News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Oct. 9, 2007
Once more, the English department at my Southern liberal arts college will send a team to the Modern Language Association meeting to search for an African American. Oops, did I say that? I mean, an African-Americanist — someone who specializes in research and teaching African-American literature. This search, three years running, has become the most vexing aspect of departmental life, at least in part because of the department’s well-meaning but misguided goal of hiring a black candidate. When the applications come in, there is a more or less unspoken attempt to read the color of the candidate based on the colleges they attended, their names, or their committee work.
The MLA interview can occasionally feel like the dating game, as a series of previously promising candidates enter the room all too whitely. (Even more perplexing are non-white candidates of another race or ethnicity researching in African-American literature, but that’s another subject) However, a lot can happen in a 40-minute interview. After engaging with serious scholarship on African-American literature and culture, it is hard for the interview team to sustain emphasis on the candidate’s body over the candidate’s body of work. So, at the end of two days of intense discussions with ABD’s and newly-minted Ph.D.’s, the interview team comes up with a short list of four very bright, energetic, productive candidates with tremendous research and teaching potential. Odds are that the majority of them, like a majority of the pool, will not be black, and so the real work of the search begins: trying to convince the rest of the department to take these folks seriously.
My department’s dilemma seems paradigmatic of a phenomenon of scarcity throughout the profession: Our significant commitment to diversity, and the historical importance of having a person of color in an English department in the South runs into the reality of a dearth of black Ph.D.’s in the humanities. According to a recent report by the Association of Departments of English, over the last three decades only 2.5 percent of all doctorates in English were awarded to African Americans. The numbers skew higher in recent years and according to field, but experience confirms that when the candidates step from behind the curtain and into the interview room for the first time, the majority are white. Complicating the search, the field of African-American literature is one of the most exciting, advanced areas of humanities scholarship, in recent years drawing from globalization studies, legal theory, and comparative literature in addition to traditional Americanist methodologies. The top 20 African-Americanist candidates are likely to compete for general Americanist jobs as well as field specific jobs, and if only a few of these are black, the competition among departments is intense. Over the last two years, our department’s top offers have ended up at prestigious research schools, most with well-established programs in African-American and/or Africana studies programs. (Meanwhile, we have never been able to get a consensus on second-choice white candidates.) How can we possibly compete?
Perhaps I should ask, why do we compete? Why are we so committed to hiring a black candidate, against all odds? Many of my colleagues take pride in the fact that they worked hard to hire the first-ever African American in the department over 30 years ago, precisely by creating a position in African-American literature. Back then, fighting for the position as a means to diversify was a bold political move on a largely white campus, anchoring the English department’s reputation for progressive politics. Subsequent hires over the years have significantly increased our campus diversity, though our retention is poor. Across disciplines, our university has been a great first job for African Americans, and too often a springboard for an even better second job. Perhaps we should be proud that a small liberal arts college has managed to “place” so many of our minority faculty at competitive research universities. Our “alumni” faculty are happily employed at top-ranked research schools throughout the country. (There must be a way we can use this as a recruitment tool!).
In any case, it does seem that we have progressed from the point where a job offer from a small Southern school represents an all-important helping hand to minority scholars. It may now be the case that we need them and the fields they represent more than they need us. After all, what do we want from our minority hires? Surely not token representation. What if we could move beyond this liberal left-over and create an academic environment where minority faculty research and teaching is well integrated into the mission of the university, rather than as an extra within any given department? This would mean building interdisciplinary programs in Africana studies, postcolonial and globalization studies, and ethnic studies — fields that productively bring together faculty regardless of race, that are also the common “homes” for students and teachers interested in exploring minority cultures. The point is not to insulate minority faculty in mini-communities of color, but to create occasions where research and teaching on the lives, culture, and histories of marginal people are not marginalized. Typically, our most outstanding candidates for the African-Americanist position — black and white — were trained in programs with interdisciplinary resources and field-expanding faculty networks. What if we could envision a similar role for them here, at our small campus?
If your commitment to hiring a minority extends no further than throwing open the doors and hoping one walks through, then it is really no kind of commitment at all. At best, it is a naïve strategy that still presumes the employers’ market of the 70’s and 80’s; at worst, it’s racist, prioritizing color while neglecting the significance of the position itself. Ironically, it is precisely the position that ought to be the focus of the search. While well-meaning liberals fight for the body of the African American, those of us who work in ethnic studies recognize that a parallel battle still rages over the body of work — canons of literature and curriculum — classes, not to mention the student body. Yes, there are half a dozen reasons why it is significant to have a person of color at the head of the class. But at what cost? To not offer the class at all for lack of a brown body? Besides exposure to black faculty, all students need to at least have the chance to learn the literature and cultural and social contexts of African Americans. We must recall that there is a wider world beyond the university, and that we are training students to go out in the world and be good stewards of culture, and public models of progressive change. Surely graduating a few dozen students every year who have studied African-American literature and culture is a worthy accomplishment — and no less so if they were taught by a white person.
