Faculty diversity has a lot of catching up to do

Over the years, I’ve noticed a steady increase in the number of minority students in my classes, which is great…but strangely, there hasn’t been any increase in the percentage of minority faculty over the same period. One possible explanation is that since the tenure of faculty is so much longer than the tenure of students, student numbers are going to be more responsive to current demographics. But I can’t help but feel that there’s more going on. That we current faculty are not doing our part to create a professoriate that reflects our culture.

Here’s a blunt assessment of the problem. Why don’t we hire more faculty of color? Because we don’t want them. The author lists a whole series of excuses we white faculty make, and I’ve heard them all.

First, the word “quality” is used to dismiss people of color who are otherwise competitive for faculty positions. Even those people on search committees that appear to be dedicated to access and equity will point to “quality” or lack of “quality” as a reason for not hiring a person of color.

Typically, “quality” means that the person didn’t go to an elite institution for their Ph.D. or wasn’t mentored by a prominent person in the field. What people forget is that attending the elite institutions and being mentored by prominent people is linked to social capital and systemic racism ensures that people of color have less of it.

This is slightly less of a problem in my current liberal arts, teaching-focused institution, but boy, I heard a lot of it in the big state schools I worked at before. I knew faculty who went through job applications looking only at the name of the institution/faculty member they worked with on the first pass, and if they didn’t come from a Name university or worked with a Name scientist, they were round-filed.

Second, the most common excuse I hear is “there aren’t enough people of color in the faculty pipeline.”

It is accurate that there are fewer people of color in some disciplines such as engineering or physics. However, there are great numbers of Ph.D.’s of color in the humanities and education and we still don’t have great diversity on these faculties.

In biology, we have a reasonable number of minority faculty applying for jobs — there are historically black colleges, like Howard University, that have excellent biology programs and turn out a good number of well-qualified black biologists. We just don’t hire them.

Third, I have learned that faculty will bend rules, knock down walls, and build bridges to hire those they really want (often white colleagues) but when it comes to hiring faculty of color, they have to “play by the rules” and get angry when any exceptions are made.

Let me tell you a secret – exceptions are made for white people constantly in the academy; exceptions are the rule in academe.

Oh man yes. Faculty tend to resent rules — this is a job that encourages independent thinking — and are accustomed to using the rules to get what they want. There is a kind of adversarial relationship between faculty and administration, and I suspect deans have all kinds of stories about how faculty try to work the system.

Fourth, faculty search committees are part of the problem.

They are not trained in recruitment, are rarely diverse in makeup, and are often more interested in hiring people just like them rather than expanding the diversity of their department.

True confession: I’m on the search committee for a tenure track cell/molecular biologist this year — we meet with our human resources person next week for the mandatory diversity training, which I have been through several times now. We still tend to hire our fellow white people every time. I will try to pay more attention to minority applicants, and will avoid insisting that faculty at UMM must fit the Lake Wobegon stereotype.

Fifth, if majority colleges and universities are truly serious about increasing faculty diversity, why don’t they visit Minority Serving Institutions — institutions with great student and faculty diversity — and ask them how they recruit a diverse faculty.

Now that is a really good idea. We should be sending out our job ad specifically to minority serving institutions with strong graduate programs in biology, which would also enrich our applicant pool significantly. Please do suggest such places in the comments and I’ll be sure to add them to our mailing list.

Of course, once we hire a diverse faculty, there’s the next problem: community and university attitudes. Science just ran an article on doing science while black.

But my experiences with the larger scientific community still made me feel like I didn’t belong. A few years after becoming a professor, for example, I went to a social event at a society meeting with an international, multiracial group of colleagues. I was the only black researcher among them. When we walked into the room, the crowd fell completely silent, apparently uncomfortable with my presence. I considered myself a scientist with great potential, but that experience made me feel that, to others, my skin color was more important than the quality of my work. The next year, as I was starting a sabbatical in a lab at another institution, I asked one of the researchers in the group whether the PI was in. “Are you delivering a package?” he asked. “I can pass it on to him.” These and other encounters imply that, no matter how productive my research is or how professionally I present myself, I and other black scientists do not belong in academia’s hallowed halls.

Ouch. That’s going to be another difficulty here in the blindingly white Minnesota farm country.

Oh, hey, the other committee I’ve been assigned this year is to serve on the multi-ethnic experience committee, which works to promote “campus-wide understanding of racial and ethnic minorities”, despite the fact that I am made of doughy Wonder Bread and was raised in the same kind of Scandinavian-American household that just about everyone grew up in around here. You might notice that I’m trying hard to educate myself on these phenomena.

“Who won?”

