|
Post by sanity on Feb 13, 2010 14:46:03 GMT -5
^^ Just because AA isn't effective at achieving its goals doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. This seems pretty basic. I should clarify that ceteris paribus, minority candidates are probably still at a net disadvantage on the job market. But there are cases, often when you have two or three solid candidates, where being a minority or a woman helps. And again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing!
|
|
|
Post by gugol on Feb 13, 2010 15:07:23 GMT -5
^^ Just because AA isn't effective at achieving its goals doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. This seems pretty basic. I should clarify that ceteris paribus, minority candidates are probably still at a net disadvantage on the job market. But there are cases, often when you have two or three solid candidates, where being a minority or a woman helps. And again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing! No one denied that AA exists. But if minority candidates are still at a net disadvantage in the market, the post you claimed was "partially true" was in fact not true at all, given that it was not about the use of diversity as a tie breaker, but about how supposedly unqualified candidates became superstars on account of diversity hires.
|
|
|
Post by ditto on Feb 13, 2010 15:47:46 GMT -5
Exactly what gugol said. "[T]here are cases, often when you have two or three solid candidates, where being a minority or a woman helps" wasn't the original poster's claim at all.
|
|
|
Post by ohplease on Feb 13, 2010 18:02:04 GMT -5
"Employment chances in the academic job market in sociology: do race and gender matter?"
"A study investigated a sample of recruits in the field of sociology in 1991-1992."
This 20-year-old "evidence" is just that, twenty years old. Times have changed quite dramatically, particularly in social sciences, but you're sociologists so you already know that, right? That's the problem: most old-school sociologists are stuck in the past and mired in white guilt. Blame whitey for all the woes of the world. (As if white sociologists are the real problem, uh huh, yeah.) This is actually just another form of racism, but as usual sociologists are some of the least self-reflective people on the planet. Equal opportunity means just that, equal. But in the Orwellian world of sociology, some are more equal than others. Fact.
|
|
|
Post by sadly no on Feb 13, 2010 21:54:53 GMT -5
It may be 20 year old evidence, but it's still better evidence than simply claiming "times have changed" without presenting anything to support the claim. The eleven most recent people hired at my department have all been white, and the slight majority have been men. This is anecdotal evidence, but again still more evidence than you provided, and doesn't suggest "times have changed" all that dramatically.
It's not just in the "Orwellian world of sociology" that "some are more equal than others." Fact. If you want to debate affirmative action's merits (or lack thereof) as a method of counterbalancing inequality in opportunities, fine.
|
|
|
Post by anon52 on Feb 13, 2010 22:21:20 GMT -5
It may be 20 year old evidence, but it's still better evidence than simply claiming "times have changed" without presenting anything to support the claim. 20 years ago I used a pager. Just sayin'. Here's what I disagree with: 1) that meritocracy is real. hahaha 2) that the minorities, where hired, were demonstrably worse choices than other candidates. 3) that the hiring system is fair or adequate. Remember, those quasi-objective standards y'all exalt in separating superstars from...erm, opening acts I suppose...don't mean squat when your application packet is given little more than a cursory glance before it gets pitched off before the long list is decided upon. Here's what I agree with: 1) We're all big kids, grown up in various ways, learned in some ways that we think make us unique and objectively more qualified to hire than others. The pedigree of our university, the depth of our dissertation, the bs we've crammed into fifteen tables of structural equation models. We think we're special, yet we often fail to recognize that we're competing with each other - other pedigreed, published, conference-goin' folks. So we weigh ourselves according to characteristics that are largely redundant at this stage. 2) So you made the short list, you got a phone call, you think you're going to get a job interview. But you don't. Guess what. Maybe it's because you're not good enough, maybe it's because someone else is just better, maybe it's because it was snowy and one of the faculty members on the hiring committee wasn't able to make it onto campus and had to deliberate over your fate on the phone, spilled coffee on their lap, and got fed up with the whole thing. In short, the idea that you're *entitled* to one of these jobs or one of these positions is sickening narcissism that you can't objectively quantify. It's not the worst sort of narcissism - that's for the person who thinks they were so much better than the person who was hired that they naturally cling to their whiteness or maleness as a means of rationalizing their victimization. 3) What the first two distill into a decision, into a short list, any number of factors come into play. Are you arrogant and combative? Are you a filthy hippie whose dreadlocks reek of patchouli and dirt? Are you an overly defensive person who responds to criticism without ever acknowledging the validity of those complaints, instead responding in a defensive and reflexive job talk? Maybe. But by the time there's a short list, ain't a whole helluva lot separating the candidates, is there? 4) So, if we acknowledge that there's not a lot of disparity amongst candidates by the time interviews and offers come 'round, how repulsively full of yourself must you be to claim that patterned disparity hurts your *entitlement* to a job such that departments will, time and time again, hire someone unqualified compared to you because they are at least one of neither white nor male. Get the f*ck over yourself. **I say this as a white male on the job market currently. I ain't a superstar, I don't know where my college ranks (ain't top 10), I have one very recent solo-authored pub (in an okay journal, I think) and a handful in the pipeline (read: under review, darlins, not R&Rs). Of all the places I've applied to (maybe 25-30 academic positions), I've had multiple phone interviews and two on-campus interviews thus far. I was *devastated* a few weeks back when I got a hire confirmation from the place I ***really*** wanted to go - great city, my skills/work fit the job description snugger than a Fred Perry polo, and I got a phone call from them asking if I was available for an on-campus interview. As it turns out, that was the last I heard from them (trust me, I sure as hell didn't say I wasn't available ). You know what? I hope they made a helluva pick. I bet they did. Not because I'm great, but because they settled on someone. Don't know their name nor their face now, and if it turns out that they're not as pasty white or male as I am, f*ck it. That's who the university wanted to hire based on all the bullsh*t we all have gone through. That hire deserves that position, and I'd be degrading myself and my own skills to think they're not worth the scratch the school is paying them. They were hired for what they brought, not for who they are and I'm not. And suppose being neither white nor male helped an already highly-qualified person get a job over you? Don't like it? Get out of academia. As a sociologist, you should know that the world is the white males' oyster, and you got hegemonic capital to spend, my friend. Take your bitterness elsewhere, because this white dude ain't interested in hearing your pity party.
