Thread by @DavidDecosimo

On my first day at BU, a colleague took me to lunch & said: “Do you know what the real miracle of your hire is? You’re a white male. Do you know how much better than every other candidate you have to be to get hired here as a white man?" I couldn't believe he'd said it out loud.

At least 3 times, I've been *explicitly told by someone involved in a search* that my identity as a white male was disqualifying. In one BU search, student comments saying "Don't hire another white man!" were read aloud approvingly as part of the faculty hiring decision.

More recently, I was denied a key opportunity explicitly because it would upset the "gender balance." This sort of overt race & sex discrimination has been absolutely commonplace in academia for years now. But there is immense stigma & social pressure around not talking about it.

If you are subject to discrimination in hiring, tenure, or promotion because you are white or male or, worse, white and male - no matter how blatant & egregious - you know you are not supposed to say anything. That it's a bad look & will only damage your prospects still further.

As @a_n_a_berg so powerfully put it, it is an unforgivable sin in academia for a white man to "fail to embrace his own sacrifice as well justified, his own loss as the necessary unsettling of white male dominance."
He must "welcome the cleansing flame" that immolates his career.

I no longer care about the stigma, nor the views of those who impose it. Nothing will change unless people speak up & say, 'No, it's actually not okay to remove people from a search or hold them to a different, higher standard because they're white or, worse, white & male."

I have seen too many truly outstanding white males in my field denied opportunity after opportunity until they give up, despite being obviously & sometimes massively more learned & accomplished than those who get the job. Sometimes, the gap & the quality of the hire are shocking.

It's not uncommon for there to have to be a deal struck like the following, whether among faculty or between faculty & admin: "To be allowed to hire a white male, you have to also hire at least one, two, or even three minorities." More common is "you can hire a URM or no one."

There are still places that largely do *not* engage in discrimination in hiring. But it's rare enough that there's a phrase to describe their practice.
Folks will say, "They hire for excellence." Meaning, they hire on the basis of scholarly & pedagogical merit, not identity.

Is it not clear that this is bad for everyone? It's bad for those unjustly cut out of the field. But it's also bad for those whose hire involves a lie that their work is good. It's bad for those whose work is superb but who bear unjust stigma. It's bad for students & for mission.

I honestly do not know if academics are capable of leaving behind race & sex discrimination in hiring. It's been so deeply ingrained for so long & there are so many ways to keep doing it while pretending not to. And some would rather see the whole ship go down than give it up.

It's possible, of course, that attempted cures could be as destructive as the disease or serve as a pretext for equally illiberal, antimeritocratic projects. But things really are very, very bad on this front. Rigorous, fair federal prosecution in the courts seems the best hope.

For those who've gone along with the lies, bias, & games but don't want the ship to go down, it's time to end race- & sex-based discrimination in higher ed for good. Rejecting bias & hiring for excellence will not only help save our jobs, it'll make higher ed better for everyone.