I worked in higher ed admin (yes, part of the bloat) for 25+ years before I retired. I wish I could say your story is unbelievable but, well, I have a few stories of my own. Three years before retirement a faculty member invited me to apply for a department position answering to the chair, i.e. a high-level slot with a number of responsibilities. I prepared packets for each member of the hiring committee containing a CV and a thick pile of recommendation letters including one from a state senator and a previous university president. A USB stick containing a slide deck of a proposed re-org for greater output with estimated cost savings. When I sat down before the committee they had only one question, which I can still remember: "What have you done to advance diversity and what are your plans to promote diversity in this department?" I looked at the committee, each member being white, and answered that I thought diversity was a worthy goal but did they have any questions concerning the tasks mentioned in the job posting or my materials? They did not. Interview concluded. They got up and left. A week or so later the faculty member asked if I had been interviewed yet. She was astounded when I said I had and a bit angry they had not communicated the outcome to her. The committee eventually hired a young woman right out of school who was wildly unqualified for the job.
I've been on a lot of search committees and all of this feels familiar, but this is an order of magnitude more appalling than anything we've ever done. Maybe STEM disciplines just don't attract as many terrorists?
Are you referring to the claim by Cato? If so it's wrong. When people examined the database they found it was riddled with mistakes and omissions that, when fixed, showed the left being far more violent than the right. For example:
And that is still a left-biased result because Cato started counting in 1975, an arbitrary date presumably chosen to exclude the wave of leftist terrorism shortly predating that time. It also ignores communist political violence elsewhere in the world.
I mean, the entire Weather Underground took over academia 50 years ago (after going completely unpunished for all of their terrorism). Why are we surprised?
As Jon McWhorter has frequently pointed out, a major effect of such DEI hiring is that it casts the shadow of suspicion as to the validity of all minority group staff. This is not anti-racism, it is racism - minorities need these (often white) saviour tactics like a hole in the head. Something they'd realise if they applied a bit of, ahem, academic rigour to the matter. But they did not, perhapas because the facts just get in the way of their moral posturing, and/or grifting.
Hah yes, there is that! However, I think that kind of racism (the stark assumption that black people cannot be good Drs, lawyers, etc) is old and aging (if not actually dead yet); whilst the accusation/suspicion of 'only there due to positive discrimination' is younger and growing. As McWhorter and others point out, most of the problem would go away if you simply gave affirmative action on a socio-economic class basis rather than a skin colour basis. As it is, we have a system that rates for Malia and Natasha as severely disadvantaged, and Cletus and Brandi as privileged.
Yeah, but we still faced the same kinds of questions. I was actually glad to learn that, when I was hired at university (with tenure, by the way, which rarely happens), they'd actually offered the job to a white man first (he and I were in slightly different aspects of the same field and the faculty had been divided which direction they wanted to go). But I could confidently say I didn't get the job because I was a woman, if it had been offered to a man first. Up till then, I'd heard the whispers questioning my competence (something that died out when I was hired with tenure, by the way).
Some comments saying that this is too much or too hard to believe. I don't find it hard to believe at all. I know a hiring committee in a STEM field - several very woke women and 1 meek male. They made it all about DEI. The original matrix for evaluating applicants-candidates was a certain percentage DEI but it was really the only thing. The search net was so wide - and research in the scientific field was soooo wide and generic, it opened itself to anyone and everyone in the field as a whole. It was an open secret the committee googled-social media-linkedin candidates to eliminate all white men and most white women. The finalists visited the campus - all intersectional minorities. The committee apparently told the candidates to avoid meeting with or talking to any of the men in the department. There was discussion as to why the most disadvantaged candidates should be chosen but they ended up going with a white woman - who of course claimed they-them and some other victim or oppressed status - and that angered the more extreme woke because she is white. There are other stories from other departments over the past few years about such hirings. So I can believe yours as it is very omnipresent and lurking around most universities and colleges.
Believe every sentence. Trust me, this level of shenanigans occur with equal levels of self delusion and smug stabby assholery in the private sector - the chief delineator being the grotesque levels of payment for uselessness.
The reason these people were willing to advocate so relentlessly for this candidate is because he's evil.
There are nuances, of course -- he's the right color, he has the right politics -- but the evil is what inspires their very real passion to go above and beyond.
