!@#% Around and Found Out

[Shiori]

---

Members don't see this ad.

My point seems to have been unclear. I was sharing my story to highlight that I was put into the role of a pseudo-faculty member because of the lack of representation and interest from the actual faculty. It wasn't a position I wanted to be in. I don't want to be rewarded for filling an unfillable gap and burning myself out. It wasn't even something I chose on several occasions. It was assumed I would do it and people were sent to me by their mentors. I know now not to do that sort of thing without a significant salary increase.

I wanted a faculty member who cared about these things to share the burden and provide support. Smartly, a lot of folks don't want to sign up for that. It's why I didn't even consider academia. That was my point. Not that I thought I could do it all. The burden is going to fall on someone. We can figure out a way for it to happen more equitably. In my specific example, cis white men and women with multiple intersecting identities were 90ish percent of the department. There was a reason they still sent their students to me. They didn't feel comfortable doing that work that I felt comfortable doing. To protect my time and my education, I needed more folks who felt comfortable helping students navigate that. If we don't want more diversity hires, then someone needs to learn to pick up the slack.

 

[Shiori]

APAGS Diversity Survey Results

View national survey results and analysis on diversity training.

www.apa.org

Here is a survey of what students want and how they feel included. If they don't get it from faculty, they're going to get it from other students. That's fine until it starts putting pressure on people to be mini supervisors.

 

[WisNeuro]

My point seems to have been unclear. I was sharing my story to highlight that I was put into the role of a pseudo-faculty member because of the lack of representation and interest from the actual faculty. It wasn't a position I wanted to be in. I don't want to be rewarded for filling an unfillable gap and burning myself out. It wasn't even something I chose on several occasions. It was assumed I would do it and people were sent to me by their mentors. I know now not to do that sort of thing without a significant salary increase.

I wanted a faculty member who cared about these things to share the burden and provide support. Smartly, a lot of folks don't want to sign up for that. It's why I didn't even consider academia. That was my point. Not that I thought I could do it all. The burden is going to fall on someone. We can figure out a way for it to happen more equitably. In my specific example, cis white men and women with multiple intersecting identities were 90ish percent of the department. There was a reason they still sent their students to me. They didn't feel comfortable doing that work that I felt comfortable doing. To protect my time and my education, I needed more folks who felt comfortable helping students navigate that. If we don't want more diversity hires, then someone needs to learn to pick up the slack.

At least for some others, I don't think the problem was that diversity was prioritized in the OPs and some others' experiences, rather that it was the sole criteria that was apparently being utilized. Everyone agrees that there is a problem, but the discrepancy appears to be how people think the problem can be solved and what timeline is reasonable. And, how do we help to solve that problem without depriving students of necessary training competencies?

 

[Pragma]

To me, this isn’t necessarily new. I remember looking at academic jobs 10 years ago and had folks tell me not to bother applying for specific positions because they wouldn’t be hiring any white men. I understand the reasons and desire to increase representation but I would be lying if I said it seemed fair.

 

[WisNeuro]

To me, this isn’t necessarily new. I remember looking at academic jobs 10 years ago and had folks tell me not to bother applying for specific positions because they wouldn’t be hiring any white men. I understand the reasons and desire to increase representation but I would be lying if I said it seemed fair.

And this is the unfortunate piece, trying to solve discrimination with more discrimination. I'm fine with preferences, like in the VA or federal jobs with Veteran preference, where it's a piece of the equation. But, when you completely rule someone in our out solely based on demographics, that's a problem.

 

[PsyDr]

To me, this isn’t necessarily new. I remember looking at academic jobs 10 years ago and had folks tell me not to bother applying for specific positions because they wouldn’t be hiring any white men. I understand the reasons and desire to increase representation but I would be lying if I said it seemed fair.

I swear to god, I thought you were an Indian woman.

 

[deleted1129370]

If you believe the current "stain" of being a white, male, heterosexual is anything remotely close to the historical "stain" of being non-male, non-white, or non-heterosexual, we are so far apart in our beliefs that we probably should find something more productive to debate. In answer to some of the questions above, I don't know when (or if) it will ever be even, or how we will even tell if it is, but I'm not thinking we (male white heterosexuals) are at any risk losing the advantages of our centuries-long head start within my lifetime.

I'm struck by how some posters will stray from their unusual "suck it up, make yourself more competitive and stop complaining 'cause that's the way it is fair or not" advice when it comes to this issue.

Agreed. I don't think you will find folks will capitulate to this, including myself. I have very different views and beliefs on the topic. As we are allowed, just as you and others are. I am gay, disabled, but white. I will echo what other posters have mentioned in that, it seems like nothing is ever going to be good enough. Frankly, it's as if the world is always burning and there is always some fire to put out and that we demand others to capitulate to things that are framed as being problems when many of times, I hear my fellow LGBT colleagues walking around with chips on their shoulders. It's a matter of perspective, and I opt to not frame my existence or experiences in a manner that portrays me to others as a victim, not have a victim mentality. I understand that I am different in many ways from my heterosexual counterparts. I do not expect them to appreciate what I do as a gay man. I do not see the white, Christian, heterosexual male as being my oppressor that I need to be broken out of my chains from. But if this is the message and narrative constantly espoused in the media, academia, etc., then that becomes the new flavor of the month even with the highly variable "research" published on LGBT topics. My undergrad major was sociology - most of my classes varied on the same stuff (capitalism, white, heterosexual, Christian, males = bad/ life is unfair because of those in the 1%, let's burn it all down to the ground and re-start, and if you don't like it, make as much noise as possible, burn stuff down to the ground until those 1%ers get uncomfortable enough to do what you want).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I didn’t even know the origin of the word woke and it’s connection to the civil rights movement until this post got me to look into the origins. Appreciate that and will likely not use the word to reference the co-opted version out of respect for that movement and it’s importance.

