Miscreants Out Themselves

What our colleagues decry, they often make needful.

Amid his monologue in the meeting of the full faculty held 6 April 2010, a colleague professed concern about the second duty proposed for the Faculty Senate's Committee on Diversity. He claimed that many colleagues or departments would object to the Diversity Committee's participation "... in the development of initiatives that enable the university to hire new faculty from historically under-represented populations and to support better the retention and success of such faculty."

Yes, at the University of Puget Clowns [© Susan Resneck Pierce] such a provision passes for audacity.

I suppose he was correct. Many colleagues would object to hiring from under-represented populations and supporting new faculty. After all, what we have done so far has worked so well! Do we have to keep priming the pump? And, of course, catering to social Luddites is the way to plan for the future.

That the speaker hailed from a department infamous for its shortcomings in hiring and support should have surprised no long-time observer. After all, faculty who object to scrutiny or assistance almost always come from departments, programs, or schools that should be scrutinized and assisted most.

To assist the objector and his department, I offer infra some generalizations about diversity at the University of Puget Clowns [© Susan Resneck Pierce].


The more a department opposes scrutiny of any kind [not just diversity], the more that department should be scrutinized.

The more strenuously a department refuses assistance, the more that department needs assistance.

Departments, programs, or schools should have nothing to hide from colleagues or administrators. Indeed, competent departments, like competent scholars, welcome comments and criticisms because that is how competent scholars and competent departments perform their best. In evaluation of students or of peers, confident professionals welcome additional pairs of eyes because "outsiders" may catch errors or misjudgments that insiders missed.

In hiring as in scholarship, if you fear error or injustice more than criticism or questioning, you seek the opinions of other professionals. Referees for journals or publishers do not know as much about my data or topics as I do, yet they manage to alert me to missteps and misphrasings. Go figure!

When departments, programs, or schools hide from scrutiny or supervision, they invite us all to ask what they are hiding. If recruitment is on the up and up, why dodge review? If you believe you did your work well, why not have someone check that work? If candidates from chronically under-represented groups tend not to make the cut in your searches for good reasons, why not share those good reasons with others?

Experienced Puget Clowns faculty know that these questions answer themselves. Recruitment all too often is not on the up and up; the work was done sloppily or deviously; the reasons, far from good, would be unacceptable if known.

------------------------

By the way: Ever notice how perverse arguments and arguers become whenever diversity issues arise?

This colleague argues that BHERT [Bias-Hate Emergency Reaction Team] or something like it is utterly necessary. In the course of her argument, she makes it plain that she should never serve on BHERT because she is overzealous, self-righteous, and dopey.

After the meeting, another colleague argues that the meeting revealed the zealotry that makes diversity programs so dangerous. In making his argument, however, he reveals the atavism that makes diversity programs so necessary.

Am I the only one who notices these things?