Thread by @NeedhiBhalla

Mary Blair Loy discussing job talks as consequential rituals that illustrate the "schema of scientific excellence" and departmental climate that can affect the response to gender of the speaker #AFDSymposium 👏🏽👏🏽

Men more likely to receive highly positive intros, referencing research brilliance, excellence and awards. Women more likely to get "irrelevancies," which implies that there is not much to say about their professional accomplishments, and sometimes included inappropriate comments

Everybody shaking their heads in the zoom 😭😫

makes the great point that this demonstrates we are ALREADY overestimating some types of research and underestimating other, a concern brought up by some faculty in response to the push for more equity in faculty hiring and retention

also mentions that women speakers are more likely to get interrupted during their talks, which they interpret as a phenomenon called "prove it again." If more women in dept and/or faculty receive training, these interruptions decrease.

It's interesting. We tend to interrupt during our seminar series, which we take as a signal of engagement, as Susan Strome pointed out in the Q&A

However, IMO and Blair Loy emphasizes that there is an important distinction between that and problematic interruptions, often followed by add'l questions, that can derail the talk and not allow the speaker to finish

Blair-Loy points out that having a senior faculty member moderate the talk and limit interruptions to ensure that the speaker can finish can be an important intervention

Now Rebecca Heald talking about the Life Sciences cluster hire. Initial plan:
targeted outreach
established database to identify promising post-docs, less of a focus now
symposium to encourage promising post-docs to apply, but didn't have enough time before search

Most successful factor: breadth of search 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

Focused on improving candidate evaluation:
training workshops to calibrate assessment of diversity statement using rubric, which was super imp
didn't put them all on the same page about how to assess statements but made them aware of differences

(Based on my experience, I'd argue that it might reinforce individual consistency, even if not across individuals on committee)

made major modifications to interview process, including having candidates discuss contributions to equity in chalk talk

success depends on buy-in from depts and agreement to use same criteria for all searches across depts

894 applicants
214 passed initial assessment of redacted diversity statements, assessed by at least 3 search members
distributed to diff depts, MCB got almost half
assessment on research (using a rubric) and diversity statement
1 dept dropped out bc not enough applicants

22 candidates interviewed and these are enriched with those historical marginalized from faculty positions

report and data here: ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/…

support for faculty hires includes:
networking with funding for projects
UCOP funds to give teaching relief to work on specific projects
similar expectations for equity work for well-represented faculty
provide mentoring and programs, such as leadership training

Key factors for success:
breadth of search
collaboration and support across depts and with campus leaders
modifications to search practices
involving trainees in the decision-making process

problematic:
administrative burden of redacting diversity statements (performed by staff)
avoiding diversity hire language + stigma, particularly during interview
insecurity about faculty and leadership buy-in, alleviated by success of search

Moving forward:
improve outreach
specify length of diversity statement
what is the time scale of institutional change? how do we properly assess contributions to equity and inconsistency across campus

(I'd also argue that retention is a concern moving forward)

Doug Kellogg asks the important question about how to avoid bias in who received offers even with an initially diverse candidate list. This was a major issue in our search and I only found out recently that reinforcement from administrative leadership was necessary

Juan Poblete brings up imp question about why Berkeley used redacted diversity statements as 1st assessment and now recs assessing diversity statements *along* with research statements. Heald posits that heightened awareness may improve assessment now and points to admin burden

Valentine Greco raises how training should happen periodically and perhaps shift to identifying group values instead of individual training

IMO a major issue with this symposium, and many of these discussions, is the absence of marginalized faculty and faculty candidates experiences with the climate at these institutions and search processes. Exit interviews, which have significant caveats, may be one approach

Now a panel of the chairs of the on campus searches:
Beth Stephens
Doug Kellogg
Matt Sparke
Noah Wardrip-Fruin

shout out to Leslie Marple, an administrator who was so helpful in carrying out these searches

UCSC's cluster hire:
330 applicants
110 passed first assessment of redacted diversity statements
passed to focus area committee, which id'd 24 candidates for interviews
symposium style interview with chalk talks that included DEI contributions

major challenge of search: not all focus committees recognized importance of equity in assessment of applicants
some were responsive and some were...not

lessons learned:
id of allies AND those who did not understand importance of equity
difficult conversations occurred with refining of language
essential to emphasize that equity needs to be emphasized AT ALL STAGES of assessment
oversight and leadership above depts was essential

evaluating diversity statements acts as an imp proxy for add'l leadership skills and those that think beyond research and be good faculty
traditional dept structures can act as a barrier to addressing equity ("clubbiness" and dept'l norms or schema)

Matt Sparke points out that diversity statements DON'T act as ideological documents, as critics often suggest

(IMO, these criticisms say more about the critics than the realities of these statements)

support for interview process:
diversity liaison work
involvement of undergrads and grads
chalk talks useful for assessment

excited about synergies and opportunity for community for these candidates

Noah Wardrip-Fruin emphasizes importance of outreach. Reached out to senior faculty for opportunity to speak at UCSC and used this as opportunity to educate them about UCSC and plans and expand networks. Successfully recruited senior faculty who contributes to diversity.

lessons:
opportunity to discuss this approach with faculty in faculty meeting resulted in important conversations about equity

difficult to get busy faculty to commit to meeting