University of Texas adopts Rooney Rule

[PhDeac]

A thorough search for an attractive position should yield high merit non-white candidates.

The Rooney Rule makes sure a search is thorough enough to include those high merit non-white candidates.

 

[HowardDeanSux]

Who should get the job if a white candidate has more merit than a high merit non- white candidate? Do you believe most searches in academia exclude non-white candidtaes?

 

[PhDeac]

Who should get the job if a white candidate has more merit than a high merit non- white candidate? Do you believe most searches in academia exclude non-white candidtaes?

The higher merit white candidate. Of course, as you well know, often the highest merit candidate gets multiple job offers so the job ends up going to a candidate further down the list.

I don't know about "most" searches.

A lack of non-white candidates is likely a symptom of some sort of problem that needs to be addressed. Either an institution isn't reaching out to a broad talent pool or the institution is only attractive to white candidates. Both are concerns.

Can you explain your problem with my two statements above?

A thorough search for an attractive position should yield high merit non-white candidates.

The Rooney Rule makes sure a search is thorough enough to include those high merit non-white candidates.

 

[HowardDeanSux]

A thorough search for an attractive position should yield high merit non-white candidates.

The Rooney Rule makes sure a search is thorough enough to include those high merit non-white candidates.

I would change your first statement to "high merit candidates". A thorough search should include all high merit candidates. I am unaware of the need for the Rooney Rule in academia. I certainly feel the best candidate should be hired apart from race. As you are in academia, do the percentage of graduate applicants and students reflect the racial diversity of the undergraduate populace at your university? If not, is this from lack of desire to obtain an advanced degree, desire/need of a job, or discrimination? When applying for a faculty position, did you feel you were at a disadvantage, an advantage or neither being a minority applicant?

 

[PhDeac]

"All high merit candidates" includes "high merit non-white candidates". Not sure what the difference is unless you believe non-white candidates are excluded from "all high merit candidates."

Since you do not believe a Rooney Rule is necessary in academia, in which industries do you believe it is necessary.

 

[awaken]

I thought the Rooney Rule only required non-whites be interviewed, not a quota hiring system?

 

[PhDeac]

Yes.

 

[simosfrostyone]

I thought the Rooney Rule only required non-whites be interviewed, not a quota hiring system?

If you go back at look at the original post you'll see minorities and women must make the final cut. And the tenor of what they say makes it pretty clear this is preferential hiring. That is what they want, and that is what they'll get.

 

[PhDeac]

Final cut does not equal hiring.

 

[simosfrostyone]

And saying they are using quotas doesn't make it so.

 

[jhmd2000]

Final cut does not equal hiring.

Right. For instance, conservatives in your neighborhood identity studies department occasionally slip through into the final cut, but are never actually hired. #diversity

 

[jhmd2000]

"All high merit candidates" includes "high merit non-white candidates". Not sure what the difference is unless you believe non-white candidates are excluded from "all high merit candidates."

Since you do not believe a Rooney Rule is necessary in academia, in which industries do you believe it is necessary.

Can we get a Rooney Rule for political ideology in academia? #diversity

 

[wakephan09]

Can we get a Rooney Rule for political ideology in academia? #diversity

I don't see a lot of conservatives lining up for academic jobs. While it isn't necessarily the meritocracy it claims to be, I'm pretty sure job interviews don't ask about a candidate's political affiliation before offering.

 

[PhDeac]

It's never come up in my experience. There are plenty of religious and/or conservative institutions that probably use a litmus test.

simos, what is your problem with the two statements I posted above?

If you don't think job candidates should only be white, why oppose a rule making sure that's not the case?

 

[jhmd2000]

It's never come up in my experience. There are plenty of religious and/or conservative institutions that probably use a litmus test.

simos, what is your problem with the two statements I posted above?

If you don't think job candidates should only be white, why oppose a rule making sure that's not the case?

I was going to wonder aloud if you would ever accept anything even close to that explanation in red from your counterparts, but you saved me the trouble by laughably concluding that everyone but your side does it. Disappointers never disappoint.

