RSS

The Coming University Trainwreck

Discrimination is the new normal.

An Ivy League professor on why colleges don’t hire more faculty of color: ‘We don’t want them’

In “The five things no one will tell you about why colleges don’t hire more faculty of color,” a piece first published in the Hechinger Report, Marybeth Gasman took on a common question: Why aren’t college faculties more racially diverse? 

It’s a question gaining increased urgency from student protesters demanding change on campuses nationally.

While giving a talk about Minority Serving Institutions at a recent higher education forum, I was asked a question pertaining to the lack of faculty of color at many majority institutions, especially more elite institutions.

My response was frank: “The reason we don’t have more faculty of color among college faculty is that we don’t want them. We simply don’t want them.” Those in the audience were surprised by my candor and gave me a round of applause for the honesty.

Given the short amount of time I had on the stage, I couldn’t explain the evidence behind my statement. I will do so here. I have been a faculty member since 2000, working at several research universities. In addition, I give talks, conduct research and workshops and do consulting related to diversifying the faculty across the nation. I have learned a lot about faculty recruitment over 16 years and as a result of visiting many colleges and universities.

First, the word ‘quality’ is used to dismiss people of color who are otherwise competitive for faculty positions. Even those people on search committees that appear to be dedicated to access and equity will point to ‘quality’ or lack of ‘quality’ as a reason for not hiring a person of color.

Typically, ‘quality’ means that the person didn’t go to an elite institution for their Ph.D. or wasn’t mentored by a prominent person in the field. What people forget is that attending the elite institutions and being mentored by prominent people is linked to social capital and systemic racism ensures that people of color have less of it.

Second, the most common excuse I hear is ‘there aren’t enough people of color in the faculty pipeline.’

It is accurate that there are fewer people of color in some disciplines such as engineering or physics. However, there are great numbers of Ph.D.’s of color in the humanities and education and we still don’t have great diversity on these faculties.

When I hear someone say people of color aren’t in the pipeline, I respond with ‘Why don’t you create the pipeline?’ ‘Why don’t you grow your own?’

Since faculty members are resistant to hiring their own graduates, why not team up with several other institutions that are ‘deemed to be of high quality’ and bring in more Ph.D.s of color from those institutions?

If you are in a field with few people of color in the pipeline, why are you working so hard to ‘weed’ them out of undergraduate and Ph.D. programs? Why not encourage, mentor, and support more people of color in your field?

Third, I have learned that faculty will bend rules, knock down walls, and build bridges to hire those they really want (often white colleagues) but when it comes to hiring faculty of color, they have to ‘play by the rules’ and get angry when any exceptions are made.

Let me tell you a secret – exceptions are made for white people constantly in the academy; exceptions are the rule in academe.

Fourth, faculty search committees are part of the problem.

They are not trained in recruitment, are rarely diverse in makeup, and are often more interested in hiring people just like them rather than expanding the diversity of their department.

They reach out to those they know for recommendations and rely on ads in national publications.

And, even when they do receive a diverse group of applicants, often those applicants ‘aren’t the right fit’ for the institution. What is the ‘right fit’? Someone just like you?

Fifth, if majority colleges and universities are truly serious about increasing faculty diversity, why don’t they visit Minority Serving Institutions — institutions with great student and faculty diversity — and ask them how they recruit a diverse faculty.

This isn’t hard. The answers are right in front of us. We need the will.

For those reading this essay, you might be wondering why faculty diversity is important. Your wondering is yet another reason why we don’t have a more diverse faculty. Having a diverse faculty — in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion — adds greatly to the experiences of students in the classroom. It challenges them — given that they are likely not to have had diversity in their K-12 classroom teachers — to think differently about who produces knowledge. It also challenges them to move away from a ‘white-centered’ approach to one that is inclusive of many different voices and perspectives.

Having a diverse faculty strengthens the faculty and the institution as there is more richness in the curriculum and in conversations taking place on committees and in faculty meetings. A diverse faculty also holds the university accountable in ways that uplift people of color and center issues that are important to the large and growing communities of color across the nation.

Although I have always thought it vital that our faculty be representative of the nation’s diversity, we are getting to a point in higher education where increasing faculty diversity is an absolute necessity and crucial to the future of our nation.

In 2014, for the first time, the nation’s K-12 student population was majority minority. These students are on their way into colleges and universities and we are not prepared for them. Our current faculty lacks expertise in working with students of color and our resistance to diversifying the faculty means that we are not going to be ready anytime soon.

I’ll close by asking you to think deeply about your role in recruiting and hiring faculty. How often do you use the word ‘quality’ when talking about increased diversity? Why do you use it? How often do you point to the lack of people of color in the faculty pipeline while doing nothing about the problem?

