next »

[pastafarian]

Our department is working flat out -- we need good teachers, and we need to broaden our range of classes in non-mainstream and international areas.  So we're pitching to our tight-fisted administration the notion of a diversity hire being what we need.  For once, they seem receptive.

Question: If you get a diversity hire, and someone applies who is white/American/male but happens to be great in the international area, are you restricted from hiring them?  Do you single out "diversity-sounding" names in the applicant pool?  Does the administration breathe down your neck if your candidates aren't diverse enough (whatever that means)?

I myself could (I think) count as "diverse" but I don't think of myself that way, and have never been on a search committee oriented to diversity so strongly.

[oldchair]

All good questions.  I have heard of departments that have set aside positions for under-represented groups--usually people of color, sometimes women.  The understanding (usually unstated) is that the position will remain unfilled until filled by a person from an under-represented group.  This has at times caused departments to go for years with open positions.

Other departments will define diversity in terms of the applicant's specialty.  The department may be looking for someone to teach post-colonialist literature or African American civilization.  The hope might may very well be that the position will be filled by a minority, but the department is free to hire whoever is judged most qualified.

Someone from your department, probably the chair, needs to have an honest, frank discussion with the administration.  You also need to discuss the issue with the other members of the department.  If you need teachers, will the department be willing to wait for however long it takes to hire a person from an under-represented group?  If not, will the administration be willing to hire someone who can increase the scope of the curriculum, but do nothing to help the yearly Affirmative Action reports?  Is the department willing to accept a new hire who receives a higher, and sometimes significantly higher, salary because of race? 

Now, I know others on this forum will attack and exclaim that salary differentials don't exist and that applicants of color have no advantage when it comes to the job market.  That's fine.  Having been down these roads many times, I still advise frank, open discussions before the process starts. 

Good luck.  I hope your department is successful.

[beacon1]

Diversity Hire = a non white male candidate

Underepresented group = a non white male candidate

Will they pay the diversity hire more? Yes!

[pastafarian]

Not to be too blunt about it, but does a white/American/woman count then as diversity if she has a diversity specification?  How tenuous does it get -- a white/American/male of second generation international descent?

As I said, I've been on searches before, but nothing with this mandate.  I guess we do need to get frank answers from the administration, and discuss it all collectively.  I was just keen to hear about other people's experiences of this situation.

[oldchair]

Not to be too blunt about it, but does a white/American/woman count then as diversity if she has a diversity specification?  How tenuous does it get -- a white/American/male of second generation international descent?

As I said, I've been on searches before, but nothing with this mandate.  I guess we do need to get frank answers from the administration, and discuss it all collectively.  I was just keen to hear about other people's experiences of this situation.

Again, this really depends on your institution.  Some schools will define diversity specifically in terms of race, others in terms of groups that are under-represented on campus.  It often has a lot to do with Affirmative Action compliance reports, which many schools must complete each year, although most faculty never hear about these reports.  The methods for determining which groups are under represented vary from state to state.  In my state, women often show up as under represented, even though we have many women on the faculty.  It all has to do with the number of women entering the field and the number of women currently employed.  Because there are fewer people of color entering the field (at least in some disciplines) some school can meet compliance with only one or two faculty of color.  Those same schools may need to hire many more women to meet the compliance standard.

It's a confusing and cumbersome process.

[beacon1]

Not to be too blunt about it, but does a white/American/woman count then as diversity if she has a diversity specification?  How tenuous does it get -- a white/American/male of second generation international descent?

As I said, I've been on searches before, but nothing with this mandate.  I guess we do need to get frank answers from the administration, and discuss it all collectively.  I was just keen to hear about other people's experiences of this situation.

Do not read to much into it... refer to my last post.... if you appear white and male... you don't count as being diverse...

[ptprof]

All good questions.  I have heard of departments that have set aside positions for under-represented groups--usually people of color, sometimes women.  The understanding (usually unstated) is that the position will remain unfilled until filled by a person from an under-represented group.  This has at times caused departments to go for years with open positions.

I know this is incredibly naive, but how is this legal?

Secondly, doesn't this type of arrangement just further than the anti-AA argument?

[oldchair]

All good questions.  I have heard of departments that have set aside positions for under-represented groups--usually people of color, sometimes women.  The understanding (usually unstated) is that the position will remain unfilled until filled by a person from an under-represented group.  This has at times caused departments to go for years with open positions.

I know this is incredibly naive, but how is this legal?

Secondly, doesn't this type of arrangement just further than the anti-AA argument?

You're not naive at all.  I suspect someone could challenge the legality of such searches if they could find the evidence.  But that's going to be really hard.  No leaves a paper trail demonstrating that only an under-represented person will be hired, and there are always other reasons, many of them non-empirical, for rejecting any single candidate. 

From what I can tell (and I'll defer to the lawyers among us) Affirmative Action initiatives are frequently on shaky legal ground, which may in part explain why HR offices are so tight-lipped when it comes to discussing them with any level of specificity. Even in it's most basic terms, it seems somehow wrong-- an employer is not supposed to discriminate based on race or gender, yet individuals of specific races and genders are encouraged to apply, often invited to apply.  Isn't that discrimination?  Also, AA often leads to very uncomfortable moments--"Yes, we're committed to diversity; yes, we sent you a letter asking for your application because you registered with a minority doctorate directory; yes, our job ad specifically encouraged minorities to apply, but no, your race and or gender played no specific role in our final decision.  We hired you because of your qualifications, not because you're a minority/ women. "  The fact that we have these kinds of conversations (I can remember four of them specifically) and the fact that we refuse to acknowledge the whole truth (that under-represented people receive special encouragement and consideration), and the fact that no one will ever say exactly what role race/gender plays in hiring all show that we're not really comfortable with the process.  The same discomfort, I suspect, will be fueling some the attacks I'm anticipating from this post.  Giving voice to something many recognize, but no one wants to acknowledge will make me a racist, a bigot, or something.

As for your second point, yes, these practices strengthen the resolve of those who oppose AA, including those who oppose it procedurally (it's a bad way to achieve a good end) and those that oppose it ideologically (it's a way of opening the profession to people I want to remain excluded).  No good can come from strengthening either perception.

None of this is to say, incidentally, that I am in any way against diversity, nor again actions that are designed to attract under-represented groups to our profession.  Nor am I opposed to Affirmative Action.  It's just one of those things that makes all feel a little uncomfortable and a little defensive.

[acrimone]

I looked it up in the Official Manual of Diversity and they say that a "Diversity Hire" is either a person who is NOT (white AND male AND (American OR from a Commonwealth Country)) -- such a person being a "CLASS I" Minority and therefore a CLASS I Diversity Hire -- or a person whose primary area of study involves (resuscitation of a conquored people OR (slavery OR oppression OR marginalization) OR (penises OR vaginas OR (penises AND vaginas AND coercion)) OR (the discovery and elevation of EITHER second-rate literature written by a CLASS I Minority OR third-rate literature written about a CLASS I Minority)) -- such a person being a "CLASS II" Diversity Hire.

It's in subparagraph G of section 4.54.  That's where the answer is.

But you have to know the secret handshake to get the manual.

[joey_fan]

OK that's hilarious, acrimone.

I looked it up in the Official Manual of Diversity and they say that a "Diversity Hire" is either a person who is NOT (white AND male AND (American OR from a Commonwealth Country)) -- such a person being a "CLASS I" Minority and therefore a CLASS I Diversity Hire -- or a person whose primary area of study involves (resuscitation of a conquored people OR (slavery OR oppression OR marginalization) OR (penises OR vaginas OR (penises AND vaginas AND coercion)) OR (the discovery and elevation of EITHER second-rate literature written by a CLASS I Minority OR third-rate literature written about a CLASS I Minority)) -- such a person being a "CLASS II" Diversity Hire.

It's in subparagraph G of section 4.54.  That's where the answer is.

But you have to know the secret handshake to get the manual.

[drsyn]

I would think that if you get a faculty line by convincing the university that you are going to increase the diversity of your faculty and you hire a white/American/male who happens to be great in the international area, it makes you an unethical department.

[beacon1]

I would think that if you get a faculty line by convincing the university that you are going to increase the diversity of your faculty and you hire a white/American/male who happens to be great in the international area, it makes you an unethical department.

It is a twisted sense of virtue that hires because of skin color in the first place.

[drsyn]

I would think that if you get a faculty line by convincing the university that you are going to increase the diversity of your faculty and you hire a white/American/male who happens to be great in the international area, it makes you an unethical department.

It is a twisted sense of virtue that hires because of skin color in the first place.

And how does that relate to my statemen?

[georgia_guy]

It is not unprecedented for courts to uphold a BFOQ defense regarding employment discrimination based on a "role model" defense.

While I have never seen this applied to a professor job, there are cases in which it was deemed appropriate to discriminate based on sex in hiring camp counselors and child care workers (Robinson vs. Kenosha Youth Foundation, Stonecipher vs. DILHR as examples). In both cases, the argument was that same sex workers fulfilled a "role model" role, as part of their position.

A similar argument could conceivably be forwarded for specifically targetted diversity hires. If a significant portion of the student population is made up of a group that is not adequately represented on the faculty, the argument could be made that the needs would be better served by having increased hiring in that specific demographic.

I have no idea whether a court would uphold that argument, but the line of reasoning has been used successfully in the past.

On the OP's question: "diversity hire" means different things, depending on your location and faculty population. For some, it may include any mon-caucasian male, while at other schools, it may apply only in hiring of "disadvantaged" minority groups.

[drsyn]

For Madeleine L'Engle - see tagline