You have so many stories that seem entirely unbelievable; however, if you work as faculty at a university, you know that these stories are accurate. It's all true.
One terrorist was stopped, after a long struggle, from teaching our children. In this one instance. Imagine how many have gotten through. Our education system has been CAPTURED.
This hasn't just been restricted to academia. This same scenario has been happening across the culture - in media and the arts, education and medicine, politics and the law - for at least the last 15 years. All the major institutions across the West have examples like this. These stories aren't aberrations, they are the unspoken new norm. This shouldn't be shocking to anyone paying attention.
Many. I agree you don't need to reveal the university because this is a near-universal story. I retired 15 years ago, before it got really insane, but the insanity was already setting in. What really bothered me was how condescending the white committee members were to minorities. This is, at best, only partly about elevating minorities. It is much more about making the white faculty members feel good about themselves. I had a conversation with a black scholar who had been derailed in his academic career by a university president who wanted to make him VP of diversity or something like that. He was still a junior faculty member so was he going to say no? Of course not. The president probably made the job sound like he could do real good for minorities, but when he got into the job, it turned out to have no power, no authority, and no funding. He was just a bauble on the administration's staff list and by the time he realized it, his academic cred had expired. I narrowly diverted a black colleague in my field from getting sucked into the same kind of decorative position. I told him in no uncertain terms that the ONLY reason the president was interested in him was because he was black and that he could make the (white) president look good. Fortunately, he heard me and has continued to make huge contributions in our science.
Now we all understand how someone with Claudine Gay's résumé wound up as president of Harvard.
My Lord. That is insane but believable.
I worked in higher ed admin (yes, part of the bloat) for 25+ years before I retired. I wish I could say your story is unbelievable but, well, I have a few stories of my own. Three years before retirement a faculty member invited me to apply for a department position answering to the chair, i.e. a high-level slot with a number of responsibilities. I prepared packets for each member of the hiring committee containing a CV and a thick pile of recommendation letters including one from a state senator and a previous university president. A USB stick containing a slide deck of a proposed re-org for greater output with estimated cost savings. When I sat down before the committee they had only one question, which I can still remember: "What have you done to advance diversity and what are your plans to promote diversity in this department?" I looked at the committee, each member being white, and answered that I thought diversity was a worthy goal but did they have any questions concerning the tasks mentioned in the job posting or my materials? They did not. Interview concluded. They got up and left. A week or so later the faculty member asked if I had been interviewed yet. She was astounded when I said I had and a bit angry they had not communicated the outcome to her. The committee eventually hired a young woman right out of school who was wildly unqualified for the job.
I've been on a lot of search committees and all of this feels familiar, but this is an order of magnitude more appalling than anything we've ever done. Maybe STEM disciplines just don't attract as many terrorists?
Terrorists often have engineering backgrounds. It's more that STEM doesn't attract leftists as much, and it's always the left that's violent.
The data shows that politically motivated violence is much more associated with the right than the left.
The real difference is that engineering departments are busy doing actual work, so they are motivated to care about engineering ability.
Are you referring to the claim by Cato? If so it's wrong. When people examined the database they found it was riddled with mistakes and omissions that, when fixed, showed the left being far more violent than the right. For example:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-174301047
And that is still a left-biased result because Cato started counting in 1975, an arbitrary date presumably chosen to exclude the wave of leftist terrorism shortly predating that time. It also ignores communist political violence elsewhere in the world.
Bull. Shit. Like the unite the right rally paid for by the splc?
Oh, they do. They do.
I have much sorrow for the state of what some call “higher education.” It no longer serves those “Higher” ideals. That phrase should be abandoned.
I mean, the entire Weather Underground took over academia 50 years ago (after going completely unpunished for all of their terrorism). Why are we surprised?
They're still there!
Another chapter in the story of why Americans have lost faith in higher education. Doesn’t sound like anyone learned anything from this mess either.
As Jon McWhorter has frequently pointed out, a major effect of such DEI hiring is that it casts the shadow of suspicion as to the validity of all minority group staff. This is not anti-racism, it is racism - minorities need these (often white) saviour tactics like a hole in the head. Something they'd realise if they applied a bit of, ahem, academic rigour to the matter. But they did not, perhapas because the facts just get in the way of their moral posturing, and/or grifting.