|
|
|
Post by W on Feb 13, 2010 23:26:34 GMT -5
I would note that, even if hiring *is* biased, there's a pretty good correction in the tenure system. There are a number of departments where an individual will not get tenure if they don't meet requirements, and 'senior hires' tend to be people who have a teaching and research portfolio commensurate with the institution they are hired at.
I know a number of white males [not to mention minorities and women] who took jobs at a lower ranked institutions, then moved to higher ranked institutions [say, from an R2 to an R1]. Good pubs and grants are needed by departments, and go a long way towards correcting 'biases' in hiring.
|
|
|
Post by hmmm on Feb 14, 2010 9:09:54 GMT -5
Why does anyone with a PhD require affirmative action? Isn't that sort of missing the point?
|
|
|
Post by rly on Feb 14, 2010 15:17:11 GMT -5
No, but it kind of sounds like you have.
|
|
|
Post by hmmmm on Feb 14, 2010 15:59:49 GMT -5
^^^ Ooooh, burn!
Actually, it's simple: I don't think a person's skin color should impact their chances at getting or not getting job x. I believe in equality, which means equal for ALL. Period. That's because I'm not racist. Guess I'm in the minority on that one, no pun intended.
Anyway, I give up. You win. I knew this would instantly devolve into name calling, cries of racism, truckloads of misplaced white guilt, and telling me to get out of academia if I don't like it. (We've heard that one before -- "Yawl don't like America, yawl can just move to France!" Nice. I think there's a tea party waiting for your arrival.) Who got hired and where isn't that big of a secret or hard to figure out with a bit of digging. And the simple fact remains that there are candidates who got R1 jobs with zero solo pubs and minimal teaching experience. That's not an opinion or a pity party or sour grapes, that's a fact that you can verify for yourselves. If you think that's equal just because of a person's skin color, then you, my friend, are either a flat-out a racist, or have so much white guilt that you can't see that equality should apply to all. That's kind of what equality means.
|
|
|
Post by yep on Feb 14, 2010 17:43:58 GMT -5
Amen, Anon52.
|
|
|
Post by hahaha on Feb 14, 2010 19:11:09 GMT -5
Whining about name calling and cries of racism while in the same breath calling people racists. The trolls on this board really are the best.
|
|
|
Post by fleabag on Feb 14, 2010 21:08:31 GMT -5
Where's all the love? Who the hell cares if someone gets a slight advantage in the market because they are a diversity candidate. Yes, I have seen white folks not get jobs because they were not a diversity candidate. It happens. But I have seen far more minorities get jobs simply because they weren't white. Most sociology departments could use some diversity. In fact, show me a department that doesn't need a little diversity and then maybe we can say that being a diversity candidate shouldn't matter. Otherwise, shut the f*&* up and get back to work instead of complaining about minorities taking all your jobs.
|
|
|
Post by fleabag2 on Feb 14, 2010 21:10:06 GMT -5
Ooops, that last post didn't come out right. I meant "NOT get jobs."
-----
Where's all the love? Who the hell cares if someone gets a slight advantage in the market because they are a diversity candidate. Yes, I have seen white folks not get jobs because they were not a diversity candidate. It happens. But I have seen far more minorities NOT get jobs simply because they weren't white. Most sociology departments could use some diversity. In fact, show me a department that doesn't need a little diversity and then maybe we can say that being a diversity candidate shouldn't matter. Otherwise, shut the f*&* up and get back to work instead of complaining about minorities taking all your jobs.
|
|
|
Post by Quiet on Feb 15, 2010 0:03:47 GMT -5
Can you all just be quiet and just go watch the Olympics or something?
|
|