The Boston Globe
By Robert Zelnick
February 28, 2010
NOT TOO MANY years ago the dean of an Ivy League college described a no-holds barred battle at his institution over tenure for an African-American candidate.
“He tried once before and didn’t come close,’’ my friend said. “This time he’s screaming discrimination, racism, God knows what else.’’
“Will he make it?’’ I asked.
“I doubt it. We’re talking tenure, not undergraduate admissions. There’s a world of difference.’’
There certainly is and anyone offering an assessment of the so-called “under-representation’’ of tenure track minorities at leading institutions of higher learning should understand that, while most professors are committed to student diversity and support the affirmative action admissions practices needed to achieve it, many will fight against making race a “plus factor’’ in tenure situations. Here the “publish or perish’’ mandate is as essential as it is race neutral.
The reasoning is simple: An undergraduate is gone in four or five years and few, no matter how talented academically, leave a body of work behind capable of influencing the school’s standing or reputation. But a professor granted tenure at, say, age 30, will remain on the faculty for perhaps the next 35 years. His or her scholarly research and writing will influence the reputation of the department over a period of many years, attracting or repelling other young scholars wishing to enter the same academic field.
Full Story: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/02/28/tenure_decisions_cant_remedy_racial_imbalance/
No comments:
Post a Comment