The University of Washington has barred its psychology department from doing any tenure-track searches for two years after discovering a clearly unlawful use of race as a factor in the last search. The conservative NAS has a more forthright account of what transpired:
A faculty hiring committee at the University of Washington (UW) “inappropriately considered candidates’ races when determining the order of offers,” provided “disparate opportunities for candidates based on their race,” and ultimately used race as “a substantial factor” in its hiring decision, according to a UW report acquired by the National Association of Scholars....
The position, titled “Diversity in Development,” was designed to recruit psychologists with expertise in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The job reflects a growing trend in academia, whereby universities attempt to increase faculty diversity by focusing on DEI as an area of specialization.
On paper, this approach does not involve any consideration of candidates’ racial identities, which would violate UW’s non-discrimination policy. UW’s Executive Order 31 explicitly states that the university “will recruit, hire, train, and promote individuals” without regard to demographic categories like race, color, and sex.
Originally, the Diversity in Development hiring committee appeared to follow this policy. According to the report, at the conclusion of the search, the hiring committee “unanimously decided” on a ranking of finalists, which placed a white candidate first, an Asian candidate second, and a black candidate third. The report notes that this ranking “appears consistent with the faculty surveys providing evaluation of the candidates.”
Yet, members of the Diversity Advisory Committee (DAC)—which was involved in the hiring process, and which was also expected to eventually endorse the hiring report—did not approve of the ranking. Their objections, according to emails quoted in the report, focused substantially on the candidates’ demographics....
The DAC eventually chose not to endorse the hiring committee’s report. In an email, a DAC member stated that, while the hiring report claims that the hiring committee was unanimous and enthusiastic about its decision, at least one committee member objected to the ranking. This led to a series of meetings wherein the hiring committee reassessed its rankings. As one member put it, the key divide was between those who wanted “to consider both DEI and Research” and those who were “only considering DEI.”
Ultimately, the hiring committee members who supported the original rankings agreed to a revised order. In the words of the report, they “acquiesced.” The new ranking placed the black candidate first, the Asian candidate second, and the white candidate third.
The report notes that the holdout committee members “do not appear to have changed their minds about which candidate is most qualified” and that “at no point does the documentation show that they concurred” with the other committee members. Rather, according to the report, they indicated five reasons for eventually agreeing to the change the order:
- “So as not to create a ‘Bloodbath’ at a faculty meeting”
- “So the Developmental Area is not accused of ‘not prioritizing DEI’”
- “Because they were worried junior faculty will hear a lot of ‘nasty stuff’ said at the faculty meeting and wonder if they were hired simply because of their races”
- “Because they thought it would result in a failed search”
- “Because it was creating personal stress on them, to the point that [name redacted] stated ‘I wish I could quit this job’ and [name redacted] wrote, ‘I cannot condone this search process and do not want to be asked to speak about it in person.’”
This re-ranking of candidates is the most serious violation of university policy described in the report. As the report puts it, “Based on the information evaluated, we conclude race was used as a substantial factor in the selection of the final candidate,” in violation of Executive Order 31.
Recent Comments