The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"U of Washington Faculty Search Weighed Race Inappropriately"
Friday's Inside Higher Ed (Ryan Quinn) article [UPDATE: link fixed] reported on this:
The hiring process for a University of Washington psychology professor position titled "Diversity in Development" initially ranked a white person No. 1 out of 84 applicants, the university says in a report released this week.
But psychology department faculty members then pressured one another until the third-ranked finalist, who was Black, was given this tenure-track assistant professor job, above the white and Asian finalists, the document states. It adds that it's unclear how candidates' racial identities were assigned. The assistant professor accepted the job in April of this year.
The investigation, which the university posted online Tuesday, concludes that "race was used as a substantial factor in the selection of the final candidate and the hiring process," violating a university executive order that bans considering race in hiring. Though the report itself doesn't conclude state law was violated, university spokesman Victor Balta noted in an email to Inside Higher Ed Thursday that Washington citizens, in 1998, passed a referendum banning affirmative action in public colleges and universities.
The university announced on its website that the psychology department is now "barred from conducting searches for tenured and tenure-track faculty positions" for at least two years, "subject to review by the Provost's Office." It also said the department will "undergo a comprehensive review and revision of its hiring processes," and all department members "will receive training on how to conduct searches consistent with law and policy."
"The University is taking personnel action to address individual actions," the institution stated. "These proceedings are confidential." …
For more, read the whole report; here's just one item, which the Inside Higher Ed story also discusses:
Each candidate's itinerary originally scheduled them to meet with the same groups, including a 30-minute joint meeting with the Faculty of Color and Women Faculty groups. The candidate itinerary describes the purpose of this meeting as "an opportunity for you to meet with faculty of color and women faculty in our department to discuss the department and university climate and anything else you may be interested in discussing."
After itineraries were sent, [redacted], a member of the Faculty of Color group, emailed [redacted] asking:
As a person who has been on both sides of the table for these meetings, I have really appreciated them. Buuut, when the candidate is White, it is just awkward. The last meeting was uncomfortable. and I would go as far as burdensome for me. Can we change the policy to not do these going forward with White faculty?
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Any firings? Then its just theater.
when they say that further proceedings are confidential, rest assured that there will be no consequences.
Any compensation for the [possibly] illegally rejected white candidate? Would this be subject to suit?
The link to the IHE article is broken.
Fixed, thanks!
This feels like a non-punishment. It's quite plausible they weren't expected to have any open positions during that period anyway. Absent forcing them to offer a position to the number 1 and 2 canidates this is basically saying: don't be so obvious next time.
[redacted] is a racist and should be fired.
Oh, hell yes. More training will fix this.
Here's a working link to the article:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/diversity-equity/2023/11/03/u-washington-faculty-search-weighed-race
Shocking absolutely nobody with greater than a refrigerator temperature IQ, academia is filled with outright racists. Maybe a $100 million grant is in order to confuse cause and effect on the relation between this and critical theory zealots filling the faculty/admin positions.
Every person who applied should file a discrimination lawsuit.
But realistically, every person who applies for any job or anything else at a university should sue for discrimination. University people routinely discriminate and many of them are self righteous narcissists who will have admitted it in communications that can be discovered.
Outrageous. But then, U of Washington being a public school, I'd shut it down altogether.
(I'd let private schools discriminate as much as they like. It would be just as outrageous, of course. But at least the taxpayers wouldn't be involved.)
Really?!?
Few "private" institutions could exist without Federal largess.
The Volokh Conspiracy: Official "Legal" Blog of White Grievance
There are ample places that emphasize your leftist concerns.
Right-leaning critique is not as common at the moment, so it makes sense that some scholars will focus more on such matters...
Scholars?
Polemicists are not often regarded as scholars, except perhaps by their target audience of believers.
These guys call themselves scholars a lot, though. It will probably continue after leaving academia for a paid political mouthpiece position.
The reaction of the Faculty of Color member should be exhibit A for why such a group and process should not exist in the first place. Yes, abolish it for white candidates - and for everyone else, too.
good point - though psychology degree is for all practical purposes a useless degree. What job skills are actually developed that used on the real world.
There are plenty of clinical psychologists and councilors in the world. Many actually help people.
Don - two separate subjects
A) there are quite a few good psychologist that provide benefits
B) at the same time, there is a big push at many universities to steer students into psychology. A reasonable estimate is that at least 50% and probably closer to 75% of students with psychology degrees never use the degree for any useful work or career purpose.
Don - just to clarify - my mistake for omitting the individuals that actually use the degree to become psychologists, etc., I wrote too fast lumping the large percentage of students that are pushed into the degree program by the school counsellors.
"Faculty of Color"
Racism on it face - - - - - - - -
I read the whole report. (Less the redactions, of course.) Yeah, that was pretty egregious. Some of the people involved seemed to realize that their acts were problematic, but many, shockingly, didn't. They just thought they could declare that a minority had to be hired or the process was illegitimate.
Maybe we as a country should cover basic aspects of civil rights law -- such as "race-based discrimination is illegal in employment, education and public-accomodation contexts" -- in high school, and encourage critical thinking in higher education. That might reduce the number of college professors who think "they could declare that a minority had to be hired or the process was illegitimate"!
Or maybe that's too hard.
My personal favorite quote from the report:
"“if we made a mistake and cancelled a FOC meeting for someone who later we learned might have benefitted/IDs as POC. on balance it's probably better than the holding it if the candidate IDs as white."
So it's better to deny the meeting to someone who it was specifically designed to benefit rather than risk the members having to talk to some icky white person.
Nothing about Trump's clown car testimony today -- what kind of lawyer would put Trump on the witness stand*? -- but plenty of this white grievance theater at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your partisan hackery and cowardice could carry anyone in modern America, that is.
* A member of Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force, of course. The kind of lawyer who ignores perjury risk and counterproductivity because of a professional conclusion that rambling lies and delusional belligerence could benefit the client. Also, the kind of lawyer who is actually willing to work for Trump these days.
It has been reported that Jeffrey Bossert Clark is still working for Trump, at least indirectly, by contributing to a preparations for ending the professionalism and political insulation at the Department of Justice. Anyone want to guess how much jail time that un-American asshole is going to get?
Hey, dumbass, it's a civil case in which the plaintiff — the NY AG — put Trump on the witness stand.
Trump's lawyers could have advised him to rely on the Fifth Amendment. That would have avoided perjury exposure or the prospect his ridiculous testimony might be used against him in other contexts (some criminal, with bigger stakes).
Adverse inferences? Was it likely any adverse inferences would be as harmful as or more harmful than Trump's belligerent conduct and delusional lies?
Did Trump help his cause with today's clownish, whiny, falsehood-laced performance?
Today's reports indicate the judge is likely to impose the same adverse inferences after today's testimony as he would have without that testimony.
It gets better. Trump's lawyer -- after a day of what was reported to be personal invective toward the judge and prosecutor, unhinged rants, grandiose and obvious lies, admonitions from the court, and pathetic whining -- was quoted as saying he had never had a client provide better testimony.
That ineffective assistance claim has been teed up deftly.
There is no such thing as an ineffective assistance claim in a civil case.
How were the perps punished ?
Perps.
LOL.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Mistakes were made" and Queenie :
...the evil, liberal, Marxist administration caught and punished them
is sniffing glue again.