanish but look very white because they are as their ancestry is traced exclusively to their Spanish ancestry.

Anyone with a Spanish surname (with the exception of a few Filipinos) can be referred to as Hispanic.

So people from Spain are considered Hispance on those forms and not 'white'? Strange.

[prytania3]

Aren't people with Spanish background considered Hispanic? I am speaking here of Mexicans, for example, who speak Spanish but look very white because they are as their ancestry is traced exclusively to their Spanish ancestry.

Not all Mexicans are of Spanish decent.