You can talk about the vice presidential debate all you want. I skipped it. And this morning I tried to find out what was said, and all I see is the media arguing about “who won”, which I don’t give a good goddamn about. Did we learn anything about policies? At the end of the debate, shouldn’t we have a clearer idea about what the candidates stand for, and isn’t that what the media should be talking about?

Instead, all I hear about is that Pence “looked” “presidential”, two rather meaningless words.


Jebus. Now the right-wingers are arguing about the flair the two were wearing. Pence wore the obligatory American flag pin, while Kaine wore a mysterious and almost certainly insidious furrin pin of some kind.

Can we just declare that anyone who doesn’t know what the Blue Star service symbol means isn’t qualified to pontificate on military matters in the US?

Please sit down and shut up, Gary Johnson

He has a new excuse for his ignorance of foreign policy matters: being stupid is an asset.

It’s because we elect people who can dot the I’s and cross the T’s on the name of a foreign leader or a geographic location, then allows them to put our military in harm’s way.

Jebus. We’ve already forgotten George W. Bush, who hadn’t the vaguest idea of the organization of the region he happily invaded?

I understand that the unrest in the Middle East creates unrest throughout the region.

You don’t even want to know how confused he was about Latin America.

So no, Gary Johnson, the fact that you don’t know how to find your own ass with a mirror, a theodolite, and a butt-plug with built-in GPS does not imply that you are incapable of hip-checking someone while you’re floundering about trying to figure out what you’re doing with our military.

I hear that women are made of exotic matter

The Nobel in Physics has been awarded for research on exotic matter, but I think you’d be better off looking for a physicist to explain it. I’m sure it’s good work and that the three scientists are deserving, but I just have to leave this fact on the table.

No Nobel Prize has come close to being equitably distributed by gender, but physics has the worst record of them all. Zero women have won it in the past 50 years. Exactly two women have won it ever.

Again, this does not detract from the accomplishments of Thouless, Haldane, and Kosterlitz, but it does make one wonder how much further physics would have progressed if it didn’t have a culture that discouraged half of humanity from participating.

Can I come in and tell you about the cult of Danio?

Now I know how a Mormon or Scientologist or Baptist feels when some heathen tries to earnestly explain their religion. This video is well done, but gives me a bit of the heebie-jeebies.

I started working on zebrafish in 1979 (I wasn’t the first, or even particularly close — that honor goes to the crew in George Streisinger’s lab), and all through the 80s our lab group had a reputation: at every meeting in every talk, we’d recite what was called the Zebrafish Litany, a listing of all the virtues of this quirky new model organism that nobody else knew much about. In fact, at the Friday Harbor lab meetings in developmental biology there was a kind of tradition where the students would linger in the auditorium late at night and mock the speakers and professors with imitations on the podium, and one year a group made fun of us by having a series of students march robotically to the lectern and recite the exact same series of words. And those words are in this video. How dare the unbelievers speak our catechism!

The video doesn’t quite capture the true nature of the Cult of Danio, though. Everything in it is about how zebrafish research contributes to the study of human diseases, which is a nice perk of the system, but we study the fish because the fish are fascinating, not because we are wannabe human disease researchers. Also, the part where he explains the flaws of the zebrafish, that they have many duplicated genes (so do we) and that they have unique genes not found in humans? Those aren’t flaws.

It is nice to see, though, that our orison is now part of the general public awareness of the zebrafish. That’s why we were saying it so often. Soon, you too shall be a believer. All praise George!

Spooky evolved powers!

The Alien Disclosure group has discovered an alien starchild living in China with amazing powers. They have proof. It’s on video.

Ooh, spooky. His eyes aren’t brown! I bet you didn’t know that blue eyes give you the power to see in the dark, did you?

The description of this kid is pretty silly, too.

In the Chinese city Dahua lives child of a new human race. Little Nong Yousui has blue eyes with a deep neon glow in the dark just like the cat’s eye effect.

NONG YOUSUI CAN SEE IN THE DARK AS MUCH AS WE CAN SEE IN THE LIGHT

Such eyes are a familiar sight even for the inhabitants of the Nordic lands. The boy can see in the dark as we can see in the light.

Yes. We Nordics are familiar with the neon glow of our eyes. We have to wear blindfolds to bed so that the glare doesn’t keep are partners awake. We also have a tapetum, just like a cat.

Let’s bring the Science to bear.

After his teacher shared these unusual abilities on the internet, suspicious reporters from Beijing decided to check out the information with specialists. They concluded from a variety of tests and experiments including DNA analysis and chromosonal defragmentation, none of which hurt the boy, that indeed he had ‘evolved’ genes. Little Nong is the first living man that can see in the dark.

According to some specialists, it is not a random change. Namely, this change isn’t a mutation consequence but more of an evolution consequence.

How do you tell a mutated gene from an evolved one?

I’d also like to try defragmenting my chromosomes, especially since they say it doesn’t hurt.