How many books, articles, or training sessions have you attended on how to recruit faculty of color?

How many times have you reached out to departments with great diversity in your field and asked them how they attract and retain a diverse faculty?

How often do you resist when someone asks you to bend the rules for faculty of color hires but think it’s absolutely necessary when considering a white candidate (you know, so you don’t lose such a wonderful candidate)?

Rather than getting angry at me for pointing out a problem that most of us are aware of, why don’t you change your ways and do something to diversify your department or institution’s faculty?

I bet you don’t, but I sure hope you do.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on September 27, 2016 in The Definition of Racism

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Hillary Opens a 10 Gallon Can of Whoop-A on the Chumph

10 Gallon?

Yeah … Apparently she is saving the other 90 for future “debates”.

While she scored big points on his Tax Returns, DOJ Discrimination lawsuits, and bankruptcies…She left out his numerous fraudulent businesses (Trump University, Trump steaks, Trump wine), his comments on “Mexican rapists”, and the black community. Next time.

She pricked his ego time after time, which led to the typical Chumph meltdown.

Then she calmly explained detailed policy proposals including ending mass incarceration, the shutdown of private prisons, fixing the judicial system, and retraining Police.

While self described rich guy Chumph bragged about not paying taxes, went into several rants about how people loved him, and being a “successful” businessman.

MELTDOWN!

Now – none of this is going to change the minds of his base, because his base is motivated by racism. And you can’t reason anyone out of a position which reason didn’t get them into in the first place.

Last Night a poll was released by The Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University which seems to derail a lot of the polling showing the Chumph catching up to Hillary-

  1. In a head-to-head matchup, Clinton is favored by 48 percent of likely voters in Virginia, and Trump is backed by 38 percent.
  2. In the two-way matchup, Clinton leads Trump among women by 28 points, 57 percent to 29 percent. Trump, however, has an advantage among men, 49 percent to 37 percent.
  3. Clinton leads among white, college-educated voters, 45 percent to 40 percent, and Trump has a large advantage among noncollege educated white voters, 64 percent to 24 percent.
  4. According to the poll, 53 percent of Virginia voters think Trump is racist.

Admittedly, there are a lot of uneducated white men out there…But not enough to win an election.

Image result for clinton trump debate

Hillary’s Trump trap: Clinton laid a series of snares, and Donald charged right into them

Hillary Clinton had two tasks for that debate: Looking presidential and making Trump look like a fool. Nailed it

There’s an iconic scene at the end of the dark 1980s comedy classic “Heathers” in which Veronica (Winona Ryder), watches J.D. (Christian Slater), an occasionally charming but mostly terrifying psychopath, blow himself up. J.D., who is forever ranting and raving about how the world doesn’t respect him enough, had intended to destroy their high school with his bomb. Veronica was able, through great effort, to stop him. Victorious, she puts her cigarette in her mouth, waits and watches as J.D.’s own bomb destroys him, while also lighting her cigarette.

That’s how the first general election presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump played out Monday night.

The high school that is our nation isn’t safe yet, but Clinton did exactly what she needed to do during this first debate: She established herself as smart, calm and presidential, and then stood silently by while her opponent blew himself up.

As an experiment, I eschewed reading Twitter or watching post-debate analysis on cable news in order to watch the proceedings in a packed bar in Brooklyn. The crowd wasn’t a cross-section of America, to be sure, but they were exactly the liberal base that Clinton needs to get fired up for November, and from my vantage point, she did exactly that. She staked out openly progressive positions on a variety of issues, ranging from job creation to criminal justice reform (her comments about implicit bias and the evils of stop-and-frisk went over especially well with the New York crowd). She emphasized, with repeated references to her website, that she is the candidate who actually has policy proposals to get things done, instead of vague, hyperbolic promises.

But it was clear that Clinton’s main goal was goading Trump into revealing his true self, and proving conclusively that no amount of training or pleading from aides will turn Trump from the narcissistic hothead that he is into someone that can be trusted with the nuclear codes. The plan worked, and from Clinton’s triumphant and eminently gif-able wiggle in the middle of the debate, it’s clear that she knew it.

Trump began the debate with a subdued tone, eschewing his usual shouting for a half-hearted imitation of what a responsible statesman looks like, and maintained that composure for a whopping 10 minutes, perhaps even 15. Then Clinton rolled out her first piece of bait.

“You know, Donald was very fortunate in his life, and that’s all to his benefit,” she said. “He started his business with $14 million, borrowed from his father, and he really believes that the more you help wealthy people, the better off we’ll be and that everything will work out from there.”

Clinton went on to detail how she would prefer to invest in the middle class, and from then it was on. Trump took the bait, issuing an angry defense of his father giving him money, and with the plug pulled out, the incoherent ranting lunatic that he was barely containing inside came pouring out.

