The following article by Ann D. Springer and Benjamin Baez
appeared in the December 6, 2002 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education Counterpoint.
We write to take issue with the fallacious arguments of Roger Clegg's "When Faculty Hiring Is Blatantly Illegal" (The Review, November 1). Clegg argues that universities' efforts to diversify their faculties are "blatantly illegal" and unfair. He points to a few claims of so-called reverse discrimination by white men, and argues that taking into account the benefits a minority candidate might add is giving "greater -- not just equal -- consideration" to such a candidate.
No one argues that a position should be given to an unqualified minority candidate instead of to a qualified member of the majority population, or that decisions should not be based on merit. However, as we all know, there is a great deal of discretion embedded in the concepts of "qualified" and "merit." We in academe need to be sensitive to the fact that we are likely, at least initially, to feel more comfortable with those who are like us -- people who come from institutions with which we are familiar, who have worked with our colleagues, and whose research is easy for us to relate to. For that reason, the American Association of University Professors has long recognized the importance of deliberate, affirmative efforts to increase diversity that "meet the needs and standards of the academic community." New research by Daryl G. Smith, a professor of education and psychology at Claremont Graduate University, confirms that without such efforts, faculty members of color are unlikely to be hired.
Clegg inflames and misleads by equating attempts to increase minority hires with "discrimination" against those in the majority. That has been the traditional argument of opponents of affirmative action -- that giving a position to a member of a minority group in an attempt to obtain the benefits offered by a diverse faculty is tantamount to discriminating against a white person who could have filled the position. But what Clegg fails to understand is that diversity provides the exposure to different ideas that is central to a quality education. Indeed, it is continuing to exclude the ideas and varying viewpoints of minority faculty members that is discriminatory -- not just to the faculty member who isn't hired, but to the student who is able to go through college thinking that all members of minority groups think alike, because he or she hasn't been exposed to enough of them to learn otherwise.
Moreover, Clegg's argument presumes that opportunities are equal, which they patently are not. As one administrator reportedly asks alumnae who question the fairness of affirmative action, "How much would I have to pay you to become black?"
Hiring a well-qualified minority candidate who brings the additional quality of a different experience, rather than an equally qualified white applicant who does not bring that added benefit, is not discrimination; continuing a system that consistently replicates the overwhelmingly white composition of the faculty is. Clegg would have us believe that many job searches are resulting in the hiring of minority faculty members. Sadly, it isn't true.
While the law on discrimination and affirmative action is not, so to speak, black and white, the fact remains that Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. was writing the majority opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court when he concluded that diversity is an important part of "the robust exchange of ideas" on campus. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke is the law of the land, as courts in the sixth and ninth circuit have recently recognized. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court itself declined to review a case in which the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the university's right to consider race as a factor in attempting to diversify its faculty.
Discrimination against women and members of minority groups remains a much more prevalent and greater societal problem than so-called discrimination in their favor. There are many steps that an institution can and should take to diversify its faculty, and failing to do so can lead to greater legal risks than those posed by claims of reverse discrimination (for more details on such steps, visit www.aaup.org).
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that central to a university's mission is the ability of the administrators and the faculty members who run it to be able to decide for themselves "on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study." For years, research has shown that diversity is an important element of a full education, and many universities have rightly made it a central component of their missions. Yet according to Clegg, we should ignore that fact out of the fear that valuing different experiences in our job searches could mean that some majority faculty members would not get the positions to which they feel entitled.
A universityfaculty and administrationmust be free to teach as it sees fit. Part of that freedom is creating the best environment for a "robust exchange of ideas," and for educating students to function in today's multicultural world.
Ann D. Springer is associate counsel at the American Association of University Professors. Benjamin Baez is chair of the AAUP's Committee on Historically Black Institutions and Scholars of Color, and an assistant professor of educational-policy studies at Georgia State University.
This article can be located in The Chronicle of Higher Education by visiting their web site at http://www.chronicle.com or in the print version, Section: The Chronicle Review, Volume 49, Issue 15, Page B17.