ACTA's Must-Reads

I've been involved one way or another in several dozen faculty hires in my field over a period of many years. Nothing that he describes or alludes to is recognizable to me.

I did witness a candidate's religion being called into question in one search for a high-level administrative position. This was challenged by a faculty member on the search committee, not by the senior administrator who was chairing the committee.

I've also witnessed attempts to make support for "Diversity" goals a kind of litmus test in job postings. Imposed from above by the administration, and challenged, with some success, by faculty members.

It would be nice to have some support from the outside against these kinds of practices, again, largely imposed by administrators with the blessing of the state board of higher education, and implicitly by their legislative overseers.

However, all attempts to get legislative assistance have been futile. About the only option is a Michigan-style "civil rights" initiative.

But don't blame it all on the faculty hiring process.

Like Sidney in his famous letter to Molyneux, Federal Dog believes few words are best. And, granted Mike's experience has been somewhat different, from what I've seen in faculty hiring processes I've observed, Federal Dog is spot-on in his incisive remarks.

"If more academics would attest to what they have witnessed in the way of corrupt hiring and firing procedures, things would change."

I wish this were true, but I know that it is not. Any suggestion that the strongest candidates are not being considered for faculty positions is instantaneously dismissed as anecdotal. That's the point of the closed and secret system of faculty hiring -- it assures that no one has raw data necessary to effect reform.

Some systematic, external review of successful and rejected applications would be necessary to clarify and force consideration of the problem. Those who make hiring decisions have every vested interest in blocking outside knowledge about what they are doing (i.e., hiring "collegial" people who make them personally comfortable, as opposed to the best scholars and teachers available), and the first thing they contend is that disinterested review of the process would violate privacy and academic freedom rights.

It would be a hell of a thing though if facts about the faculty hiring process ever made their way before the public. Given skyrocketing tuition rates, if people knew who exactly they were paying for, and how those people stack up professionally against rejected scholars and teachers, the schools would be hit hard where they live -- in their finances.

Mr. Dog:

You and I simply must be living in alternate universes.

If the hires in my department are the most "collegial" people, heaven help us all.

Yours sincerely,

Mike

Mike:

I could well be that we operate in radically different disciplines. In my areas (different humanities departments and law), the consistency of training, opinion, thought, and emotion is so stunning that it might as well be a uniform. Anyone departing from this uniformity is deemed a problem, which is characterized as a question of "collegiality." Sure, differences of opinion crop up regularly at faculty meetings, but they dispute who's going to get desired courses, research funding, travel stipends, etc. That's just squabbling over resources: The underlying conceptual uniformity remains entirely intact.

Try voicing objections to affirmative action in a job interview or faculty meeting, for example. Or venture the opinion that zealots eager to hack the heads off people who disagree with them can be reasoned with. You won't get or keep that job, but what the hell: Let the games begin!

Mr. Dog:

"Try voicing objections to affirmative action in a job interview or faculty meeting, for example."

Have done that at faculty meetings, and very publicly outside of faculty meetings.

"Or venture the opinion that zealots eager to hack the heads off people who disagree with them can be reasoned with."

Actually, my opinion is that such people cannot be reasoned with. In fact, dangerous to try!

"You won't get or keep that job"

My experiences have sometimes been very unpleasant, but still have my job. To be sure, I would keep very quiet if I didn't have tenure.

Yes, I work in a different area (natural science). Things may very well be much different there.

F-DOG GOT IT RIGHT

Academic hiring would comical, if it weren't so farcical and money-wasting. It is a ridiculous numbers game -- enough blacks? Enough womyn? Back to males?

Do maximum qualifications ever come up, once the barest of minimum qualifications are reached?

Michael Berube and his fellow travelers can delude themselves. Everyone else knows the king has no clothes on. And if she/he doesn't want to listen -- we're cutting the money off.

New York Times today has interesting view of college management --

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/science/27dark.html?ref=us

One can already hearing the bleating of the tenured -- only anectodal, not empirical, too ad hominem, blah, blah, blah ..

Well -- if the tenured's operating style is so outstanding -- cut them loose, financially.

Give them their freedom. Enough operating cash for five years of accreditation, then that's it. They have to make it on their own, with their brilliance.

And I'd bet, due to their lack of common sense (Common Sense Model) and basic manners -- they'll be begging to be rescued within eight years.

They have to have a yearly allowance from the Nanny State, or they'd starve. But like teenagers, they don't want to be told what to do.

Hey -- take the public's money -- get public oversight. Get over it.

To Leonard:

"Do maximum qualifications ever come up, once the barest of minimum qualifications are reached?"

In my department this year I've been involved in a faculty search with about a hundred applicants. All possessed the minimum qualifications.

We weren't bowled over with the overall quality of the applicant pool, however. We chose six to interview.

Of these we decided to make an offer to one, and not to make an offer to any of the others, no matter what the first person decided about our offer.

At this point, that person is choosing between our offer and that of another school which is stiff competition for us.

We'll try again next year if we fail this year.

And I'm at a school and department which are not exactly in the top rank.

HOW CONVENIENT

" .. And I'm at a school and department which are not exactly in the top rank .."

My, my. Then it must be some unbelivable stroke of fate that certain individuals of specific persuasions manage to rocket into and up the academic ladder. While those of dominant paradigms managed not to.

How convenient. Will cows be jumping over the moon, soon? Just wondering.

Leonard, whatever the point you are trying to make, apparently inspired by my comment about my department, it escapes my poor tired brain. Try again perhaps?

Report on our hiring: the sole candidate to whom we offered a position declined to take a position at another, better-financed university. I guess we'll start again next year. So much for hiring people with minimal qualifications.