And the angrier Trump got, the more confident Clinton became (as you do when your carefully laid plans blossom into glorious fruition). She was even able to pull off a number of zingers, which are not exactly her strong suit.

Much credit goes to moderator Lester Holt, who largely steered away from “gotcha” questions that so many journalists mistake for hard questions, leaning more towards open-ended, policy-oriented questions. Conservatives will no doubt be furious, since answering such questions requires coherence and an ability to explain the details, two skills Trump hasn’t mastered. But it’s worth remembering this is a presidential race, not a kindergarten class. If Trump can’t handle the basics of being a politician, the voters need to know that.

The most telling section of the debate was the lengthy exchange about race and criminal justice. Clinton emphasized the value of nuanced policy that balances the need for safety with protecting human rights: Training police to address racism, ending the private prison system, enacting gun safety measures to reduce violent crime, getting rid of unjust mandatory minimum sentences and doing more to help people with mental health issues so they don’t end up in ugly encounters with police.

Trump, in contrast, claimed that “African-Americans, Hispanics are living in hell” andcompared living in major American cities to living in a “war-torn country.” He then suggested that black voters are a bunch of dupes who have “been abused and used in order to get votes by Democrat politicians.”

At that point it got even worse for Trump, because Holt asked him the question that countless people have been demanding:

Mr. Trump, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation’s first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: The president was born in the United States. Can you tell us what took you so long?

Rather than answer the question, Trump rolled out an incoherent right-wing conspiracy theory accusing the 2008 Clinton campaign of starting the birther movement. (It didn’t, and her campaign was diligent about firing people who spread the rumor).

He then crowed, “She failed to get the birth certificate. When I got involved, I didn’t fail. I got him to give the birth certificate.”

Clinton knew better than to dispute a conspiracy theory that’s really only known to people who refresh Breitbart all day long.

Instead, she responded by saying, “Well, just listen to what you heard.”

She then reminded the audience both that she was working for Obama when Trump was dogging him about his birth certificate and that Trump has a history of being sued by the Department of Justice for racial discrimination.

His response? “We settled the suit with zero — with no admission of guilt. It was very easy to do.”

And then again, for emphasis: “Because I settled that lawsuit with no admission of guilt, but that was a lawsuit brought against many real estate firms, and it’s just one of those things.”

Perhaps “no admission of guilt” should be the Trump campaign’s new motto. It has a certain ring to it.

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Are Your Ready for Some “Foolsball”? Hillary and the Chumph Square Off

This is the most anticipated Presidential Debate in modern history.

It really isn’t about the issues, the fact that a woman has a good shot at becoming the first woman to be President of the United States…or gravitas.

It’s all about how big an ass the Chumph makes himself tonight.

Whether the watered down, weak kneed, yellow bellied press is going to let the Chumph get away with dozens – if not hundreds of lies…

And one liners.

Hillary really doesn’t need facts to defeat the Chumph. What she needs to do is to smack his ego by making fun of him and one liners…He will destroy himself.

Hopefully she is well coached and has a list of zingers.

This is going to be either a lot of fun to watch…Or like a slow motion train wreck.

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Presidential Class Acts

Lets face it, George W. Bush has been a far better ex-President than President. And if you have a heart that is still beating, it is very hard not to fall under Michelle Obama’s spell.

In any event, the two couples have tried to exemplify what Politics should be in this country.

For Some, Bush-Obama Rapport Recalls a Lost Virtue: Political Civility

Maybe it was the unexpected warmth of the gesture, the sheer enveloping display of affection.

Maybe it was his response, the beatific expression on his face, eyes almost closed, head tilted toward her shoulder.

Maybe it was the moment: tenderness at a time when presidential politics has become a festival of cruelty.

But when Michelle Obama hugged former President George W. Bush on Saturday, at a ceremony to open the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the image quickly took flight online.

However one chose to interpret it — and overinterpretation is a hazard in such exercises — it became an instant metaphor. Some saw the lost virtue of civility in politics; others, the unlikely friendships that blossom at the rarefied heights of public life. To critics on the left, it was a shameful case of political amnesia by the wife of a president who spent years cleaning up the mess left by his predecessor.

Mrs. Obama and Mr. Bush have had a few such memorable moments. In July in Dallas at a memorial service for five police officers killed by an Army veteran, the two held hands while singing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” When Mr. Bush began swaying to the music, Mrs. Obama gamely let him swing her arm back and forth. At one point, as the choir sang “glory, glory hallelujah,” he turned to her in a burst of enthusiasm, causing the first lady to crack up, despite the solemnity of the occasion.

