Introduction
Defining Diversity
Diversity broadly refers to the vast array of salient, socially constructed, and value-laden identities across humankind, including, but not limited to, age, citizenship, class, color, disability, gender expression, national origin, race, religion, and sexual orientation. More specifically, throughout this document, diversity refers to historically oppressed and marginalized groups who are underrepresented in American higher education due to these larger forces.
Diversity = Institutional Excellence
A diverse faculty enhances the intellectual rigor of our scholarship and teaching, exposes students to a broader range of scholarly ideas and approaches, offers students various role models and mentors, and contributes directly to yielding better educational outcomes for all students. Importantly, prioritizing racial and ethnic diversity in hiring should not be viewed as contradictory or antithetical to hiring for academic excellence and institutional mission. On the contrary, these attributes are often complementary. A 2017 study reported that black faculty in predominantly white institutions were attracted to their university’s “innovative research opportunities, welcoming departments, and location in a racially diverse geographic area of the country.”
Confronting Myths
Nevertheless, search committees can be deterred by several unfounded myths regarding the alleged difficulties around generating a diverse slate of candidates—particularly the claims that higher education cannot compete with the corporate sector, that diverse faculty will seek more desirable positions upon obtaining tenure, or that recruiting diverse candidates amounts to so-called “reverse discrimination.” However, a 2004 study by Daryl Smith, Caroline S. Turner, Nana Osei- Kofi, and Sandra Richards found that minoritized candidates are not “sought after.” They are not entertaining multiple job offers, and their white male counterparts still get hired at a greater rate. Smith et al. found that out of 300 minority job candidates, only 33 were heavily recruited. Moreover, the study revealed that:
Scientists of color were often found in postdoctoral positions and were not being pursued for faculty positions.
Minoritized scholars expressed interest in various institutional settings despite a common myth that they are exclusively interested in well-known institutions.
Selecting an institution was often motivated by personal rather than financial incentives.
White-identified male scholars still enjoyed a consistent advantage in securing faculty positions.
Underrepresented scholars’ choice to leave academia usually stemmed from specific criticisms of academia rather than the financial temptations outside of higher education, reminding us that our work goes beyond recruitment. Our job also entails facilitating an environment where diverse faculty can be retained.
A more perplexing circumstance is the question of the pipeline. Although many academic and professional disciplines still need more prospective candidates, we increasingly see that various colleges and universities are succeeding in their diversification efforts. More than wealthy institutions experience this success. Indeed, in “Breakthrough Advances in Faculty Diversity,” the Education Advisory Board (EAB) notes that the highest performers are schools on the lower end of the spectrum of endowment dollars per student. Moreover, EAB’s analysis of Integrated Post-Secondary Education System (IPEDs) data indicates exceptional performers in every category—research universities with very high research activity, research universities with high research activity, Doctoral/Research Universities, and master’s Colleges and Universities. These findings indicate that diversifying our faculty is, in fact, possible, but to do so, we will have to interrupt our usual faculty hiring processes.
Redefining Fit
The word “fit is typically used in two ways in faculty hiring. One usage of fit refers to matching candidates to program and departmental needs. The other means “people like us.” Yet candidates who satisfy the first definition often do not meet the second because academic units require people with new backgrounds, original research areas, and innovative pedagogies to keep up with the changing needs of our student bodies.
Note
“It’s useful, therefore, for members of search committees to have a serious conversation about what they as a group mean by the word fit at the beginning of the process. This practice helps prevent institutions from eliminating candidates for reasons such as ‘she or he just won’t fit in here’ or ‘I just don’t see them as a good fit with the close-knit group we’ve developed in our department.’ When people make these remarks, they almost always do so with the best intentions. But if the assumptions behind them go unchallenged, pursuing the wrong kind of fit can undo all your other efforts to achieve diversity for your program.”
John Buller, Best Practices for Faculty Search Committees