Well, luckily, once it is no longer, white people can go back to never questioning the merit/employment of black people like they used to. ;)
Hah yes, there is that! However, I think that kind of racism (the stark assumption that black people cannot be good Drs, lawyers, etc) is old and aging (if not actually dead yet); whilst the accusation/suspicion of 'only there due to positive discrimination' is younger and growing. As McWhorter and others point out, most of the problem would go away if you simply gave affirmative action on a socio-economic class basis rather than a skin colour basis. As it is, we have a system that rates for Malia and Natasha as severely disadvantaged, and Cletus and Brandi as privileged.
Sure it would go away. ;)
The biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white women.
Yeah, but we still faced the same kinds of questions. I was actually glad to learn that, when I was hired at university (with tenure, by the way, which rarely happens), they'd actually offered the job to a white man first (he and I were in slightly different aspects of the same field and the faculty had been divided which direction they wanted to go). But I could confidently say I didn't get the job because I was a woman, if it had been offered to a man first. Up till then, I'd heard the whispers questioning my competence (something that died out when I was hired with tenure, by the way).
No, nowhere near the same questions historically or currently.
Of course you can confidently say that ;)
Sure of little, but it makes more sense to me.
White women have excellent PR.
Actually, looking at AOC, it appears that PR women have even better PR.
Some comments saying that this is too much or too hard to believe. I don't find it hard to believe at all. I know a hiring committee in a STEM field - several very woke women and 1 meek male. They made it all about DEI. The original matrix for evaluating applicants-candidates was a certain percentage DEI but it was really the only thing. The search net was so wide - and research in the scientific field was soooo wide and generic, it opened itself to anyone and everyone in the field as a whole. It was an open secret the committee googled-social media-linkedin candidates to eliminate all white men and most white women. The finalists visited the campus - all intersectional minorities. The committee apparently told the candidates to avoid meeting with or talking to any of the men in the department. There was discussion as to why the most disadvantaged candidates should be chosen but they ended up going with a white woman - who of course claimed they-them and some other victim or oppressed status - and that angered the more extreme woke because she is white. There are other stories from other departments over the past few years about such hirings. So I can believe yours as it is very omnipresent and lurking around most universities and colleges.
Believe every sentence. Trust me, this level of shenanigans occur with equal levels of self delusion and smug stabby assholery in the private sector - the chief delineator being the grotesque levels of payment for uselessness.
The reason these people were willing to advocate so relentlessly for this candidate is because he's evil.
There are nuances, of course -- he's the right color, he has the right politics -- but the evil is what inspires their very real passion to go above and beyond.
You have so many stories that seem entirely unbelievable; however, if you work as faculty at a university, you know that these stories are accurate. It's all true.
Angela Davis has a chair at USC Santa Cruz.
!!!
One terrorist was stopped, after a long struggle, from teaching our children. In this one instance. Imagine how many have gotten through. Our education system has been CAPTURED.
This hasn't just been restricted to academia. This same scenario has been happening across the culture - in media and the arts, education and medicine, politics and the law - for at least the last 15 years. All the major institutions across the West have examples like this. These stories aren't aberrations, they are the unspoken new norm. This shouldn't be shocking to anyone paying attention.
Yeah, this is all top-down stuff.
Who (or Who’s Money) is the ultimate Director is what I want to know.
Why not disclose the the name of the university? Such a disclosure would strengthen your credibility.
I wish I had trouble finding it credible.
That's the thing — this university isn't unique. How many other universities have emails like these sitting on their servers right now?
Many. I agree you don't need to reveal the university because this is a near-universal story. I retired 15 years ago, before it got really insane, but the insanity was already setting in. What really bothered me was how condescending the white committee members were to minorities. This is, at best, only partly about elevating minorities. It is much more about making the white faculty members feel good about themselves. I had a conversation with a black scholar who had been derailed in his academic career by a university president who wanted to make him VP of diversity or something like that. He was still a junior faculty member so was he going to say no? Of course not. The president probably made the job sound like he could do real good for minorities, but when he got into the job, it turned out to have no power, no authority, and no funding. He was just a bauble on the administration's staff list and by the time he realized it, his academic cred had expired. I narrowly diverted a black colleague in my field from getting sucked into the same kind of decorative position. I told him in no uncertain terms that the ONLY reason the president was interested in him was because he was black and that he could make the (white) president look good. Fortunately, he heard me and has continued to make huge contributions in our science.
And get his house firebombed...