Sadly, it is a well-worn political maneuver to ruin certain terms as a way to neutralize their impact. Woke, CRT, BLM....all terms and ideas that have very valid and important meanings have been targeted by certain groups bc those groups didn't like what they stood for in our culture.

These words/terms get twisted and politicized to such an extent that it changes how the term is used in our culture....ON PURPOSE. These are all now "trigger" words for certain groups meant to distort and disarm any attempt at discussion or important ideas related to their use. They WANT to silence their use because the actual meanings point out the systemic racism and bigoted actions by people and orgs.

 

[bcliff]

Not to diminish OP's experience, but I'm wondering... How many other people on this thread have applied and been denied an opportunity because of being White? or male? or able-bodied? I haven't encountered this or heard colleagues describe this as a major issue... maybe I'm in the minority of White men, though (pun not intended, heh). It seems like a little bit of a red herring.

OP, to your point, would you describe yourself as someone with an expertise/background in DEI-related work, etc.? Was DEI mentioned in the position posting? I wonder if, at some point along the way, limited experience in DEI was conflated with aspects of your identity, which is unfair to you and does a disservice to the larger initiative of DEI. Do we think this thread would exist if the message received by OP had been: "we're terminating your application due to your limited experience in DEI, which is a skillset we've identified as simultaneously important and underrepresented within our department." -- ?

To the larger point about a department's decision to wait for the "perfect" faculty candidate: Even under the best of circumstances (which I would argue is not where most of higher education finds itself right now), many departments are limited in their ability to hire new faculty. This seems especially true for smaller and less research-intensive institutions (not sure if that applies here). So, I can understand a department choosing to forgo hiring altogether rather than compromising on a candidate with less than perfect fit -- Similar points about the importance (and year-to-year variability and somewhat arbitrariness, etc.) of fit are routinely made in the WAMC thread; it makes sense that the same would apply within the higher stakes sphere of faculty searches.

OP, I'm happy to hear that it sounds like you've ended up in another position that you're happy with -- Who among us hasn't found some vindication in rejecting a job, invitation, etc. from someone who rejected us first!? 😉

 

[Pragma]

Not to diminish OP's experience, but I'm wondering... How many other people on this thread have applied and been denied an opportunity because of being White? or male? or able-bodied? I haven't encountered this or heard colleagues describe this as a major issue... maybe I'm in the minority of White men, though (pun not intended, heh). It seems like a little bit of a red herring.

OP, to your point, would you describe yourself as someone with an expertise/background DEI-related work, etc.? Was DEI mentioned in the position posting? I wonder if, at some point along the way, limited experience in DEI was conflated with aspects of your identity, which is unfair to you and does a disservice to the larger initiative of DEI. Do we think this thread would this thread exist if the message received by OP had been: "we're terminating your application due to your limited experience in DEI, which is a skillset we've identified as simultaneously important and underrepresented within our department." -- ?

To the larger point about a department's decision to wait for the "perfect" faculty candidate: Even under the best of circumstances (which I would argue is not where most of higher education finds itself right now), many departments are limited in their ability to hire new faculty. This seems especially true for smaller and less research-intensive institutions (not sure if that applies to this institution). So, I can understand a department choosing to forgo hiring altogether rather than compromising on a candidate with less than perfect fit -- Similar points about the importance (and year-to-year variability and somewhat arbitrariness, etc.) of fit are routinely made in the WAMC thread; it makes sense that the same would apply within the higher stakes sphere of faculty searches.

OP, I'm happy to hear that it sounds like you've ended up in another position that you're happy with -- Who among us hasn't found some vindication in rejecting a job, invitation, etc. from someone who rejected us first!? 😉

Never explicitly denied for that given reason (that would be very stupid of them to say). But told that they didn’t want any white male hires by an insider.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I don't think psychology has overcorrected much. It's primarily folks from majority groups arguing amongst themselves. That is the status quo. We're regularly snarky about our interests. SDN is a catalog of folks snipping at each other about various topics. We have two or three threads right now simmering and occasionally boiling. DEI is the new hotness at the moment and will likely fade. Hopefully that'll make it easier for the hard, tedious work to continue.

Thank you. I think the overwhelmingly instinctively defensive responses to the original post is very indicative of the reason why DEI initiatives exist. It baffles and blows my mind that the people responding in certain directions don’t see how they are perpetuating the need for DEI initiatives and also don’t see how their fragile fear of losing their Allegedly nonexistent privilege is on full display. I would bet my entire year’s salary that the same people are not this vocal and facetious when nonwhite non-males are being discriminated against. I am too irritated at the moment to elaborate further, but those who get it get it. As the kids say, #IYKYK

Clearly the field has a very long way to go and the pendulum hasn’t swung far enough if these are the responses to the original post. The lack of awareness is astounding. Yet unsurprising. And is unfortunately a very apt microcosm of prevailing attitudes held by the majority of us.

 

[WisNeuro]

Thank you. I think the overwhelmingly instinctively defensive responses to the original post is very indicative of the reason why DEI initiatives exist. It baffles and blows my mind that the people responding in certain directions don’t see how they are perpetuating the need for DEI initiatives and also don’t see how their fragile fear of losing their Allegedly nonexistent privilege is on full display. I would bet my entire year’s salary that the same people are not this vocal and facetious when nonwhite non-males are being discriminated against. I am too irritated at the moment to elaborate further, but those who get it get it. As the kids say, #IYKYK

Clearly the field has a very long way to go and the pendulum hasn’t swung far enough if these are the responses to the original post. The lack of awareness is astounding. Yet unsurprising. And is unfortunately a very apt microcosm of prevailing attitudes held by the majority of us.

I'll take that bet. Knowing some of these people personally, as well as their current state and national advocacy involvement, I can easily say that is a terribly shortsighted assumption. But, I guess when people disagree with us, it's easier to use ad hominems than engage in discussion.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Not to diminish OP's experience, but I'm wondering... How many other people on this thread have applied and been denied an opportunity because of being White? or male? or able-bodied? I haven't encountered this or heard colleagues describe this as a major issue... maybe I'm in the minority of White men, though (pun not intended, heh). It seems like a little bit of a red herring.

