Community: Social cohesion; mutual support and affinity such as is derived from living [with a body of people in a place]— The Oxford English Dictionary
A Terrible Wrong. Many months ago I went to a party where a colleague came up to me troubled and angered that a recent hire/search process hadn’t identified a certain familiar person, the estimable X, as the committee’s recommendation. I had been on that hiring committee.
I looked at him. I said something like, “Well, we interviewed lots of candidates, and X, though estimable, wasn’t among the very best candidates interviewed. So, naturally, X’s name wasn’t put forward.”
The colleague stared back, uncomprehending.
It wasn’t the first time I had encountered people who assumed that some candidate who is familiar and generally well-regarded would be selected. But I’ve served on enough search committees to know this: if the process is clean, the assumption is never justified.
Have you ever sought a position and done an interview somewhere burdened by the suspicion that the fix was in?
“No,” one thinks. “People aren’t that rotten—to allow all these earnest people to travel to this strange place from far and wide, to give their all when, in truth, the entire process is a sham, a fraud, for the decision has already been made!”
Sometimes, over time, we drift from our initial clarity, and we come to do things unthinkingly that, once, we would have surely condemned. I do think good people, confused and fragmented by endless episodes of complexity and compromise, sometimes fall into this kind of corruption, this kind of wronging of people.
But it is a terrible wrong, isn’t it?
Some Christians, it seems, are incapable of imagining that some members of the community will be offended or somehow put off by the imposition on public gatherings of the idea, “we are all Christians.”
Or is it that they just don’t care about giving offense?
Though I am an agnostic, I was raised a Christian (Lutheran division). It is not obvious to me that, as a Christian, one must assert one’s faith to all of one’s companions, and in all of one’s activities, throughout the day. No, it is possible, in the course of one’s day, to be a Christian quietly, and to be a real Christian nonetheless. It is especially possible when, also, one has innumerable opportunities (e.g., in Church) to be the Public Christian, if that is desirable.
Have you ever seen any of those old Andy Hardy pictures? Watching those old movies, one sensed that Andy simply could not help himself. He had to put on a show.
Perhaps there are Andy Hardy Christians.
COMMENTS:
Just egos?
Anonymous said...
Faith is a gift Roy,one that you have not received. You were raised as a Christian, it was the best your parents could do. You stuck your head in a book and came out questioning everything your parents taught you. Now, you're content to stick your head in the sand and claim everyone is blind to what you don't see. Your next move is to claim that the Pledge of Allegiance is a prayer too and ban that at all college functions. The fact is, this has nothing to with church and state. This has nothing to do with political correctness. This is nothing more than the continuing battle between egos and assholes that has plagued this district for far too long.
7:50 AM, December 02, 2009
What you know ain't so
B. von Traven said...
Gosh, 7:50, you sure do know a lot. The problem is that much of what you know just ain’t so. It is simply a factual mistake to view this lawsuit as originating with me. I have no plans to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance and I do not regard it as a prayer. I certainly do not reject everything my parents taught me. (Why don’t you ask ‘em?) And my participation in this lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with egoes. ¶ I have made two points here: that community, a valuable thing, is undermined by unnecessarily imposing one’s particular religiousness on others (a loutish thing, that) and that being a Christian does not entail engaging in worshipful practices and rituals in public settings (that include non-Christians). Rather than speculate (badly) about motives, Why don’t you deal with my argument?
8:32 AM
Anonymous said...
If some of our students are anything like I was at their age - raised without religion - I expect that they feel a bit as I once did in similar situations when prayers are offered and I was told to bow my head - SHAME. It's an awful feeling - and one that shouldn't be created in a public institute of education. oh, an Anon at 7:50 - I wouldn't predict what Roy's next "move" is going to be - that's pretty bad bit of faulty reasoning - and the kind of red-baiting attack that sadly never seems to go out of style. (BTW, I LOVE the Judy Garland bits.)
8:33 AM
Trustees R beyond offensive
Anonymous said...
I taught in a Cathloic school at one time. There were prayers said - of course. I led some of them, of course. IVC is not a religious institution - it is paid for by citizens of all beliefs and those of no faith. It is attended by students of many religious traditions and students who follow no religious tradition. Employees are equally diverse. To be subject to repeated explicitly Christian prayers at public events and employee-related events is offensive. To be chastised by a member of the governing board for a lack of the faith that is HIS faith and not mine -and to be told in so many words by someone who is my employer that I am "going to hell" - is well, beyond offensive.
