Legal Watch: Faculty Diversity in a Brave New World
By Ann D. Springer
By Ann D. Springer
The dust is not settling after the Supreme Court's June 2003 decisions in two University of Michigan cases addressing affirmative action in higher education admissions—it just swirls in new patterns. Colleges and universities are now struggling with what diversity will mean on their campuses, and what they can do legally and practically. Faculty hiring poses the same conundrum. Search committees often ponder what they can and can't say or do, and struggle with changing practices and policies—or the lack thereof. Yet we know even more now about the importance of diversity; its positive impact on students, faculty, and education; and the need to take conscious steps to make it happen.
Although the Michigan cases—Gratz v. Bollinger et al. and Grutter v. Bollinger et al.—were about student admissions, not faculty hiring, some of their basic lessons apply in both areas. The Court recognized that diversity matters, as does the context in which it is pursued. The opinions strongly support academic freedom and deference to the judgment of educators in questions of how a university constitutes itself.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently became the first federal appellate court to apply the Michigan decisions in the employment context. In Petit v. City of Chicago, the court reiterated the value of context, noting that there was a "compelling need for diversity in a large metropolitan police force charged with protecting a racially and ethnically divided major American city like Chicago." It also held that the police department "had a compelling interest in a diverse population at the rank of sergeant in order to set the proper tone in the department," and that "the presence of minority supervisors is an important means of earning the community's trust."
The same is arguably true in academe. Diversity in scholarship and experience is essential for a well-rounded education. Moreover, as our country becomes increasingly diverse (only about 62 percent of eighteen-year-olds in the United States are non-Hispanic whites, a percentage that continues to decline), a faculty that cannot understand and reach those varied individuals will become increasingly less effective.
So what to do? The law requires that employers, including colleges and universities, provide equal opportunity in appointments. The Michigan cases say that we may legally take diversity into account, but in a holistic, not a mechanistic, way. While the debate over affirmative action has stirred up an understandable fear of so-called reverse discrimination, we must not forget that claims of discrimination against minorities make up the majority of complaints.
Thus faculty and administrators must, as the research of diversity scholars Caroline Turner and Daryl Smith has shown, take steps to "interrupt the usual." Every step of faculty hiring pro-vides opportunities to broaden the candidate pool or, if the process remains unexamined, to re-create the status quo. Only by consciously reevaluating our presumptions, approaches, and perceptions in each stage of the process can we improve diversity. Doing so is both legally and pedagogically sound, and many of the changes required are not difficult to make.
For example, recruitment of a diverse candidate pool generally is a legally safe route to increasing diversity. Positions should be publicized not only to existing professional networks, but also to historically black institutions and other schools graduating a greater number of minority PhDs. Position advertisements should go to the many publications, organizations, and electronic lists that reach out to minority academics. The position description should reflect the true needs of the position, and not contain unnecessarily rigid criteria. Positions designed to bring in candidates who have a demonstrated commitment to equal educational opportunity, for example, and who can teach in multicultural environments and engage in interdisciplinary scholarship will provide a more diverse applicant pool.
Optimally, search committees should themselves be diverse, as it is human nature for search committees to replicate themselves. They should be given information and support to help them implement best practices.
Once candidates are appointed, their colleagues must make an effort to retain them. Making sure a new professor is integrated into the department is not just about planning a welcome lunch; it is also about sharing syllabi and insights on departmental quirks and tenure standards, and about making sure those standards don't contain hidden biases.
Creating a campus of true opportunity requires administrators and faculty to look at current habits with a fresh eye, and work together to put good policies and practices in place.
Ann Springer is AAUP associate counsel.
|