OP, to your point, would you describe yourself as someone with an expertise/background DEI-related work, etc.? Was DEI mentioned in the position posting? I wonder if, at some point along the way, limited experience in DEI was conflated with aspects of your identity, which is unfair to you and does a disservice to the larger initiative of DEI. Do we think this thread would this thread exist if the message received by OP had been: "we're terminating your application due to your limited experience in DEI, which is a skillset we've identified as simultaneously important and underrepresented within our department." -- ?

To the larger point about a department's decision to wait for the "perfect" faculty candidate: Even under the best of circumstances (which I would argue is not where most of higher education finds itself right now), many departments are limited in their ability to hire new faculty. This seems especially true for smaller and less research-intensive institutions (not sure if that applies here). So, I can understand a department choosing to forgo hiring altogether rather than compromising on a candidate with less than perfect fit -- Similar points about the importance (and year-to-year variability and somewhat arbitrariness, etc.) of fit are routinely made in the WAMC thread; it makes sense that the same would apply within the higher stakes sphere of faculty searches.

OP, I'm happy to hear that it sounds like you've ended up in another position that you're happy with -- Who among us hasn't found some vindication in rejecting a job, invitation, etc. from someone who rejected us first!? 😉

I am 100% sure that most of the people who responded in support of the original post/mocking DEI initiatives did not ask themselves even 10% of the questions you posed

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I'll take that bet. Knowing some of these people personally, as well as their current state and national advocacy involvement, I can easily say that is a terribly shortsighted assumption. But, I guess when people disagree with us, it's easier to use ad hominems than engage in discussion.

My anecdotal experiences beg to differ. So I guess we agree to disagree.

 

[WisNeuro]

My anecdotal experiences beg to differ. So I guess we agree to disagree.

You know these same people personally and the positions they hold and the initiatives that they have been a part of?

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I would like to humbly request that the word "woke" be returned to Black folks. In the hands of others, it has turned into something unfortunate.

Could not agree more.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I imagine any new word will be co-opted again because of its importance to various groups who are posturing at each other right now. I appreciate the dialogue though.

“If you don’t let us join your fun party, we’re going to burn the whole house down”. That’s the typical response when we urge folks outside of the community to let us have our things.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

In this specific case, it's because it has been used by Black people to signal community and address issues of safety with each other. Now it is apparently so toxic that anything denoted as "woke" is bad. When we create spaces of sharing and cultural fluidity, things that are unifying and culturally significant to us become jokes and/or commodified.

I never wear dog tags or put on any part of a military uniform. Some people are totally fine with it. It's deeply offensive to many of the veterans I work with. They're imbued with meaning by the people who are culturally connected to them. I can purchase any of these items, but don't.

When White folks were involved in discussion of "wokeness" after George Floyd, it took two years to bring us to this point. TWO. This word has been used in this way by Black people since the 1940s. It has gained prominence when there is a significant civil rights upheaval. It connects Black people during especially hard times. That is why "arbitrary groups" of people want to "own" things. Whenever we share, we often end up here. The internet has just sped up the process.

Copy and pasting this to use in future conversations because you could not have phrased it better.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Not to diminish OP's experience, but I'm wondering... How many other people on this thread have applied and been denied an opportunity because of being White? or male? or able-bodied? I haven't encountered this or heard colleagues describe this as a major issue... maybe I'm in the minority of White men, though (pun not intended, heh). It seems like a little bit of a red herring.

OP, to your point, would you describe yourself as someone with an expertise/background DEI-related work, etc.? Was DEI mentioned in the position posting? I wonder if, at some point along the way, limited experience in DEI was conflated with aspects of your identity, which is unfair to you and does a disservice to the larger initiative of DEI. Do we think this thread would this thread exist if the message received by OP had been: "we're terminating your application due to your limited experience in DEI, which is a skillset we've identified as simultaneously important and underrepresented within our department." -- ?

To the larger point about a department's decision to wait for the "perfect" faculty candidate: Even under the best of circumstances (which I would argue is not where most of higher education finds itself right now), many departments are limited in their ability to hire new faculty. This seems especially true for smaller and less research-intensive institutions (not sure if that applies here). So, I can understand a department choosing to forgo hiring altogether rather than compromising on a candidate with less than perfect fit -- Similar points about the importance (and year-to-year variability and somewhat arbitrariness, etc.) of fit are routinely made in the WAMC thread; it makes sense that the same would apply within the higher stakes sphere of faculty searches.

OP, I'm happy to hear that it sounds like you've ended up in another position that you're happy with -- Who among us hasn't found some vindication in rejecting a job, invitation, etc. from someone who rejected us first!? 😉

I think the point about discussing DEI stuff even as someone without any marginalized identities is on point--people can and do do really good DEI work without lived experience if they put in the work and recognized their own biases and knowledge gaps (as we all have to do regardless of our backgrounds/identities--we all have gaps and biases). What can get red flag-y from a DEI standpoint is when someone says something like "I do measurement research; this DEI stuff doesn't apply to my area" or "well, I had some students who were Muslim before, and wasn't sure how to deal with the stuff they mentioned in supervision, but they graduated, so I guess it turned out okay. Anyway, behaviorism is culture-free!"; or "well, DEI isn't an issue in neuropsych because our measures are objective," and the concern becomes that this person is not even willing to enage with these issues if they come up in the classroom or supervision at all (I obviously don't know what the OP said in his interview, but I've heard people unironically say this stuff before).

