On parity and diversity hires
Oh how self-serving we all are, changing our staunch political beliefs at the drop of a hat (and this goes especially for Jews, liberal women, and the like). (Ignac got a Harvard interview. I won't be on the market for another year or two.) But seriously - I consider myself a) a woman, and b) a member of an ethnic (or racial, where I come from) minority. I have a fairly complex and conflicted view of affirmative action in general -- this includes one or two experiences of wondering if I really and truly deserved some honor or whether maybe, just maybe the awarding of it made me a token of "how open we are to minority viewpoints." I do subscribe to the methodology of "guided diversity" rather wholeheartedly, though. I believe it's every student's right to be exposed to the products and sensibilities of as many "cultures" as possible, within reason (e.g., I do not support hiring an obviously less qualified candidate over a white male simply because said candidate will "serve as a role model" or "bring us more in touch with the suffering of racial persecution"). I also believe it's healthy for a department to get infusions of "alternative" positionalities -- this usually entails an ethnic or sexual minority perspective, but should not be limited to these in my opinion, since a white/nonwhite male/female/transgender person who happens to lean to the right of the rest of a knee-jerk leftist department can be a valuable bonus to the school's intellectual climate. (This coming from a pretty knee-jerk leftist grad student.)
But back to my stubborn critique of certain lines of feminist values. I don't think women are uderrepresented in my field or in any of its related disciplines. In the grand scheme of things, this is a very recent development, but the fact that women are not disadvantaged in this particular area of academia is here to stay. Maybe I'm spoiled because I've been privileged to have my share of female mentors. Try as I might, however, I can't figure out what these mentors have done for me _as women_ that my male mentors haven't done or couldn't do. (Minority mentors may be another story, but even here I feel so fully supported by the advising I've received that I don't think a minority mentoring experience -- at least a generic one -- could have added much to my level of comfort or aspiration. That is NOT to say that I don't think minority mentors are valuable to many students -- at the earlier levels of schooling I think their presence is absolutely crucial.)
And now for my main point: I don't see what I "as a woman" could possibly have to add to a department. (So please don't ever hire me because I'm a woman. Actually, never mind, please hire me for whatever reasons you see fit. Feel free to stare at my breasts, as long as it requires no effort from me and you pay me enough to live on, with a teaching load that still allows for research and - gasp! - a life.) I can think of myriad fresh perspectives I could (and, I hope, already do, if I may be forgiven my lack of humility) bring to academia as a Gyppo-language-speaking Gyppo, espcially since Roma are the most underrepresented minority in American higher learning while being completely ignored by affirmative action programs. Interestingly, I can think of another set of intellectually provoking views to contribute based on my experience as a parent (which, at least in my case, are not dependent on my gender). But no one gives a shit about my parenthood - in fact, my advisors would rightfully smack me silly if they found out I ever mentioned so much as a toddler wipe in an interview. And let's just assume that no one, not even the most bleeding-heart, adoption-supporting, playground-design-loving faculty member at We Love Children College, will hire me over an equally qualified candidate because women with children have historically been disadvantaged on the academic job market. In fact, I often have to remind myself in a cloud of what-am-I-doing-among-these-insane-people disbelief that one of the primary reasons I'm raising two small offspring in the span of these three years or so is because I'm not "allowed" to have "empty space" on my CV after finishing my PhD. (Some completely demented part of me still hasn't given up hope that one day I will find a higher reasoning behind this besides "in the two years during which I wouldn't be affiliated with an institution of higher learning, I would miss so many state-of-the-art developments in my dinky humanities discipline that I couldn't responsibly continue to be employed in it.")
I know that my hypothetical wish to have the status of primary caretaker carry a similar weight to being a woman in the hiring process is unrealistic to say the least, and that countless people have had experiences that warrant the special consideration given (where it IS given) to female candidates. I just think there are glaringly irrational practices in many academic hiring protocols and the way deans handle them.
Discussion is welcome.
But back to my stubborn critique of certain lines of feminist values. I don't think women are uderrepresented in my field or in any of its related disciplines. In the grand scheme of things, this is a very recent development, but the fact that women are not disadvantaged in this particular area of academia is here to stay. Maybe I'm spoiled because I've been privileged to have my share of female mentors. Try as I might, however, I can't figure out what these mentors have done for me _as women_ that my male mentors haven't done or couldn't do. (Minority mentors may be another story, but even here I feel so fully supported by the advising I've received that I don't think a minority mentoring experience -- at least a generic one -- could have added much to my level of comfort or aspiration. That is NOT to say that I don't think minority mentors are valuable to many students -- at the earlier levels of schooling I think their presence is absolutely crucial.)
And now for my main point: I don't see what I "as a woman" could possibly have to add to a department. (So please don't ever hire me because I'm a woman. Actually, never mind, please hire me for whatever reasons you see fit. Feel free to stare at my breasts, as long as it requires no effort from me and you pay me enough to live on, with a teaching load that still allows for research and - gasp! - a life.) I can think of myriad fresh perspectives I could (and, I hope, already do, if I may be forgiven my lack of humility) bring to academia as a Gyppo-language-speaking Gyppo, espcially since Roma are the most underrepresented minority in American higher learning while being completely ignored by affirmative action programs. Interestingly, I can think of another set of intellectually provoking views to contribute based on my experience as a parent (which, at least in my case, are not dependent on my gender). But no one gives a shit about my parenthood - in fact, my advisors would rightfully smack me silly if they found out I ever mentioned so much as a toddler wipe in an interview. And let's just assume that no one, not even the most bleeding-heart, adoption-supporting, playground-design-loving faculty member at We Love Children College, will hire me over an equally qualified candidate because women with children have historically been disadvantaged on the academic job market. In fact, I often have to remind myself in a cloud of what-am-I-doing-among-these-insane-people disbelief that one of the primary reasons I'm raising two small offspring in the span of these three years or so is because I'm not "allowed" to have "empty space" on my CV after finishing my PhD. (Some completely demented part of me still hasn't given up hope that one day I will find a higher reasoning behind this besides "in the two years during which I wouldn't be affiliated with an institution of higher learning, I would miss so many state-of-the-art developments in my dinky humanities discipline that I couldn't responsibly continue to be employed in it.")
I know that my hypothetical wish to have the status of primary caretaker carry a similar weight to being a woman in the hiring process is unrealistic to say the least, and that countless people have had experiences that warrant the special consideration given (where it IS given) to female candidates. I just think there are glaringly irrational practices in many academic hiring protocols and the way deans handle them.
Discussion is welcome.