In light of the recent discussion on here about academic affirmative action in faculty hiring (re: David Austin Walsh), it's time to move on from the question of "is it happening" (it is) and talk about "is it right/legal/etc." 1/
https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1795383999399129171
For example, in Nov. 2022, I asked our Dean at a faculty senate meeting what fraction of hires in the last 2-3 years were from FDAP (i.e. the Faculty Diversity Action Plan, our DEI hiring program, which has since been rebranded). His answer: over 90%. From the public minutes: 2/ 
The new program, whose intent is somewhat better masked, is called Critical Needs Hires. Interestingly, the public Nov. 15 faculty senate minutes seem to have been since removed from the website: 3/ colorado.edu/asfacultystaff…
Exhibit B: In Canada, unlike the US, this stuff is clearly legal, so it is often done explicitly. I had noticed that since 2020 most Canada Research Chair positions advertised race and gender restrictions in who could apply. This year, I was curious and decided to track. 4/
From July 1 to Dec 31, I found 71 CRC searches. 39 of these (55%) explicitly barred straight white men (and often other groups too) from applying. 5/
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
As @mattyglesias pointed out, universities are trying to solve (or avoid acknowledging) a simple math problem. Aging faculty + slow turnover = slow diversification. 7/
E.g. suppose you had 40 faculty in a unit that got to hire ever 3 years, and currently had 25 white guys. If you set a goal of only having 15 white guys (most would say not that ambitious), it would still take 30 years with a policy of no white-male hires and only WM retirees. 8/
IME, admins aren't willing to face that problem & say to activist students that it will take a really long time, or admit they are putting a thumb on the scale, or that putting a thumb on the scale (in the US) might be illegal. So ppl twist themselves in knots of dissonance. 9/
BTW, I've hesitated for a long time before posting those minutes above. I <3 CU and don't think CU is unusual in what has been going on, and so I didn't and don't want CU to be unfairly singled out. (I also tried to raise this for years through proper internal channels.) 10/
I have seen this at every school I've been at over the past 10 years. I was told in 3/7 faculty interviews in 2017-2018 that my demographics were disqualifying for at least some SC members. 11/
But I'm sharing now it because it's annoying that we're still stuck on the "is it real?" conversation when we should be having the "is it right? Is it legal?" conversation. 12/
My personal answers would be "no" and "I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess no (Title VI & VII)", but there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides. IME those denying it's real most loudly on X also argue vociferously for it behind the scenes. Make your case publicly! 13/
The other reason I am sharing this now is that, as a mentor to WM trainees, I am tired of the gaslighting. There isn't a single faculty member at a major college that hasn't seen this/been aware of this, especially since 2020. If it's right, defend it. If it's not, stop. 14/END
BTW, someone (HT @rwlesq) alerted me to the fact that the Bloomberg study has been criticized for its methodology. (The rest of the thread stands though.) dailywire.com/news/bloomberg…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