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Gotta say, I've not been on this forum as much in the last year or so, and came to check it out today and I'm a bit dismayed by what I'm seeing in this thread. It is a GOOD thing that psychology departments are trying (albeit clunkily) to push DEI efforts. The field is *still* dominated by White, cis-gendered, able-bodied, straight people, with men still holding the most power in terms of administrative positions and full professorships. I just don't see any issue with a program selecting a faculty candidate who *does* help move DEI efforts forward over one who does not. Does it feel good to have expectations violated? No--no one should ever promise offers until they are cleared through a search committee and HR. But still. And grad students are an important part of the process--grad students are often far more aware of the inequities and racist **** that happens in departments than faculty because they talk to each other more often and bitch about stuff more.

How must this exchange come across to people on this board who identify as a minority and want to think that psychology (of all fields) is maybe trying to do the right thing in moving toward a more inclusive and equitable workforce? Come on, ya'll. (The Monty Python references remain classically hilarious.)

Once again, the lack of awareness that jumps out of people when they’re trying to defend their own privilege is outstanding. I have observed this in so many ways across time, and I swear it’s like trying to convince someone in the full throes of psychosis that Jesus is actually NOT telling them to jump into traffic.

 

[calimich]

Copy and pasting this to use in future conversations because you could not have phrased it better.

and the silence to that analogy was deafening

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I don't see as much of a problem with that either, but that did not seem like what was happening here. My read of the situation was that the program chose to forgo choosing a candidate altogether when they couldn't find their unicorn, thereby leaving a major content area without anyone who can teach/supervise it competently. And then when they had insight into that issue, they started recontacting people who may have been a good fit academically, but did not check other boxes.

Who says that was The exact problem at hand? Who says they didn’t already have a candidate in the interim that didn’t work out for various reasons? I’ve been a member of institutions where the sole minority hire was essentially forced out of the job because of a hostile environment due to race-related issues. So it’s very convenient that you were so easily primed with your own presumptions to justify the narrative that you wanted to believe. At least that’s what it looks like.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Another issue is a supply problem. I think we could almost universally agree that certain aspects of diversity are not as represented in academia as they are in the general population. This is a fact that we can back up with survey data. And, we could all nearly universally agree that it'd be great if our academic institutions more closely matched our general population. But, we can't snap our fingers and make it so. The hiring pool reflects what is available at the moment, and it a lagging indicator given that to get to that point, someone must have gotten into grads school 7-10 years prior to that point. So, your hiring pool is where it is. I don't see how punishing your current students because the world isn't the way you want it to be helps anything but breed resentment and lead to missed opportunities and lowered competence in a key area. Solutions need to take into account the reality of the situation, not what you think the situation ideally should be.

Perhaps, but the solution to the problem is not to derisively mock attempts to do so and classify it as “overly woke”, like most of the responses to the original post did.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

On a different but similar note, I was pretty resentful and bitter towards the universities I attended. It seemed like they had offered scholarships and preferential treatment to certain minority demographic students. I get the reason, I understand the rationale. It wasn't lost on me. But I ended up feeling like I didn't matter. That, and because I was a white undergraduate and graduate student, nothing else about who I was mattered when it came time to determining scholarships. They didn't know that I came from a home where my dad had a lot of physical and mental disabilities that precluded him from working, thus, my mother was the only breadwinner in the family that made it pretty challenging growing up. I also had several physical and learning disabilities since childhood that made it very difficulty in my academic pursuits. I turned my life around in my early 20's. I no longer subscribed to being a victim to my learning disabilities and decided to craft a plan to prevail. I identified my strengths and weaknesses on my own and crafted a plan to do well in my collegiate studies. No longer was I a "C and D" student. I evolved in how I learned how to learn and earned a 3.7-4.0 throughout most semesters. I went onto a master's degree in neuroscience with no prior background in the "hard sciences" and actually was in the top of my class compared to other peers who came in with backgrounds in chemistry, physics, and biology. I published and worked at a very well-respected AMC. None of these accolades seemed to matter because I didn't "tick" certain minority checkboxes. What was rich was when I graduated from my undergrad and master's programs; they started sending me letters to see if I would be willing to contribute to their scholarship funds. That pissed me off a lot as I didn't receive crap. I was probably one of the students in significant need of money to help offset the fact I worked 1-2 jobs while going to school full time, and had to work twice as hard as my peers to be successful due to my learning impairments. But I guess since I didn't fit within the prevailing statistical models, I didn't matter. The whole nomothetic translating to idiographic approach really is a limitation of our field at times.

But is your solution to that to advocate for your minority status(es), or to malign or mock other attempts at promoting spaces for all other kinds of Minorities? Because, again, it sounds like ‘if you don’t care about my problems, I’m going to burn the whole place down and you can’t care about anybody else’.

 

[WisNeuro]

Who says that was The exact problem at hand? Who says they didn’t already have a candidate in the interim that didn’t work out for various reasons? I’ve been a member of institutions where the sole minority hire was essentially forced out of the job because of a hostile environment due to race-related issues. So it’s very convenient that you were so easily primed with your own presumptions to justify the narrative that you wanted to believe. At least that’s what it looks like.

Could have been, but hasn't been my experience at all when hiring decisions have been made. So, looks like we're basing certain assumptions on past experience.

Perhaps, but the solution to the problem is not to derisively mock attempts to do so and classify it as “overly woke”, like most of the responses to the original post did.

Indeed, this, nor what was done in the OPs example seem to be very good solutions at all, yet both are frequently used.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

If you believe the current "stain" of being a white, male, heterosexual is anything remotely close to the historical "stain" of being non-male, non-white, or non-heterosexual, we are so far apart in our beliefs that we probably should find something more productive to debate. In answer to some of the questions above, I don't know when (or if) it will ever be even, or how we will even tell if it is, but I'm not thinking we (male white heterosexuals) are at any risk losing the advantages of our centuries-long head start within my lifetime.

I'm struck by how some posters will stray from their unusual "suck it up, make yourself more competitive and stop complaining 'cause that's the way it is fair or not" advice when it comes to this issue.

As the cool kids say, ”Boom!”

