Affirmative Action and Hiring in a University

[mfbf]

I have no problem with a college doing a search and trying to incorporate minorities into the department assuming the qualifications are the same. Here is my dilema. I was hired two years ago as a visiting lecturer and have done a lot over the two years getting the class back up to a high standard. The department was in danger of students transferring during their Junior year to different colleges before I came. Now they are hiring a tenure track position and I (white male) am up against two minority applicants. My question is it is fair for them to hire me for two years and do the work of a tenure track employee with the promise of being hired and now when it is time, I am in danger of not getting the position because of factors not under my control? I feel that the person most qualified should get the position, but if two candidates are similarly qualified, should the decision come down to race?

Cliffs
1. Worked two years in place of a TT position
2. Hiring for the position but am up against two minority applicants
3. Fair if I don't get hired based on race and not qualifications?

 

[wvtalbot]

Originally posted by: mfbf
I have no problem with a college doing a search and trying to incorporate minorities into the department assuming the qualifications are the same. Here is my dilema. I was hired two years ago as a visiting lecturer and have done a lot over the two years getting the class back up to a high standard. The department was in danger of students transferring during their Junior year to different colleges before I came. Now they are hiring a tenure track position and I (white male) am up against two minority applicants. My question is it is fair for them to higher me for two years and do the work of a tenure track employee with the promise of being hired and now when it is time, I am in danger of not getting the position because of factors not under my control?

Cliffs
1. worked two years in place of a TT position
2. Hiring for the position but am up against two minority applicants
3. Fair if I don't get hired?

My question is should they hire you when you don't know the difference between the words
"hire" and "higher".

 

[tfinch2]

The person most qualified to get the position should. Students are paying customers and they should get the best teaching available, regardless of race.

 

[GeneValgene]

depends on who is more qualified

if you are denied based on race, then that is unfair. but there is not enough information to make a judgement.

 

[JS80]

Yes it's fair because you can't spell "hire"

 

[Ryan]

Why wouldn't it be fair? Under AA, your race will only become a factor if the other applicants are EQUALLY as qualified for the position as you are. If they aren't qualified, they will not get hired, you will get the job.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: mfbf
I have no problem with a college doing a search and trying to incorporate minorities into the department assuming the qualifications are the same. Here is my dilema. I was hired two years ago as a visiting lecturer and have done a lot over the two years getting the class back up to a high standard. The department was in danger of students transferring during their Junior year to different colleges before I came. Now they are hiring a tenure track position and I (white male) am up against two minority applicants. My question is it is fair for them to higher me for two years and do the work of a tenure track employee with the promise of being hired and now when it is time, I am in danger of not getting the position because of factors not under my control?

Cliffs
1. worked two years in place of a TT position
2. Hiring for the position but am up against two minority applicants
3. Fair if I don't get hired?

My question is should they hire you when you don't know the difference between the words
"hire" and "higher".

Nevermind, I see the typo...

 

[Linflas]

Discriminating to correct past discrimination is never right in my opinion.

 

[spidey07]

No. Racism is bad.

affirmative action = racism.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Ryan
Why wouldn't it be fair? Under AA, your race will only become a factor if the other applicants are EQUALLY as qualified for the position as you are. If they aren't qualified, they will not get hired, you will get the job.

Gullible much?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Ryan
Why wouldn't it be fair? Under AA, your race will only become a factor if the other applicants are EQUALLY as qualified for the position as you are. If they aren't qualified, they will not get hired, you will get the job.

Gullible much?

Wear a tin-hat often?

 

[QED]

No, it's not fair... but you work for a university, and most universities treat this practice as a virtue.

This reminds me of an experience I had a few years ago. I had put in for a position at a pretty prestigious university and went through the whole review and interview process.

I was told frankly by the head of the department that I was the only qualified person they had interviewed for the position in the few months it had been open, but they wouldn't be able to render a decision for at least another few months. He wouldn't clarify why.

I finally pressed the representative from human resources as to why, and she said their policy is to not fill a position until they have interviewed at least 1 qualified minority candidate and 1 qualifed female candidate for the position. Only if the position goes unfilled for a full 9 months without such an application can a waiver be made to allow the position to be filled with those who did apply.

I ended up declining the position as I did not care for this sort of policy, and did not care to put my life on hold while the university waited for other candidated to apply.

 

[wvtalbot]

It all goes back to the old baseball analogy. You have two guys who can run to first in the same amount of time, one has good form, one has bad form. You keep the guy with bad form and teach him good form he will be faster. And fact is an equally qualified minority has definitly worked much harder to put themselves in that position.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
It all goes back to the old baseball analogy. You have two guys who can run to first in the same amount of time, one has good form, one has bad form. You keep the guy with bad form and teach him good form he will be faster. And fact is an equally qualified minority has definitly worked much harder to put themselves in that position.