Even more progressive than the acquisition strategy of diversification would be a contribution strategy: What if we kept figures and took pride in the number of minority students we were able to attract to our classes, graduate with our majors, send off to Ph.D. programs? What if, rather than trying to gather up what comes out of the pipeline, our department was contributing at the other end; or even better, breaking open the narrow funnels of entry in the first place, by offering our students curriculum and institutional support for comparative cultural study, African diaspora research, and cross-disciplinary opportunities to study African American literature and culture in a global context? Grow the field and broaden the field, bring in new people, I say. Practically speaking, classes in minority literature attract minority students, regardless of the professor, and this attraction may in fact be a lure into the profession for the very brightest of them.
Let’s face it — there are precious few minorities entering the job market any given year, and the odds that you will hire one are not good. So search inward. Find on your campus the next generation of minority scholars. Provide classes for them (and don’t assume that minorities can or will only study literature of their own ethnic group). Educate them. Tutor them in the thrills of research. Encourage the best and most capable to consider graduate school. Contact friends and acquaintances in Ph.D. programs — make cold calls for god’s sake — on behalf your best minority majors applying to grad school and help grow the field. And who knows? Maybe some of these students will actually want to come back and teach for their dear old alma mater upon completion. Meanwhile, it’s still OK to hire the white person.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Would any other industry be allowed to issue — with all due shamelessness — a preferential call for workers of color? The author’s literal apologetic on behalf of qualified Caucasians speaks reams about the academic mindset— as does his need to conceal himself behind a nom de plume in order to express it.
Abbott Katz, at 8:40 am EDT on October 9, 2007
” .. Meanwhile, it’s still OK to hire the white person.”
A thousand respects to the author — look what happen to this guy’s college —
http://www.pirateballerina.com
Is that why it is called work?
Buzz, at 9:05 am EDT on October 9, 2007
Sounds like you should distribute Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to your colleagues, which prohibits employment decisions based on race. White candidates can file an EEOC claim, too, and if they’re qualified for the position they’ll know that!
Nathan, at 10:20 am EDT on October 9, 2007
The author says that classes in minority literature attract minority students. If that were true, then it would seem the author wouldn’t be writing about the lack of minority candidates to teach these courses. From the article, it appears that it must be whites who favor ‘minority’ courses and postcolonial and ethnic studies. In fact, the author engages in the sort of stereotyping he decries. Doesn’t everybody go to college to get a well-rounded education? Why assume that just because a student’s skin color is brown, that student would necessarily want to read only brown-skinned authors? In fact why would any thoughtful person make choices about good literature based on the author’s skin color? Why the designation ‘minority scholar?’ What has happened to judging not by the color of one’s skin but on the content of one’s character? Of course it’s okay to ‘hire the white person.’ And, where did this color-coded approach to education come from anyway?
Amy De Rosa, at 10:50 am EDT on October 9, 2007
The author says that classes in minority literature attract minority students. If that were true, then it would seem the author wouldn’t be writing about the lack of minority candidates to teach these courses. From the article, it appears that it must be whites who favor ‘minority’ courses and postcolonial and ethnic studies. In fact, the author engages in the sort of stereotyping he decries. Doesn’t everybody go to college to get a well-rounded education? Why assume that just because a student’s skin color is brown, that the student would necessarily want to read only brown-skinned authors? In fact why would any thoughtful person make choices about good literature based on the author’s skin color? Why the designation ‘minority scholar?’ Does such a person differ in some substantive way from another kind of scholar? Or, is skin color the only difference? What has happened to judging not by the color of one’s skin but on the content of one’s character? Of course it’s okay to ‘hire the white person.’ And, where did this color-coded approach to education come from anyway?
Amy De Rosa, at 11:50 am EDT on October 9, 2007
Nathan—Many institutions have found ways around Equal Opportunity requirements,with the result that race-based hiring is now an open secret. Methods are not subtle and sometimes even lame. It can all come down to complete secrecy regarding the interviewing/selection process because “we are afraid of being sued” as I was told by one turn-down and that according to a research attorney for the state court system, was an unassailable device. The article dances around the issue of standards, but with such priorities and the dearth of minority candidates, do the math.
unfashionably hued, at 12:25 pm EDT on October 9, 2007
” .. The article dances around the issue of standards, but with such priorities and the dearth of minority candidates, do the math ..”
Right on! See previous, on CU. When is someone going to fess up to that disaster? (Right after A/C comes to Hades .. and everyone knows.)
Buzz, at 6:45 pm EDT on October 9, 2007
how about letting men teach gender studies, and getting it out of the female-only academic ghetto? Oh wait, only female teachers and students are interested in female issues.
Allison, Univ. of Ky., at 4:45 pm EDT on October 10, 2007
Imagine being the lone black candidate studying Judaism...wonder if it’s a help or a hindrance, I suppose that’s along the lines of a non black person focusing on African American lit...but why?
Tikvah4u2, at 6:55 pm EDT on October 10, 2007
The original intention of the Civil Rights Act was to give an equally qualified person an opportunity. And when it is done currectly, I found it to work perfectly. Something HAD TO be done to penetrate the good ‘ol boy network.