 

[PsyDWannabe]

and the silence to that analogy was deafening

Those with privilege will both consciously and subconsciously defend to the death their ability to maintain that privilege. It’s simple human psychology. As unfortunate as it is.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

My question is simple. How often have the people who responded favorably:mockingly to the original post spent this much time or effort defending stigma, discrimination and prejudice towards nonwhite noncisgendered males? be honest with yourself now.

You’re taking time out of the middle of your workday, a Monday no less, to go back-and-forth on this post. How often have you put in that same effort when the allegedly victimized is of a different demographic?

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Ultimately I find it funny as well as ironic that the very title of this thread is a co-opted term originated and popularized by Black America.

“Everybody wants to be a [black], but nobody wants to be a [black]“ – Paul Mooney.

 

[Sanman]

My point seems to have been unclear. I was sharing my story to highlight that I was put into the role of a pseudo-faculty member because of the lack of representation and interest from the actual faculty. It wasn't a position I wanted to be in. I don't want to be rewarded for filling an unfillable gap and burning myself out. It wasn't even something I chose on several occasions. It was assumed I would do it and people were sent to me by their mentors. I know now not to do that sort of thing without a significant salary increase.

I wanted a faculty member who cared about these things to share the burden and provide support. Smartly, a lot of folks don't want to sign up for that. It's why I didn't even consider academia. That was my point. Not that I thought I could do it all. The burden is going to fall on someone. We can figure out a way for it to happen more equitably. In my specific example, cis white men and women with multiple intersecting identities were 90ish percent of the department. There was a reason they still sent their students to me. They didn't feel comfortable doing that work that I felt comfortable doing. To protect my time and my education, I needed more folks who felt comfortable helping students navigate that. If we don't want more diversity hires, then someone needs to learn to pick up the slack.

At least for some others, I don't think the problem was that diversity was prioritized in the OPs and some others' experiences, rather that it was the sole criteria that was apparently being utilized. Everyone agrees that there is a problem, but the discrepancy appears to be how people think the problem can be solved and what timeline is reasonable. And, how do we help to solve that problem without depriving students of necessary training competencies

Really the issue here is that someone on the search committee spoke out of turn. None of the decision making process other than extending or not extending an offer should have been mentioned.

That said, part of the issue becomes exactly happened to @Shiori . Is this candidate then required to shoulder DE&I work in addition to their other duties as a neuropsychologost? Would a white cis male be required to do so? While budgets can be tight, the answer cannot be overburden folks that are willing to take said job or leave students with no mentor/faculty. Because I would take an opportunity with a white mentor over no mentor if I were a student. At some point folks need to put their money where there mouth is. So, how we solve this in a way that does not rely on waiting for candidates that might never get there. Is there a gay, minority neuropsychologist looking for a job? Are there enough that one of them wants to move to Oklahoma? Or are they going to stick with the coasts?

 

[Sanman]

Thank you. I think the overwhelmingly instinctively defensive responses to the original post is very indicative of the reason why DEI initiatives exist. It baffles and blows my mind that the people responding in certain directions don’t see how they are perpetuating the need for DEI initiatives and also don’t see how their fragile fear of losing their Allegedly nonexistent privilege is on full display. I would bet my entire year’s salary that the same people are not this vocal and facetious when nonwhite non-males are being discriminated against. I am too irritated at the moment to elaborate further, but those who get it get it. As the kids say, #IYKYK

Clearly the field has a very long way to go and the pendulum hasn’t swung far enough if these are the responses to the original post. The lack of awareness is astounding. Yet unsurprising. And is unfortunately a very apt microcosm of prevailing attitudes held by the majority of us.

Not sure if I am included in that group. But, I will happily take your bet. I am not a white cis-gendered male in the first place.

 

[Sanman]

Those with privilege will both consciously and subconsciously defend to the death their ability to maintain that privilege. It’s simple human psychology. As unfortunate as it is.

Of course, however it is not those at the top of the pecking order that need to be most worried. They will be fine. The question then becomes who ends up at the bottom. The controversy that Dave Chappelle's recent stand up special brought up asks exactly that question.

 

[Pragma]

So, how we solve this in a way that does not rely on waiting for candidates that might never get there. Is there a gay, minority neuropsychologist looking for a job? Are there enough that one of them wants to move to Oklahoma? Or are they going to stick with the coasts?

You said it right here. I have had the experience of having no POC apply for faculty positions. I assume it might be about the location since we pay really well.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Not to diminish OP's experience, but I'm wondering... How many other people on this thread have applied and been denied an opportunity because of being White? or male? or able-bodied? I haven't encountered this or heard colleagues describe this as a major issue... maybe I'm in the minority of White men, though (pun not intended, heh). It seems like a little bit of a red herring.

I had it happen once (bc I was male), though I largely agree with you that it is a red herring in most instances. Mine had to do with internal policies and a very toxic environment, so in some ways I dodged a bullet.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I had it happen once (bc I was male), though I largely agree with you that it is a red herring in most instances. Mine had to do with internal policies and a very toxic environment, so in some ways I dodged a bullet.

Is it a red herring if your demographic is over represented and they offer the position to an equally qualified individual from a woefully underrepresented demographic? Because the subjective presumption will always be that we are more qualified yet rejected, if for no other reason but to protect the ego. This is not an affront to you, we are all guilty of this.

 

[ccpsych16]

I don't think anyone is saying that DEI work is not important. However, I do think that as @Fan_of_Meehl pointed the question becomes how do you implement it. It's easy to take shots at white males, but the issue I often struggle with is that DEI work often becomes less about diversity and feels more like a power struggle with different groups at the table. If there are no white males in positions of power, but all white females is that progress or just demographics changes? How about a group that is all gay and lesbian except for one cis-gendered male? Often, my experiences in DEI groups have been less about true diversity and more about the next most powerful block of people that are not white cisgendered males pushing for an agenda for their group. This often makes me check out and lose interest as it feels like it is less about diversity and more about self-interest.