In June 2012, when Mr. Bush returned to the White House for the unveiling of his official portrait, he aimed a few wisecracks at President Obama. But he saved his best material for Mrs. Obama, reminding her that when British soldiers set fire to the White House in 1814, another first lady, Dolley Madison, rescued the portrait of the first George W. — as in Washington.

“Now, Michelle,” he said, gesturing to his own painting, “if anything happens, there’s your man.”

Some of these encounters are explained by proximity. When the Obamas and the Bushes appear in public together, protocol dictates that Mrs. Obama stand next to Mr. Bush. Some of it is a function of the former president’s playful manner, which by all accounts has become more playful in his retirement.

But some of it also has to do with the relationship between the couples, which current and former officials say has deepened over the past seven and a half years, both because of the shared bond of living in the White House and because of Mr. Bush’s decorum as an ex-president.

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on September 26, 2016 in The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

BLM Meets the Klan…Trump Supporter David Duke

Former KKK leader, and Chumph supporter David Duke made a wrong turn of the freeway…

And wound up at a BLM demonstration.

Unlike a Chumph rally…He was escorted out peacefully.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 26, 2016 in BlackLivesMatter, The Definition of Racism

 

Tags: , , , ,

Police Release Keith Scott Video

The problem being it leads to even more questions.

My question is about the Gun that was supposedly found…

It looks one hell of a lot like a Cop “Holdout” gun from days gone by. It would be heavy, difficult to conceal…and a good way to blow your foot off due to the single safety system. It is a Smith and Wesson, which at one time was pretty standard issue in Police forces in 380 Auto.

I lean towards the gun being a plant at this point. As to the Blunt…That kind of puts the icing on that.

Just sayin…

 
4 Comments

Posted by on September 25, 2016 in BlackLivesMatter

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

White, Female Georgia Cop Fakes Getting Shot By Black Man

Yeah – you read that headline right. A white female Georgia Cop filed and Officer Shot report that a 6′ tall 230 lb black man had shot her.

And it was all fake.

GBI: Cop lied about being shot by black man

Cop shot, injured in Butts County

An officer shot. A bullet stopped by body armor. A 10-day chase for an unidentified shooter.

A newly hired Jackson police officer told a compelling story about what happened late the night of Sept. 13. After only three months on the job, Sherry Hall found herself immersed in a high-profile shooting, pitting a white officer against a black man. At least, that was her account of what happened.

But she made the whole thing up, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

On Friday, Hall was charged with four felonies, including evidence tampering and giving false statements to investigators.

After her account began to unravel over the past two weeks, investigators were left with little to conclude other than she shot herself, but officials stopped short of saying so Friday.

“Cops are humans and they make mistakes, but this is not a mistake,” Butts County Sheriff Gary Long said at a news conference. “This is criminal.”

GBI Special Agent Joe Wooten said Hall is on paid administrative leave after checking herself into a “private facility” to seek help.

“Upon release, she will be arrested,” Wooten said.

The tale Hall told her supervisors frightened the tiny community into thinking a suspect was on the loose in Butts County.

GBI officials interviewed Hall on three separate occasions, and each time she stuck to her story, Wooten said.

When she called out for help on her police radio, she described a 6-foot, 230-pound black man who took off after shooting her. He wore a green shirt and black jogging pants, Hall told GBI investigators.

She said the bullet struck her vest, which she credited with saving her life.

The man allegedly escaped and authorities put out a description for his arrest.

“There is no, and never was, a suspect shooter at large in Jackson,” Wooten said.

Hall’s account continued to come apart as investigators and law enforcement officials spent more than 600 hours examining the case, Wooten said.

At first, she said she failed to “engage her in-car video and audio,” so there was no evidence to back her up. But Wooten said the manufacturer helped recover digital forensic evidence that showed “inconsistencies.”

After Hall was again interviewed, she stopped cooperating with the GBI.

Video and audio recording evidence shows there were only two shots fired at the scene, while Hall said there were three, Jackson District Attorney Richard Milam said.

Hall also failed to tell investigators she had an extra handgun with her the night she was shot. It was found after officials executed a search warrant at her house earlier this week.

It’s “gut-wrenching to know one of your own has been harmed,” Police Chief James Morgan said, but he plans to move forward in prosecuting one of the department’s own for hurting the community with lies.

Likewise, Jackson Mayor Kay Pippin said she is “disappointed on so many levels” because of the lost manpower hours — and lost trust.

“For two weeks this incident has cast an image of the city of Jackson that does not reflect who we are,” Pippin said, calling Jackson a safe city where violent crime is a rarity.

The District Attorney said Hall wasn’t even on a police call at the time she reported being shot.

“The truth is the officer did something wrong,” Milam said. “She will be prosecuted and brought to justice.”

 
4 Comments

Posted by on September 25, 2016 in BlackLivesMatter

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: