next »

[10293847]

One of my colleagues was fired last year for misappropriation of funds, failure to teach classes, and got into a nasty fight with our dean. No one in our department would write a letter of rec as the person burned almost every bridge on campus in a bizarre act of self-destruction over several months.

Yet, I saw that this person has a campus interview now. (Some Universities post job candidate talks online)

Do some SCs not care that the former institution doesn't recommend the person? I have been on SCs for years and scratch my head how they couldn't put it together.

[seniorscholar]

With no letter from a current deparament head or senior faculty member, we would certainly make phone calls to two or three people in the department to find out further information.

Twelve people would immediately post to the forum to say that it's illegal to call people not on your reference list. (It's not -- we can call anyone we want to -- but it seems that a great many people on the job market believe they know how everything ought to be done.)

[msparticularity]

Depending upon exactly what could be proven, the individuals in the department may be limited in how openly they can discuss exactly what happened. In this case, OP, the department members may not be able to say a great deal about this individual's departure if no charges were filed. They may be hinting at "personal difficulties," and if the person has good references from others, it may be difficult for a SC to figure out whom to believe or how serious the issues actually were.

[melba_frilkins]

My bets are it has to do with HR policy. For whatever reasons, our HR office will not allow us to request reference letters with the paper app (but we can read those letters that are spontaneously submitted) and we are only allowed to call references after the interviews have been completed.

Perhaps the head of our HR department is related to one of the twelve people that seniorscholar mentions. Whatever the case, I'm wondering how they acquired so much power over this campus. <sigh>

[anthroid]

Or maybe the story isn't exactly accurate as told by OP.  I'm not maligning OP necessarily, but I've come across enough toxic departments to know that bullies and mismanagement can often lead to non-renewal rather than actual incompetence.

Again, I'm not saying that this is the case for OP's former colleague; it probably isn't.  But having been around a while, I tend to assume that the truth about a candidate is probably less negative than that held by former colleagues though there could well be red flags to consider.

And calling off-list is not illegal; SeniorScholar is right.  I still think it's a pretty rotten practice and I think that it doesn't get you any information that's any more useful than that provided by listed references.

[mountainguy]

Going off of what Anthroid said, it seems possible to me that a search committee could choose to ignore a negative reference as sour grapes. I've heard some pretty outlandish accusations (both on the fora and in real life) that if said in the context of a job search would reflect far more poorly on the person making the accusation than on the candidate.

[10293847]

... But having been around a while, I tend to assume that the truth about a candidate is probably less negative than that held by former colleagues though there could well be red flags to consider.

I think that may be it, that people want to believe the candidate when there are plenty of red flags there. Sour grapes would be for someone in my department to call up the campus where the person is interviewing. That would also be dirty and we are simply happy to not have that person with us anymore.

I worry that the unstable nature of this person will manifest itself again.

My institution hired someone years back who had a number of red flags and we had a problem after the first
year when the problems came back out.
I guess my question was just more theoretical. What red flags set you off in hiring?

[seniorscholar]

Going off of what Anthroid said, it seems possible to me that a search committee could choose to ignore a negative reference as sour grapes. I've heard some pretty outlandish accusations (both on the fora and in real life) that if said in the context of a job search would reflect far more poorly on the person making the accusation than on the candidate.

And, indeed, this is why (in a situation with no reference from the department chair) we would call several people at the applicant's campus, not one; and we'd have at least some of those calls made by faculty in other departments here who have, for example, a degree from that school and a dissertation supervisor still on the faculty. (I'm just remembering that when I was Director of Women's Studies, I more than once had calls out of the blue from women committee members asking if I "knew anything" about someone here who I may or may not ever have met because their university school was interviewing him (always "him" in this case) for a position as a dean or a department chair.) "Research," as you know, doesn't mean just taking someone's word for something, it means gathering all the evidence you can when something that doesn't fit the other data turns up.

In every case I can remember (maybe one every 7 years or so in my department), we've heard enough different versions of the supposed charges (the most recent involved "being mean to grad students") from enough reasonable people to decide to move ahead with the offer.

[losemygrip]

Some committees are too lazy or ignorant to notice this. 

In my department (before I arrived) they once hired someone who had NO recommenders from his/her graduate program.  In fact, NO recommenders from the academic field s/he was in at all.  And yet, the then-chair hired this person part-time, then into a tenure-track job. 

Needless to say, s/he was unable to get recommendations because s/he was/is a psychopath and has been central in creating drama, stress, and unnecessary conflict at every turn. 

This is why searches are the most important service duty you can do.  I'm constantly astounded at the casual way many faculty approach them.

[msedc]

Some committees are too lazy or ignorant to notice this. 

In my department (before I arrived) they once hired someone who had NO recommenders from his/her graduate program.  In fact, NO recommenders from the academic field s/he was in at all.  And yet, the then-chair hired this person part-time, then into a tenure-track job. 

Needless to say, s/he was unable to get recommendations because s/he was/is a psychopath and has been central in creating drama, stress, and unnecessary conflict at every turn. 

This is why searches are the most important service duty you can do.  I'm constantly astounded at the casual way many faculty approach them.

Wow .. those are pretty big red flags not to notice. Is this person still there, or was not renewed/denied tenure?  Sad when there are so many qualified people out there looking for jobs.