9:19 AM
Anonymous said...
Roy, You don't have an argument, you don't have a case. What you're doing is called a whine. I feel certain, (some would call it faith)that you will continue to stir the pot of controversy and post pictures of your cat.
9:39 AM
Loud American vs. quiet European Jesusery
Anonymous said...
I've traveled quite a bit and find it fascinating that the American manifestation of Christianity often is as Roy describes. Any insight on why that is so? One doesn't get this kind of thing in England or Germany or France - or even in Italy (though I guess some wouldn't consider Catholics Christians...)
9:49 AM
Subtle corruption is alive and well
Anonymous said...
Thanks for both excellent insights in these posts, VbT. I once served on a search for a Dean in which, as I LATER realized, the fix was pretty much in. And I've observed probably half a dozen faculty searches in which the inside candidate was --surprise!--the one chosen. My strong suspicion is that this kind of subtle corruption of good people is, indeed, at the heart of things in many of these cases. The injustice of it is maddening. Thanks, too, for the comment about being a quiet Christian. Spot-on. MAH
10:07 AM
In the real world, it isn't corruption; it's good
Anonymous said...
In the real world, the inside candidate often has an advantage, without any "fix" being in. In fact, the opportunity for advancement within an organization is an incentive to good work and should be encouraged. That's why many companies have explict policies favoring promotion from within. No "surprise" there. Why should academia be any different? It's not corruption, subtle or otherwise.
10:27 AM
Anonymous said...
"Faith is a gift Roy,one that you have not received." What a patronizing, smarmy, self important character this person must be. His/her special god has chosen to bestow a very special gift upon this person, and not for the likes of our humble blogger. These are the types of Christians who make all the others look bad.
10:32 AM
Insiders have it clinched? They shouldn't
Anonymous said...
Hiring processes for academic positions generally receive a great number of applicants, and, typically, among these are highly qualified people. In an academic setting, it is unlikely that local adjuncts will be among the best candidates, when there are many. I have been on perhaps ten job searches, and I don't think we ever offered the job to an insider. We often started the process assuming that a particular adjunct would rise to the top, but, again, in my experience, that has just not occurred. The point here is not that "insiders" don't have an advantage (they do). Rather, the point is that, all things considered, there is no reason to assume that the insider will be selected in the end--not of the process is clean.
11:45 AM
Judy, Judy, Judy
Anonymous said...
Yes--can't get enough of the young Judy G!
11:50 AM
It's corruption, Business Boy!
Anonymous said...
Well, 10:27, academia should be different from the business/corporate world for a number of reasons, but perhaps foremost because honesty is an absolute, core value in academia, ideally and often in fact. And doing a search when one knows or believes that the insider will get the position is plain dishonest, as well as stupendously inconsiderate and disrespectful of the outside candidates. The problem arises when the appearance of an authentic search doesn't correspond to the reality of a foregone (or even *almost* foregone) conclusion. Insiders do, in academia, also have advantages that don't have to do with corruption, of course. They are familiar with the institution, the students, the ethos of the place (if they've been doing their jobs). Still, the subtle corruption is there, in my view, based on observations over many, many years. MAH
11:59 AM
It's an important issue
Anonymous said...
Despite what one commentator has suggested, this suit highlights an important issue and I look forward to seeing how the court eventually sees it. Perhaps Anon at 9:39 should peruse some American legal history and see how this case fits in a proud tradition.
1:23 PM
DtB lifts the lid!
Anonymous said...
The blog doesn't stir pot as much as it lifts lids to show us what's cooking.
1:58 PM
14 comments:
Faith is a gift Roy,one that you have not received. You were raised as a Christian, it was the best your parents could do. You stuck your head in a book and came out questioning everything your parents taught you. Now, you're content to stick your head in the sand and claim everyone is blind to what you don't see. Your next move is to claim that the Pledge of Allegiance is a prayer too and ban that at all college functions. The fact is, this has nothing to with church and state. This has nothing to do with political correctness. This is nothing more than the continuing battle between egos and assholes that has plagued this district for far too long.