Re: bolded part (emphasis mine). I’m not jumping into this debate, but I skimmed the thread and didn’t see anyone call attention to this. Especially as psychologists, it’s important for us to be precise on this. Being cisgender (not -genderED) and being lesbian or gay are not mutually exclusive. One refers to gender and one to sexual orientation. In your example, all the lesbian and gay people could be cisgender (or transgender, non-binary, etc). The “one cisgender male” is not necessarily heterosexual. “Cis white males” might be an oft repeated phrase, but it is implying that they are *also* heterosexual, and thus occupy a privileged social location at the nexus of overlapping systems of oppression.

There are many layers to this, and lots of scholars (psychologists and humanities folks) have spent decades writing about wielding how individuals move in the world when they hold privileged and marginalized identities simultaneously. Spoiler alert, people tend to gravitate toward weaponizing power & then shielding themselves from criticism under the guise of their oppressed identity(ies). Particularly regarding your question of “all white females”—that has been answered over and again. A starting point: “All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women's Studies” (1982). The title itself speaks volumes. Poorly implemented DEI initiatives/social progress leave people (in this case, Black women), out.

 

[Sanman]

Re: bolded part (emphasis mine). I’m not jumping into this debate, but I skimmed the thread and didn’t see anyone call attention to this. Especially as psychologists, it’s important for us to be precise on this. Being cisgender (not -genderED) and being lesbian or gay are not mutually exclusive. One refers to gender and one to sexual orientation. In your example, all the lesbian and gay people could be cisgender (or transgender, non-binary, etc). The “one cisgender male” is not necessarily heterosexual. “Cis white males” might be an oft repeated phrase, but it is implying that they are *also* heterosexual, and thus occupy a privileged social location at the nexus of overlapping systems of oppression.

There are many layers to this, and lots of scholars (psychologists and humanities folks) have spent decades writing about wielding how individuals move in the world when they hold privileged and marginalized identities simultaneously. Spoiler alert, people tend to gravitate toward weaponizing power & then shielding themselves from criticism under the guise of their oppressed identity(ies). Particularly regarding your question of “all white females”—that has been answered over and again. A starting point: “All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women's Studies” (1982). The title itself speaks volumes. Poorly implemented DEI initiatives/social progress leave people (in this case, Black women), out.

Regarding the bolded portion you are absolutely correct. That was a mistake on my part. That's what happens when I multi-task as I do know better.

Thanks for the citation.

 

[NewNeuroDemic]

Not to diminish OP's experience, but I'm wondering... How many other people on this thread have applied and been denied an opportunity because of being White? or male? or able-bodied? I haven't encountered this or heard colleagues describe this as a major issue... maybe I'm in the minority of White men, though (pun not intended, heh). It seems like a little bit of a red herring.

OP, to your point, would you describe yourself as someone with an expertise/background in DEI-related work, etc.? Was DEI mentioned in the position posting? I wonder if, at some point along the way, limited experience in DEI was conflated with aspects of your identity, which is unfair to you and does a disservice to the larger initiative of DEI. Do we think this thread would exist if the message received by OP had been: "we're terminating your application due to your limited experience in DEI, which is a skillset we've identified as simultaneously important and underrepresented within our department." -- ?

To the larger point about a department's decision to wait for the "perfect" faculty candidate: Even under the best of circumstances (which I would argue is not where most of higher education finds itself right now), many departments are limited in their ability to hire new faculty. This seems especially true for smaller and less research-intensive institutions (not sure if that applies here). So, I can understand a department choosing to forgo hiring altogether rather than compromising on a candidate with less than perfect fit -- Similar points about the importance (and year-to-year variability and somewhat arbitrariness, etc.) of fit are routinely made in the WAMC thread; it makes sense that the same would apply within the higher stakes sphere of faculty searches.

OP, I'm happy to hear that it sounds like you've ended up in another position that you're happy with -- Who among us hasn't found some vindication in rejecting a job, invitation, etc. from someone who rejected us first!? 😉

To be clear, I was told by the search committee chair I wouldn't be hired because " didn't move forward any of [their] DE&I initiatives..." So I guess I could have been denied for any number of my presenting identities, not necessarily my whiteness. (Ironically, my non-physically presenting identities, I guess, are of lesser importance.) Because another member of that search committee told me that I would be made an offer of employment, I assume that I adequately met the job's required and preferred criteria.

No, I would not describe myself as someone with expertise/background in DE&I-related work. My research and clinical foci certainly are not in these domains. But I also wouldn't describe myself as unaware, uneducated, and/or uninterested in DE&I. Like many on this forum, I have taken several formal courses related to these concerns and their intersections with research and clinical work, as well as attended numerous grand rounds, didactics, and seminars regarding the same. I also consider myself to have had various personal experiences (cue eyerolls) that aid me in better understanding my various privileges. I grew up in a part of the country where approximately 25% of my classmates were Native American, lived full-time for several years in Central America and the Caribbean, and my spouse is Black. Anyway, all of this cringy offering of bona fides is to argue that I am not willfully ignoring the many valid points presented by previous responders to my original post and to pushback on your suggestion that my "limited experience with DEI was conflated with aspects of [my] identity..." I also felt like the meeting with the grad students to discuss my DE&I knowledge/efforts went really well. I am not uncomfortable with saying, "Look. I possess virtually all of the privileges associated with power, prestige, and money in this field..."

The position posting was at an R1 for an adult boarded or board-eligible clinical neuropsychologist with expertise in neuroimaging (broadly defined) who has extramural funding. Specific subject area(s) was left open. A document describing and highlighting how DE&I plays a role in my professional work was requested, as it almost always is now, but DE&I scholarship or clinical focus was not a part of the job description.

And yes, in the end I landed a much better position.

 

[NewNeuroDemic]

To be clear, I was told by the search committee chair I wouldn't be hired because " didn't move forward any of [their] DE&I initiatives..." So I guess I could have been denied for any number of my presenting identities, not necessarily my whiteness. (Ironically, my non-physically presenting identities, I guess, are of lesser importance.) Because another member of that search committee told me that I would be made an offer of employment, I assume that I adequately met the job's required and preferred criteria.

