Repost - Dispatches from the Wokecraft Front
This was originally posted on the Heterodox STEM Substack.
In Counter Wokecraft with James Lindsay I detail many strategies and tactics used by proponents of the Critical Social Justice perspective (or the Woke) to make Woke advances in universities and other institutions. In the book, the tactics are described somewhat theoretically. In this piece I’m beginning what I hope will be a series of case studies of how Woke advances are made in everyday situations. I describe here an ongoing case at a university that illustrates the strategies used to select professors based on immutable characteristics.
This is a case from a large university and the hiring of a high-profile federally funded research chair. The process began with the selection of a hiring committee Chair from whom the story is related. The Chair was selected by an Associate Dean of the faculty. The hiring committee Chair accepted the position with the understanding that the committee would not be pressured to select candidates on the basis of immutable characteristics. The Associate Dean provided the Chair with a list of potential candidates for the committee and asked the Chair to assemble a list of potential members. The Chair, being new to the faculty, evaluated potential members (in consultation with other members of the faculty) as best as possible and tried to evaluate them based partly on whether they were likely to evaluate candidates based on merit and not on immutable characteristics. A list was submitted to the Associate Dean who applied pressure to add some and remove others from the list. The Chair understood that some of these replacements were with members who would be more inclined to hire according to immutable characteristics, but did not appreciate at the time to what extent this was the case. The Associate Dean then proceeded to invite members to the committee. Those identified by the Chair as being most likely to hire according to merit demurred from participation on the committee and were replaced by others.
Once the committee had been struck, a job advertisement previously drafted was sent to the committee for approval. The advertisement contained boilerplate language encouraging people from all backgrounds to apply but no explicit language around the preference of candidates according to immutable characteristics. The job advertisement was approved by the committee and then made public.
The Chair then convened the committee for the first time. The university is covered by a collective agreement that prescribes how the hiring process is to take place. According to the collective agreement, before evaluating any applications, a list of hiring criteria needs to be defined by the committee. Also according to the collective agreement, evaluation criteria are to be based upon what is clearly described as evaluation criteria in the job advertisement. Before the first meeting, the Chair circulated a proposed list of evaluation criteria based on the job advertisement – a list that did not include any references to the immutable characteristics of the applicants.
Before the meeting to discuss the evaluation criteria, the Chair was contacted by one of the committee members to say that the university had asked them to be the EDI observer on behalf of the university, intimating that there was something wrong with the criteria. (The union was contacted about this and was in agreement with having such observers.) When asked about any comments by email about suggested changes to the evaluation criteria, the EDI observer did not respond. During the meeting to discuss the evaluation criteria two of the members were hostile and aggressive and insisted that immutable characteristics of the candidates be an evaluation criteria. The Chair insisted that since immutable characteristics weren’t mentioned in the job ad that immutable characteristics could not be used as evaluation criteria as per the collective agreement. Debate became more heated with all, except the Chair of the committee, being in agreement that immutable characteristics ought to be considered as evaluation criteria. The EDI observer angrily declared that the committee couldn’t continue like this, intimating that the Chair was obstructing proceedings, and declared the meeting to finished. The Chair offered to consult with the union about the interpretation of the collective agreement. After consultation with the union, the Chair confirmed that the interpretation of the collective agreement was correct.
Shortly after that, another committee member wrote an email to the university provost (copying the hiring committee) suggesting that not all members of the committee had taken proper EDI training. The provost’s office immediately contacted the Chair for clarification. Moreover, the EDI observer called the Dean responsible for the hire and complained to the Dean that the Chair was not sufficiently supportive of EDI. The Chair was called to a meeting with the Dean and pressured to resign. The Chair didn’t resign but informed the Dean that the committee could (according to the collective agreement) remove the Chair. The committee replaced the Chair.
These are the facts of what transpired. There are a number of things to note about this process. First, this is characteristic of universities that have an interest and an infrastructure to promote the hiring of faculty according to immutable characteristics. It is interesting to note the presence of de facto representatives of the administration (the EDI observer) within bargaining units, something approved of by the union – an outrageous breach of basic collective bargaining principles. Second, universities are reluctant to include this information in their job advertisements. Third, the administrations themselves appear to want to encourage the hiring of people according to immutable characteristics and are willing to select hiring committee members that are themselves willing to hire based on the same. Fourth, heavy handed intimidation tactics leveraging the administration will be casually used to ensure compliance with the desire to hire according to immutable characteristics. Fifth, those unwilling to comply will be removed if they interfere with this process.
This experience also suggests the following about what can be done to respond in a situation like this. First, it’s important to identify allies who are concerned about the hiring of professors on the basis of immutable characteristics. The allies can be among other professors, the union or even the administration. Second, having allies can help in learning about other participants (particularly professors) and the degree to which they are likely to base hiring decisions on immutable characteristics. This can help in influencing the composition of hiring committees to ensure that members will not base decisions according to immutable characteristics. Third, if there is a collective agreement, it is important to know it well. Often, collective agreements (see e.g. this for the California State University system) have clauses explicitly designed to prevent discrimination according to immutable characteristics. Knowing this is useful in preventing explicit discrimination. Fourth, depending upon the make-up of the committee, anonymous voting can be used to prevent discrimination in the hiring process. For example in the determination of candidate evaluation criteria, some members may be reluctant to voice opposition to the inclusion of immutable characteristics but would vote against it if given the opportunity. Fifth, try to conduct as much business as possible electronically to ensure there is a record of decisions. Sixth, ensure there is documentation (minutes) of meetings also to ensure a clear record of decisions. This will help ensure that people are accountable.
If you have other examples of Wokecraft in your university that you would like to be anonymously reported, please feel free to contact me at charles.pincourt@outlook.com.