next »

[resis]

A note of caution (I'm not sure I was clear enough before): if you can't accept that the candidate's religious affiliation is irrelevant, you're headed for legal trouble.

I suggest that you imagine justifying all the search decisions in a public document available to the whole world. In such a document, a statement such as "the candidate made remarks, noted in the appendix to this document, suggesting that he/she would not be sufficiently sensitive to the needs of students from groups X and Y". Assuming the candidate's remarks are patently prejudicial, such a justification is perfectly appropriate and defensible.

But imagine how much trouble you would be in if you wrote this instead: "the candidate belongs to a church that teaches that social groupX will go to hell and societal group Y can't be trusted". This statement expresses concern about the candidate's *church*, not the candidate. You can't make the candidate guilty by association.

Incidentally, can you find an online statement or YouTube clip that proves *the candidate's* (not the church's) prejudices? Given what I've read, I sincerely hope you can protect your students from this candidate, but you'll have to do it in a legally defensible (and ethical) way.

[couleur]

Thanks, Resis.  Yes, you are correct. 
We have these issues covered.
Also, the other finalists are far more qualified, and upon investigation of the problematic candidate's CV, it is apparent that adequate experience for the job just isn't there.
The process isn't yet complete.
I will post as things develop within the next month.

[resis]

Perhaps this is obvious, but I wish I had noted in my post that if a search committee goes Googling for previously undisclosed information about a candidate, they need to similarly search for information about all of the candidates.

[couleur]

Perhaps this is obvious, but I wish I had noted in my post that if a search committee goes Googling for previously undisclosed information about a candidate, they need to similarly search for information about all of the candidates.

Yes.  We are equal-opportunity Googlers here.  We Googled all and sundry.

[yellowtractor]

Isn't it about time for an update, Couleur?

[couleur]

Yes, Yellow tractor.  Here's the update.

The person who is a full-time minister at a pentecostal church (of the persuasion that believes you are not saved until you speak in tongues) and who was the candidate for this job (and made it to the final three!!!!!!!) was not offered the job.

Fortunately, the other two candidates had massively more experience than this problematic candidate.

I would have updated this thread about a week ago when this had all sorted itself out, but the wrinkle now is that our state economy is so bad that the state board that approves the hire of this Dean of Students may not actually sign the order .........

And so there's a chance that the position will remain unfilled (though the candidate who was chosen is happy to accept the job, and hu seems like an excellent candidate.  However, hu might be hesitating about leaving hus CURRENT job, in that I'm sure hu has gotten wind that things are moving slowly because of the hellaciously bad economy, and hu is probably wondering if hu should leap into a job that might disappear soon after hu takes it.
So that's the story!

I'm glad the head-minister-lunatic-fringe-fundamentalist did not get this student services job.  Thank heavens!!!!

[larryc]

So was this minister a man or a woman?

[ideagirl]

So was this minister a man or a woman?

Don't answer that... too much information to reveal on a public forum.

[couleur]

Thanks, Ideagirl.  I'm not an attorney, but I figured I had to be careful.
So, case closed. However, I will revive this thread if future events so warrant.
Thank you to all!!!