No, I would not describe myself as someone with expertise/background in DE&I-related work. My research and clinical foci certainly are not in these domains. But I also wouldn't describe myself as unaware, uneducated, and/or uninterested in DE&I. Like many on this forum, I have taken several formal courses related to these concerns and their intersections with research and clinical work, as well as attended numerous grand rounds, didactics, and seminars regarding the same. I also consider myself to have had various personal experiences (cue eyerolls) that aid me in better understanding my various privileges. I grew up in a part of the country where approximately 25% of my classmates were Native American, lived full-time for several years in Central America and the Caribbean, and my spouse is Black. Anyway, all of this cringy offering of bona fides is to argue that I am not willfully ignoring the many valid points presented by previous responders to my original post and to pushback on your suggestion that my "limited experience with DEI was conflated with aspects of [my] identity..." I also felt like the meeting with the grad students to discuss my DE&I knowledge/efforts went really well. I am not uncomfortable with saying, "Look. I possess virtually all of the privileges associated with power, prestige, and money in this field..."

The position posting was at an R1 for an adult boarded or board-eligible clinical neuropsychologist with expertise in neuroimaging (broadly defined) who has extramural funding. Specific subject area(s) was left open. A document describing and highlighting how DE&I plays a role in my professional work was requested, as it almost always is now, but DE&I scholarship or clinical focus was not a part of the job description.

And yes, in the end I landed a much better position.

Apologies for the italics.

 

[deleted1129370]

To be clear, I was told by the search committee chair I wouldn't be hired because " didn't move forward any of [their] DE&I initiatives..." So I guess I could have been denied for any number of my presenting identities, not necessarily my whiteness. (Ironically, my non-physically presenting identities, I guess, are of lesser importance.) Because another member of that search committee told me that I would be made an offer of employment, I assume that I adequately met the job's required and preferred criteria.

No, I would not describe myself as someone with expertise/background in DE&I-related work. My research and clinical foci certainly are not in these domains. But I also wouldn't describe myself as unaware, uneducated, and/or uninterested in DE&I. Like many on this forum, I have taken several formal courses related to these concerns and their intersections with research and clinical work, as well as attended numerous grand rounds, didactics, and seminars regarding the same. I also consider myself to have had various personal experiences (cue eyerolls) that aid me in better understanding my various privileges. I grew up in a part of the country where approximately 25% of my classmates were Native American, lived full-time for several years in Central America and the Caribbean, and my spouse is Black. Anyway, all of this cringy offering of bona fides is to argue that I am not willfully ignoring the many valid points presented by previous responders to my original post and to pushback on your suggestion that my "limited experience with DEI was conflated with aspects of [my] identity..." I also felt like the meeting with the grad students to discuss my DE&I knowledge/efforts went really well. I am not uncomfortable with saying, "Look. I possess virtually all of the privileges associated with power, prestige, and money in this field..."

The position posting was at an R1 for an adult boarded or board-eligible clinical neuropsychologist with expertise in neuroimaging (broadly defined) who has extramural funding. Specific subject area(s) was left open. A document describing and highlighting how DE&I plays a role in my professional work was requested, as it almost always is now, but DE&I scholarship or clinical focus was not a part of the job description.

And yes, in the end I landed a much better position.

Well, based on some of the responses, hopefully someone who ticks all of the other progressive label boxes will get the spot you tried out for. I guess that's how we are paying it forward these days.

 

[Shiori]

Eh, it's probably going to be a white woman making the final decision. I don't fit the description.

 

[deleted1129370]

Eh, it's probably going to be a white woman making the final decision. I don't fit the description.

Apparently neither do I.

 

[WisNeuro]

Apparently neither do I.

This is why you should eschew academia and institutional work and just work for very well-paying law firms. They don't give a **** who you are as long as you can do a good evaluation, cite appropriate references, and shred the reports of the hacks on the other side.

 

[deleted1129370]

This is why you should eschew academia and institutional work and just work for very well-paying law firms. They don't give a **** who you are as long as you can do a good evaluation, cite appropriate references, and shred the reports of the hacks on the other side.

I am definitely keeping my ear to the ground as to make that shift. I don't see myself doing the whole AMC/VA path too much longer. The pay is pretty awesome considering the amount of effort I put into at times.

 

[futureapppsy2]

To be clear, I was told by the search committee chair I wouldn't be hired because " didn't move forward any of [their] DE&I initiatives..." So I guess I could have been denied for any number of my presenting identities, not necessarily my whiteness. (Ironically, my non-physically presenting identities, I guess, are of lesser importance.) Because another member of that search committee told me that I would be made an offer of employment, I assume that I adequately met the job's required and preferred criteria.

No, I would not describe myself as someone with expertise/background in DE&I-related work. My research and clinical foci certainly are not in these domains. But I also wouldn't describe myself as unaware, uneducated, and/or uninterested in DE&I. Like many on this forum, I have taken several formal courses related to these concerns and their intersections with research and clinical work, as well as attended numerous grand rounds, didactics, and seminars regarding the same. I also consider myself to have had various personal experiences (cue eyerolls) that aid me in better understanding my various privileges. I grew up in a part of the country where approximately 25% of my classmates were Native American, lived full-time for several years in Central America and the Caribbean, and my spouse is Black. Anyway, all of this cringy offering of bona fides is to argue that I am not willfully ignoring the many valid points presented by previous responders to my original post and to pushback on your suggestion that my "limited experience with DEI was conflated with aspects of [my] identity..." I also felt like the meeting with the grad students to discuss my DE&I knowledge/efforts went really well. I am not uncomfortable with saying, "Look. I possess virtually all of the privileges associated with power, prestige, and money in this field..."

