Implications of the Supreme Court decisions v. Michigan on Faculty Searches.

By Tod Treat

January 2004

 

As the search process at our institution commences, we are caught in a conundrum. A long standing resolution by our Board of Trustees calls for diversification of faculty and staff that has not occurred to the extent desired. At the same time, institutional culture demands (and rightfully so) that faculty searches be conducted with as little administrative interference as possible until finalists have been selected.

 

The Supreme Court affirmed that higher education has a compelling interest in further diversity as a value. Diversity can and should be more than a plus factor. However, the Supreme Court stopped short of the affirmative action argument that admitting underrepresented students is a remedy for past wrongs. Further, the courts stated that admissions can consider diversity provided it has been narrowly tailored for the needs of the department or institution and that individual consideration is applied, not a point system. Using the results of the Supreme Court decisions as a guide, we have attempted to allow a more active search process possible. The decisions underscore important factors when attempting to diversify students (and, by extension, faculty):

 

First, any attempt to diversify a department or unit should begin with a narrowly definition of diversity in terms of what can help that specific locality. For example, a male nurse may diversify a health professions department, a materials chemist may diversify a science department, or a female may diversify a technology department. It is important that such definitions meet a specific department need and be defined in advance.

 

Second, application of a rubric that gives explicit advantage to candidates on the basis of diversity may be problematic. Diversity should be considered on the basis of individualized consideration.

 

Third, search committees should be educated regarding common mistakes that appear innocuous but have the effect of limiting the ability of faculty with diverse backgrounds from earning available positions. These mistakes include:

 

  1. Requiring that finalists have experience teaching at two-year institutions. While such experience may enhance the successful candidate’s ability to work in a community college setting, so may other experiences.
  2. Defining “fit” in terms of similar interests and experiences, rather than complementary interests and experiences. A strong department or unit is one that provides a broad set of interests and experiences, that engages in dialogues of difference, and that focuses on global perspective, not parochialism. Such a department will define fit in terms of what that department lacks, not in terms of what it can already provide.
  3. Overemphasizing credentials at the expense of a focus on teaching in a student centered manner. Weighting the level of degree (ie. the PhD), the discipline, or the prestige of the granting institution too heavily when performing the initial screens in searches can limit the ability to retain a diverse pool in subsequent rounds. In the words of a recent IBHE report, “this practice can lead search committee members to blame their lack of progress in diversifying the faculty on the limited pools.” Search committees should define the qualities they seek in candidates in terms of characteristics, not credentials, and should do so in advance of screening candidates.
  4. Failing to consider nontraditional backgrounds and career paths often limits the ability of underrepresented candidates from serious contention for a position. Departments should consider “value added criteria (such as experience working with a diverse student body, evidence of creative pedagogy, [or]extensive involvement in service or community projects…” when screening candidates (IBHE, 2003).

 

The following suggestions concerning the search process may provide ways that individualized attention can be paid without use of a quantitative rubric:

 

I.                 The pool: Broaden the pool through specific solicitation of applicants from organizations that serve underrepresented groups.

II.               Search criteria: Define diversity explicitly for the specific search and clarify its importance. Discuss the mistakes above in order to avoid them. For example, avoid overemphasis of credentials as described above.

III.             Early part of the search. Screening out: Allow a “veto in” process by which any member of the search can add a candidate who, in addition to meeting the minimum requirements, may bring something unique to the department.

IV.            Late part of the search. Screening out: Keep the need for diversity explicit in the discussion of all candidates throughout. The chair should remind the committee of the Board’s resolution at this time.

 

For more information, you might find the Chronicle of Higher Education useful: http://chronicle.com/indepth/michigan/documents/documents.htm

 

IBHE Report on Diversity (2003) Access from http://www.ibhe.state.il.us/Board/Agendas/2003/April/Item%206Report.pdf