Gosh, 7:50, you sure do know a lot. The problem is that much of what you know just ain’t so. It is simply a factual mistake to view this lawsuit as originating with me. I have no plans to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance and I do not regard it as a prayer. I certainly do not reject everything my parents taught me. (Why don’t you ask ‘em?) And my participation in this lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with egoes. ¶
I have made two points here: that community, a valuable thing, is undermined by unnecessarily imposing one’s particular religiousness on others (a loutish thing, that) and that being a Christian does not entail engaging in worshipful practices and rituals in public settings (that include non-Christians). Rather than speculate (badly) about motives, Why don’t you deal with my argument?
If some of our students are anything like I was at their age - raised without religion - I expect that they feel a bit as I once did in similar situations when prayers are offered and I was told to bow my head - SHAME. It's an awful feeling - and one that shouldn't be created in a public institute of education.
oh, an Anon at 7:50 - I wouldn't predict what Roy's next "move" is going to be - that's pretty bad bit of faulty reasoning - and the kind of red-baiting attack that sadly never seems to go out of style.
(BTW, I LOVE the Judy Garland bits.)
I taught in a Cathloic school at one time. There were prayers said - of course. I led some of them, of course.
IVC is not a religious institution - it is paid for by citizens of all beliefs and those of no faith. It is attended by students of many religious traditions and students who follow no religious tradition. Employees are equally diverse.
To be subject to repeated explicitly Christian prayers at public events and employee-related events is offensive. To be chastised by a member of the governing board for a lack of the faith that is HIS faith and not mine -and to be told in so many words by someone who is my employer that I am "going to hell" - is well, beyond offensive.
Roy, You don't have an argument, you don't have a case. What you're doing is called a whine. I feel certain, (some would call it faith)that you will continue to stir the pot of controversy and post pictures of your cat.
I've traveled quite a bit and find it fascinating that the American manifestation of Christianity often is as Roy describes.
Any insight on why that is so?
One doesn't get this kind of thing in England or Germany or France - or even in Italy (though I guess some wouldn't consider Catholics Christians...)
Thanks for both excellent insights in these posts, VbT. I once served on a search for a Dean in which, as I LATER realized, the fix was pretty much in. And I've observed probably half a dozen faculty searches in which the inside candidate was --surprise!--the one chosen. My strong suspicion is that this kind of subtle corruption of good people is, indeed, at the heart of things in many of these cases. The injustice of it is maddening.
Thanks, too, for the comment about being a quiet Christian. Spot-on.
MAH
In the real world, the inside candidate often has an advantage, without any "fix" being in. In fact, the opportunity for advancement within an organization is an incentive to good work and should be encouraged. That's why many companies have explict policies favoring promotion from within. No "surprise" there. Why should academia be any different? It's not corruption, subtle or otherwise.
"Faith is a gift Roy,one that you have not received."
What a patronizing, smarmy, self important character this person must be. His/her special god has chosen to bestow a very special gift upon this person, and not for the likes of our humble blogger. These are the types of Christians who make all the others look bad.
Hiring processes for academic positions generally receive a great number of applicants, and, typically, among these are highly qualified people. In an academic setting, it is unlikely that local adjuncts will be among the best candidates, when there are many. I have been on perhaps ten job searches, and I don't think we ever offered the job to an insider. We often started the process assuming that a particular adjunct would rise to the top, but, again, in my experience, that has just not occurred. The point here is not that "insiders" don't have an advantage (they do). Rather, the point is that, all things considered, there is no reason to assume that the insider will be selected in the end--not of the process is clean.
Yes--can't get enough of the young Judy G!
Well, 10:27, academia should be different from the business/corporate world for a number of reasons, but perhaps foremost because honesty is an absolute, core value in academia, ideally and often in fact. And doing a search when one knows or believes that the insider will get the position is plain dishonest, as well as stupendously inconsiderate and disrespectful of the outside candidates. The problem arises when the appearance of an authentic search doesn't correspond to the reality of a foregone (or even *almost* foregone) conclusion.
Insiders do, in academia, also have advantages that don't have to do with corruption, of course. They are familiar with the institution, the students, the ethos of the place (if they've been doing their jobs).
Still, the subtle corruption is there, in my view, based on observations over many, many years.
MAH
Despite what one commentator has suggested, this suit highlights an important issue and I look forward to seeing how the court eventually sees it.
Perhaps Anon at 9:39 should peruse some American legal history and see how this case fits in a proud tradition.
The blog doesn't stir pot as much as it lifts lids to show us what's cooking.
Post a Comment