 

[simosfrostyone]

It's never come up in my experience. There are plenty of religious and/or conservative institutions that probably use a litmus test.

simos, what is your problem with the two statements I posted above?

If you don't think job candidates should only be white, why oppose a rule making sure that's not the case?

We seem to be talking past each other. I thought I had been clear: I don't believe in racial, religious, sexual preferences of any kind. You cannot remedy discrimination with discrimination. As an example, if ten people apply for a position and you are ready to cut the candidates to a final three, if one of them must be a woman or minority you have, ipso facto, excluded someone else because they do not fall into one of those two categories. I am fine with excluding that person if he/she is not among the best three candidates. And as I have already mentioned, this policy is also unconstitutional. If UT goes forward with it, it will be found to be such. The fact is academia, as well as corporate America in general, has been tying itself in knots for years to have diversity--that is racial and sexual diversity. (Academia is not interested in intellectual or political diversity.) UT can reach its holy grail without this overtly illegal policy. This is for show, but it is still ugly.

 

[jhmd2000]

We seem to be talking past each other. I thought I had been clear: I don't believe in racial, religious, sexual preferences of any kind. You cannot remedy discrimination with discrimination. As an example, if ten people apply for a position and you are ready to cut the candidates to a final three, if one of them must be a woman or minority you have, ipso facto, excluded someone else because they do not fall into one of those two categories. I am fine with excluding that person if he/she is not among the best three candidates. And as I have already mentioned, this policy is also unconstitutional. If UT goes forward with it, it will be found to be such. The fact is academia, as well as corporate America in general, has been tying itself in knots for years to have diversity--that is racial and sexual diversity. (Academia is not interested in intellectual or political diversity.) UT can reach its holy grail without this overtly illegal policy. This is for show, but it is still ugly.

This.

 

[PhDeac]

We seem to be talking past each other. I thought I had been clear: I don't believe in racial, religious, sexual preferences of any kind. You cannot remedy discrimination with discrimination. As an example, if ten people apply for a position and you are ready to cut the candidates to a final three, if one of them must be a woman or minority you have, ipso facto, excluded someone else because they do not fall into one of those two categories. I am fine with excluding that person if he/she is not among the best three candidates. And as I have already mentioned, this policy is also unconstitutional. If UT goes forward with it, it will be found to be such. The fact is academia, as well as corporate America in general, has been tying itself in knots for years to have diversity--that is racial and sexual diversity. (Academia is not interested in intellectual or political diversity.) UT can reach its holy grail without this overtly illegal policy. This is for show, but it is still ugly.

You seem to assuming that all searches include people of all backgrounds and automatically end with a small number of most qualified people who are disproportionately white males.

White men make up a minority of people in this society but a disproportionately high number of the people in power. Do you believe white men are disproportionately more qualified than white women and minorities?

 

[sailordeac]

You seem to assuming that all searches include people of all backgrounds and automatically end with a small number of most qualified people who are disproportionately white males.

White men make up a minority of people in this society but a disproportionately high number of the people in power. Do you believe white men are disproportionately more qualified than white women and minorities?

Just curious Ph, do you believe that liberals are disproportionately better qualified to teach the humanities on American college campuses?

 

[sailordeac]

We seem to be talking past each other. I thought I had been clear: I don't believe in racial, religious, sexual preferences of any kind. You cannot remedy discrimination with discrimination. As an example, if ten people apply for a position and you are ready to cut the candidates to a final three, if one of them must be a woman or minority you have, ipso facto, excluded someone else because they do not fall into one of those two categories. I am fine with excluding that person if he/she is not among the best three candidates. And as I have already mentioned, this policy is also unconstitutional. If UT goes forward with it, it will be found to be such. The fact is academia, as well as corporate America in general, has been tying itself in knots for years to have diversity--that is racial and sexual diversity. (Academia is not interested in intellectual or political diversity.) UT can reach its holy grail without this overtly illegal policy. This is for show, but it is still ugly.

Agreed. However, I do not find a problem with interviewing a "minority" - which can be defined in a number of ways - but I do find it a problem to exclude otherwise well-qualified candidates because they are not minorites, simply so that minorities can be included. This will sometimes mean that there will be more than "three" finalists.