The position posting was at an R1 for an adult boarded or board-eligible clinical neuropsychologist with expertise in neuroimaging (broadly defined) who has extramural funding. Specific subject area(s) was left open. A document describing and highlighting how DE&I plays a role in my professional work was requested, as it almost always is now, but DE&I scholarship or clinical focus was not a part of the job description.

And yes, in the end I landed a much better position.

Thank you gfor coming back and making this post, sincerely. It's much more nuanced and useful than the original post, which kind of read as dismissive of the idea of DEI as a whole, hence one reason we got this long thread.

And the hiring process can be weird--I once didn't get a TT job because I didn't list grants I worked under, but didn't actually write, on my CV and was seen as having less grant experience than the person they did hire, who did list those. Five years later, that person and I have received pretty much the same amount of grant funding, so was their reasoning valid? Eh, maybe? Do I list grants I was paid under but didn't write on my CV now? Yes. Do I still think it kind of misses the point of that section of someone's CV? Also, yes.

 

[ThatPsyGuy]

This thread was a wonderful read to compliment my instant ramen and wine dinner.
Got a little worried toward the end of page 1, reeled back in on page 2, satisfied on page 3 with a nice bow to wrap things up.

4.5/5 thread. Would read it again.

 

[deleted1129370]

This thread was a wonderful read to compliment my instant ramen and wine dinner.
Got a little worried toward the end of page 1, reeled back in on page 2, satisfied on page 3 with a nice bow to wrap things up.

4.5/5 thread. Would read it again.

You should wait until season 4....

 

[PsyDWannabe]

To be clear, I was told by the search committee chair I wouldn't be hired because " didn't move forward any of [their] DE&I initiatives..." So I guess I could have been denied for any number of my presenting identities, not necessarily my whiteness. (Ironically, my non-physically presenting identities, I guess, are of lesser importance.) Because another member of that search committee told me that I would be made an offer of employment, I assume that I adequately met the job's required and preferred criteria.

No, I would not describe myself as someone with expertise/background in DE&I-related work. My research and clinical foci certainly are not in these domains. But I also wouldn't describe myself as unaware, uneducated, and/or uninterested in DE&I. Like many on this forum, I have taken several formal courses related to these concerns and their intersections with research and clinical work, as well as attended numerous grand rounds, didactics, and seminars regarding the same. I also consider myself to have had various personal experiences (cue eyerolls) that aid me in better understanding my various privileges. I grew up in a part of the country where approximately 25% of my classmates were Native American, lived full-time for several years in Central America and the Caribbean, and my spouse is Black. Anyway, all of this cringy offering of bona fides is to argue that I am not willfully ignoring the many valid points presented by previous responders to my original post and to pushback on your suggestion that my "limited experience with DEI was conflated with aspects of [my] identity..." I also felt like the meeting with the grad students to discuss my DE&I knowledge/efforts went really well. I am not uncomfortable with saying, "Look. I possess virtually all of the privileges associated with power, prestige, and money in this field..."

The position posting was at an R1 for an adult boarded or board-eligible clinical neuropsychologist with expertise in neuroimaging (broadly defined) who has extramural funding. Specific subject area(s) was left open. A document describing and highlighting how DE&I plays a role in my professional work was requested, as it almost always is now, but DE&I scholarship or clinical focus was not a part of the job description.

And yes, in the end I landed a much better position.

I am so sorry, this seems like a hissy fit tantrum and is the equivalent of the “I have black friends“ argument. I mean you literally used the “I have a black spouse“ argument which is literally the WORST justification for anything ever, coming from a non-black person , regardless of how aware and educated you may be. A lot of people co-signing your stance don’t have the lived experience to tell you this, so hopefully you hear it from me and take it for what it’s worth. If I were applying for a position as a pediatrician, and my argument was that even though “I have no expertise or background” in the area (as you claim), I have taken a few classes and I have a lot of pediatrician friends, so that should be enough qualification, I would be laughed out of the institution and rightfully so. You are villainizing this institution for presumably choosing an individual who perhaps has the lived experience of dealing with the relevant issues and you have a problem with that?I’m not drinking the Kool-Aid that everyone else in this thread is drinking (and for reasons I don’t care to presume); I’m sorry but I just don’t see it.

And I repeat, because it’s been conveniently ignored throughout this thread, the fact that the spot remains open a year later does not mean that they did not find a more qualified candidate to fill the spot. It very well could be, as is the experience of a lot of visible minorities in our field, that the conditions of employment were so hostile that they did not last long in the position. Which is something that I myself have witnessed multiple times. So maybe step out of your anger and hurt ego pity party, and approach the situation more critically. You have a lot of people on this website who are way too eager to jump into your side of the issue, but that doesn’t mean it stands the test of reason and logic. It just means they’re very eager to agree with you for whatever reason (that I once again, will not speculate).

Maybe this exact situation as it’s playing out in real time, and your entitlement and resulting meltdown to their rejection, is a microcosm of the larger reasons why you’re not suited for a DE&I position. #ReverseRacismIsNotAThing #AndItNeverWillBe

 

[Pragma]

But it wasn’t a DEI focused job description, right? I think it would be a different story if it was.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

But it wasn’t a DEI focused job description, right? I think it would be a different story if it was.

But it clearly was/is an important part of the selection process, and that’s been made abundantly clear by the people doing the hiring regardless of what the job description said. So I guess I fail to see what the confusion is on the part of the applicant. Would the applicant I felt better if they had stated “DEI” explicitly in the job description? Because the applicant’s current argument is that they have enough of a DEI background to qualify for the position after finding out that it is a core component of whatever the institution was seeking. I guess that’s where I’m lost. They told you what they were looking for (regardless of how you found out, you found out), they told you that you don’t have the background to fit the criteria that they have in mind, why are we faulting the institution? Why are we entitled to fill a space that’s clearly created for a different kind of applicant with more relevant background and training? Maybe ask ourselves, have we ever been this up in arms when non-minorities are hired over minorities for much less sensible reasons?