O RLY?

So who had to work harder to rise their current state? Bill Clinton, or Jesse Jackson, Jr.?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: mfbf
I have no problem with a college doing a search and trying to incorporate minorities into the department assuming the qualifications are the same. Here is my dilema. I was hired two years ago as a visiting lecturer and have done a lot over the two years getting the class back up to a high standard. The department was in danger of students transferring during their Junior year to different colleges before I came. Now they are hiring a tenure track position and I (white male) am up against two minority applicants. My question is it is fair for them to higher me for two years and do the work of a tenure track employee with the promise of being hired and now when it is time, I am in danger of not getting the position because of factors not under my control?

Cliffs
1. worked two years in place of a TT position
2. Hiring for the position but am up against two minority applicants
3. Fair if I don't get hired?

Why is the race of the two people you are up against matter? If you are as good as you claim to be why did they not just hire you? Maybe your not as good as you say you are. Also if it was about race, why did they let you, a white male, teach for 2 years?

 

[George P Burdell]

Affirmative action belongs to P&N.

/lock

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: JS80
Yes it's fair because you can't spell "hire"

 

[Dubb]

Affirmative action is one of those sticky issues with no solution that is entirely fair for everyone involved. If there was one, people wouldn't still be arguing about it.

what I think is important is for people to drop the bitter anger and start talking about it like adults instead of little kids. (both sides are guilty of this)

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: Dubb
Affirmative action is one of those sticky issues with no solution that is entirely fair for everyone involved. If there was one, people wouldn't still be arguing about it.

what I think is important is for people to drop the bitter anger and start talking about it like adults instead of little kids. (both sides are guilty of this)

No offense... but that was about as useful as Rodney King's plea "Can't we all just get along?"

 

[Scarpozzi]

As long as they like you, you should be the obvious choice. Unless they just want to get new blood in, you'll probably get it. The real trick these days....universities are trying to be more diverse because for the first time many african american and hispanic students are starting to trickle in as their parents never had the opportunity. Because of this, the Universities are actively trying to hire more faculty to make them feel comfortable and want to attend.

I know that's not exactly fair, but the best thing to do is make sure no one has any problems with you and speak with your supervisor to make it clear how much the position means to you. If you put a little pressure on them, they may cave and give it to you or find a better position in the near future. The university I work for puts all candidates through a panel interview and it's a pain to get hired. Good luck with it anyhow,

-Scar

 

[dullard]

1) I noticed you mentioned nothing about qualifications.

2) Tenure is 100% about NOT being fair. It means job for life if you are good or a bad professor. Those who will do a better job for less pay are shut out since some useless blob is still on the faculty. If you want the tenure benefits, you better be willing to pay the tenure price.

<- Staying out of academics. Furthest I went was part time post-doc.

 

[Kanalua]

I think the reality is that in today's market, monority is a factor. In some places it hurts (White guy in Hawai`i), some places it helps (White guy in Alabama)...

 

[mfbf]

Corrected for the spelling/grammer police

 

[mfbf]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: mfbf
I have no problem with a college doing a search and trying to incorporate minorities into the department assuming the qualifications are the same. Here is my dilema. I was hired two years ago as a visiting lecturer and have done a lot over the two years getting the class back up to a high standard. The department was in danger of students transferring during their Junior year to different colleges before I came. Now they are hiring a tenure track position and I (white male) am up against two minority applicants. My question is it is fair for them to higher me for two years and do the work of a tenure track employee with the promise of being hired and now when it is time, I am in danger of not getting the position because of factors not under my control?

Cliffs
1. worked two years in place of a TT position
2. Hiring for the position but am up against two minority applicants
3. Fair if I don't get hired?

Why is the race of the two people you are up against matter? If you are as good as you claim to be why did they not just hire you? Maybe your not as good as you say you are. Also if it was about race, why did they let you, a white male, teach for 2 years?

It is a state university and they are required to do a national search and have to interview. It doesn't work like a company where they can just hire you. I also taught for two years because they did not have the funding until now to hire a TT position. This is standard university policy.

As for qualifications, I regularly get 95+% approval ratings from my students in all my classes. The comments also say that I am a very effective teacher for a very difficult subject for most students. I also have a quality education and research skills behind me.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
It all goes back to the old baseball analogy. You have two guys who can run to first in the same amount of time, one has good form, one has bad form. You keep the guy with bad form and teach him good form he will be faster. And fact is an equally qualified minority has definitly worked much harder to put themselves in that position.

Really? So the rich black or latino worked as hard as the trailer poor white kid?