Keith, at 9:25 pm EDT on October 10, 2007
Keith—you’re naive. The good ol’ boys absolutely are still there. They haven’t lost their jobs. They are the ones making these decisions and implementing these policies—typically, at the expense of others’ careers and to the detriment of students. Meanwhile, they keep their jobs, golden parachutes intact, with an extra layer of sanctimonious protective plate.
unfashionably hued, at 12:15 pm EDT on October 11, 2007
How do we enter the discourse of creating teachers of knowledge if everyone only speaks from the perspective of their opinion? We speak of the dearth of candidates” of color as if the “pool” was not intentionally constructed with three hundred years of exclusivity. One of the often ignored facts is how the academy actually promoted racist views, justifications and exclusive practices in all these institutions of “higher learning". Did this impact our view of knowledge ? Did these previous all white for the most part male led institutions fight non stop through self-critique for inclusion both of persons and content or has there been resistance to what we now take for granted ? Given the pool has always been a dominant white majority, shall we return to the good old days because everyone can’t have a rock star academic or should we take innovative steps to insure the dis-mantling of racist instituions and thought continue to be challenged ? While i agree theoritically anyone of any hue can teach any subject , should this mean that a David Duke teaching substantively about race relaions will reflect contemporary knowledge or merely an oppotunity to express the white point of view.
jallen, Globian, at 8:50 pm EDT on October 11, 2007
Your posting is “only” opinion too, of course. I suppose invoking “three hundred years of exclusivity” trumps all further discussion. The fact that you can’t see the racist nature of your own posting is a bit scary: I would expect about the same even-handed treatment of “contemporary knowledge” from Duke as from you. You two might even cancel out plus-minus wise in a flash of darkness.
Is it still all about race? After half a century of work there is still nothing to show but mean-spirited oppressors on one side and downtrodden sufferers on the other? If you believe that, jallen, truly believe that, then I despair of ever fixing all this sadness. But I don’t believe it and I don’t think you do either. Just my opinion.
E. Moran, at 5:35 am EDT on October 16, 2007
Why is Jallen’s comment racist? It seems it is now “fashionable” to suggest racism whenever the status quo or group think is challenged.
T.N.C., at 9:00 am EDT on October 16, 2007
I’m in the 2.5 percent the author described; I have a Ph.D. in English from a prestigious school in New England. Before I graduated, I received a handful of letters from a number of schools inviting me to apply for a tenure track job in my field of African American literature. One of those letters eventually led to a job and I accepted. Two years later, I left. Why? Money.
Like many first generation college students, I graduated with substantial student loans. In addition to meeting my loan obligations, I was concerned with providing for my young family, helping my extended family, and dreaming of owning a home. Those things simply were not possible on my faculty salary. As I looked around my department (and the wider campus) I noticed a consistent theme among the faculty at my university: many (most?) of them did not really need to work.
In my department there were a few priests and the Church provided all their material needs. There were many wives whose husbands worked in real world and made real money; the faculty salaries their wives made paid for things like daycare and entertainment. My department also had its share of heirs; having inherited the wealth of their parents, teaching was a legitimate “something to do” but they were not relying on their salaries to support themselves.
For the most part department faculty were nice to me. I dined at their homes, met their children & pets and generally had good relations with everyone, but the concept of making ends meet was a foreign concept to them. . . When I decided to leave for greener pastures members in my department, and the Dean, were surprised.
If schools want people of my profile to remain in teaching they have to make it possible for us to do so (student loan help, down payment assistance, livable wages). If I won the lottery tomorrow I would go back to teaching. I love it. I am good at it. It is what I want to do, but based on my experience teaching is not suited to first generation degree holders like myself. I found life on the tenure track to be a lot of jumping through hoops for very little reward. And I mean VERY little.
Because I have a Ph.D., I have become a resource in my community for people (particularly African Americans) who have questions about higher education and the careers associated with it. I encourage and mentor all of them through college and graduate school, but I also caution them against the folly of a teaching career.
I understand the African American community pretty well. The fact is most talented and highly motivated black folk are not going to spend 10 years getting a doctorate and work for $40K, $50K, or 60K.
Bills Bills Bills, at 3:10 pm EDT on October 19, 2007
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
The College of Lake County is searching for a Instructor, English (2 positions). see job
Position Summary: The Princeton Writing Program seeks an Associate Director to provide intellectual and ... see job
09-10 Research Associateships in Women/Gender (Five College Women’s Studies Research Center) see job
Angelo State University is an equal opportunity employer and seeks to build a diverse workforce community. see job
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
PART-TIME TEMPORARY FACULTY TO TEACH ENGLISH COURSES Central Michigan University seeks qualified part-time temporary ... see job
Writing classroom assistants work with course instructors and students in an electronic lab twice a week. During this lab ... see job
We open doors, spark imaginations, and enlighten lives through learning. see job
About The American University in Cairo: Founded in 1919, AUC’s campus has moved to its new, state-of-the-art campus in New ... see job
The UCLA Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies Program keeps on file until the end of each academic year (but does ... see job
Well said! It is so refreshing to read a race-blind opinion on this topic.
Robert, PhD Student, at 8:30 am EDT on October 9, 2007