My Feed

Tue, 01 Aug 2023 12:26:47 GMT

Gather 'round kids. With academic hiring season approaching, I can see that it's time for grandpa to tell you a story about why having a procedure for your search matters.

This story is truly a fine wine. I'd say this particular vintage has a full-bodied bouquet of dysfunctional governance with underlying notes of racism and egotism.

I know you kids are restless so I'll tell you the moral of the story first. Before you begin your search, before you look at a single cv, decide EXACTLY what the search process will be and EXACTLY what the criteria are and EXACTLY who gets to decide, and how, and when.

But don't you want to hear my adventure?

I need to be vague about how this story began because otherwise it would be too identifying for vulnerable people. Suffice it to say that at some point, I was in a department that was hiring.

Also suffice it to say, one particular member of the department had a preferred candidate and tried to rig the outcome before the search even started. I *think* the preference was because of shared research area. Not sure, but in any case, it's not central to the story.

At any rate, my colleague tried to rig things by having, essentially, a secret search committee and process. This person was not the chair, BTW, so, how did these even get rolling? Beats me.

I'll henceforth refer to this colleague as The Manipulator, and their various co-conspirators, collectively, as The Manipulators.

Some of us caught on to The Manipulators and we were not having it. After we complained loudly, a more transparent search committee was formed. The department asked for volunteers. People volunteered.

The Powers That Be chose five white men (including me) to be on the committee, even though someone who is not a white man had volunteered. This person was on sabbatical at the time.

The Powers That Be denied this volunteer membership on the committee under the pretense that faculty on leave do not serve on search committees. Concerned about this justification, I emailed the dean to inquire if, indeed, this was a rule.

The dean told me WTF, no. (That's my paraphrase.) There are many cases of faculty on leave serving on search committees.

This was a theme in this particular department. Made up rules flew around a lot, which makes sense. Made up rules are a *great* way to constrain the less powerful.

Anyway, after some brouhaha around the issue of search committee membership, the membership of the committee did not change, but all departmental faculty were offered the chance to participate in interviews with the top candidates.

YES, it is good to let people participate. 100% yes. But also, what even is the original committee of five then? Who are the decision makers? Who votes? Who gives input?

I'm not here to suggest a preferred answer to these questions. I'm merely pointing out that powerful members of the department were, as they frequently do, making up a procedure as they go along so that it would suit their needs.

Anyway, after the process was opened up to any faculty in the department, the volunteer who was originally excluded joins in, as does one other faculty member. The latter person is one of The Manipulators, and someone who has caused me and others a lot of grief.

Now, back to the candidates. The candidate for whom the search was originally rigged is, indeed, quite impressive on paper. Truly! The interview is problematic though. To keep things anonymous, I won't say all the reasons why, save one.

The one I'll share, which really stuck out, was when the candidate referred to first generation students as, and I quote directly, "these people." This was really offensive to some of us.

But whatever, we conclude the interviews and then we meet as a department to deliberate. Wait what? The whole department? Are you confused? Me too.

To recap, first there was a committee of five, then two more people joined in but not as members of the committee, and now the decision is deliberated by the entire department, including folks who hadn't been in the process to date.

Again, I am not judging what the proper procedure should have been. I'm just pointing out that the procedure we ended up following was not articulated in advance, was made up as we went along, and therefore made no sense. But, as I am so fond of saying... whatever.

Now the whole department is deliberating. The Manipulators want the "These People" candidate. Others of us prefer someone else.

When some of us start providing strong support for the other candidate, The Manipulators suddenly get *EXTREMELY* concerned about articulating a process.

They decide that there needs to be a discussion about who is allowed to vote on the candidates. WHAT? Let me recap again. Imma keep doing this because it is so easy to get lost. HANG IN THERE.

(1) Manipulator tries to rig search, does not succeed.

(2) Committee is formed but people are excluded via the Made Up Rules mechanism. That one is a classic that never fails!

(3) But then people are invited in for some unspecified level of participation.

(4) Then the process is suddenly brought to entire department for deliberation.

(5) But when The Manipulators sense opposition, there is suddenly the notion that even though the process is now with the whole department (some of whom have been involved to date and some who haven't) that maybe they should not ALL be allowed to vote.

So then we asked The Manipulators: ok, what is the procedure for deciding who will be allowed to vote?

Then, The Manipulator turns to another classic: co-opting DEI language and ideas to suit their needs.

They make the argument that their preferred candidate, who is white, could contribute to the department because of their experience on committees related to diversity issues. By the way, this is true, the person does have a lot of experience on their cv. Legit.

Then immediately and appropriately, a faculty-member-from-one-or-more-marginalized-groups points out that such expertise ALREADY EXISTS in the department, in multiple individuals whose ideas are constantly ignored or shot down.

The marginalized faculty members suggests that if the department wants to be active on DEI issues, they could take up some of those ideas, and even more importantly, they could begin by listening to faculty of color.

To keep things anonymous, I'm not going to report how the search process concluded.

At another moment in this particular department, the Powers That Be said that we need to NOT vote on things as a decision making mechanism so that we avoid "a tyranny of the majority."

This is probably the most honest and transparent thing that has been said in a department meeting, ever.

Finally, I want to make sure to center the right people. Who was hurt in the story above? Well for one, I think candidates in the search were hurt.

And additionally, I think that faculty members in the department who are minoritized in some way were harmed . As usual, they had to fight an uphill battle to participate and they had to do a ton of labor to try to make reasonable points which were, inevitably, ignored.

So remember kids. Before you begin your search, before you look at a single CV, decide EXACTLY what the search process will be and EXACTLY what the criteria are and EXACTLY who gets to decide, and how, and when. Now go to bed and shut up, grandpa needs a drink.

Tue, 01 Aug 2023 12:24:03 GMT