THE (POSSIBLE) EFFECTS OF “FIT” ON DIVERSITY EFFORTS

“Diversity” should not be considered a buzzword reflective of a particular point in time. Rather, disciplines may have been embracing diversity all along if the goal is to hire the best candidate who embodies the mission, goals, and objectives of a department—regardless of “group belonging.” Unfortunately, this has not been the case for many disciplines, including political science. For centuries, academia has been considered a bastion of white, heterosexual, cis-gendered males, despite thousands of women, minorities, and other marginalized groups who have since earned graduate degrees and entered the profession. However, many departments seem recalcitrant in the face of interviewing—and possibly hiring—a candidate who is not representative of the perceived “hegemony.” Many institutions have consciously decided to address the issue of diversity in recent years. However, this amounts to little more than recognizing the lack of diversity on campus, then hiring a “coordinator” or “director” of diversity and inclusion who often is hampered by the administration (and/or faculty) from implementing measures that are meaningful, impactful, and long-lasting.

To address possible “diversity” concerns, women (especially white women) often—but not always—are hired as a means to rectify a department’s “diversity problem” because of their status as a “protected class” based on gender, but racially representative of the majority in academia (Hall Reference Hall2006; Hunt et al. Reference Hunt, Morimoto, Zajicek and Lisnic2012; Taylor et al. Reference Taylor, Turk, Chessman and Espinosa2020, 234; Turner Reference Turner2002). However, review of the table entitled “Race, Ethnicity, and Gender of Full-Time Faculty” in the Chronicle of Higher Education (2022) reveals that numerous schools do not have any women faculty members. In many more schools, there are few—or no—BIPOC faculty members. However, certain departments across academia (especially ethnic/minority/gender studies and social service) are replete with women and minority faculty members in full-time positions (Taylor et al. Reference Taylor, Turk, Chessman and Espinosa2020, 232–33; Williams and Ceci Reference Williams and Ceci2015); Asian faculty members are represented strongest in STEM disciplines (Taylor et al. Reference Taylor, Turk, Chessman and Espinosa2020, 232–33). In addition, the percentage of full-time faculty based on race/ethnicity and gender in postsecondary institutions as of 2020 is shown in figure 1. Unfortunately, the data do not address other marginalized groups and neither are they reflected in the figure. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the number or percentage of LGBTQIA+ faculty members or other marginalized groups. However, the literature regarding the presence of—and challenges for—queer faculty members, as well as the research they produce, has increased considerably in the past two decades (Bilimoria and Stewart Reference Bilimoria and Stewart2009; Candler, Johnson, and Anderson Reference Candler, Johnson and Anderson2009; Cech and Waidzunas Reference Cech and Waidzunas2021; Cramer and Ford Reference Cramer and Ford2011; Renn Reference Renn2010; Shrader Reference Shrader2016). Intersectional candidates (e.g., queer women who belong to a racial minority group) may be more likely to be marginalized further and often more likely to be rejected based on the notion of “fit.”

Figure 1

Distribution of Full-Time Faculty in Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions, by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (Fall 2020)

Source: US Department of Education (2021).

(POSSIBLE) REASONS USED TO DEFEND THE NOTION OF “FIT” (AND HAMPER DIVERSITY EFFORTS)

Just as the term “fit” is vague, reasons given for denying a candidate based on the criterion also vary. Following are possible reasons that may be used to justify not hiring a candidate (but that use “fit” as the catchall term for the decision):

• • The “boys’ club” and “fit.” Fisher and Kinsey (Reference Fisher and Kinsey2014) explored the nature and power of the “academic boys’ club,” highlighting how male-colleague bonding based on gender could make it difficult for a woman to join a department. They used the term “homosocial desire” to indicate this level of bonding. “Homosocial desire,” or “homosociality,” is viewed as “nonsexual attractions for members of one’s sex” that “promotes clear distinctions between men and women through segregation in social institutions” (Bird Reference Bird1996, 121; Lipman-Blumen Reference Lipman-Blumen1976). These notions are bolstered by the concept of “hegemonic masculinity,” which contends that patterns of male dominance—particularly over women—are maintained through practice. In this sense, “practice” means keeping women—especially women of color—out of settings that allow this level of bonding and the reinforcement of perceived gender superiority (Connell and Messerschmidt Reference Connell and Messerschmidt2005). The existence of these concepts suggests that diversity (at least as it relates to adding women) will not happen until men confront the exclusionary nature of their professional relationship in the academy (Fisher and Kinsey Reference Fisher and Kinsey2014, 60; see also Bird Reference Bird1996; Lipman-Blumen Reference Lipman-Blumen1976). Men who belong to male-only departments may or may not realize that the rejection of female candidates is a tacit expression of the “boys’ club,” preservation of a “masculine hegemony,” and nonacceptance of the notions of diversity and inclusion. However, in some instances, there may be diverse men as part of the club—perhaps one or more cis-gendered men of color or, in certain disciplines, gay men (Tilcsik, Anteby, and Knight Reference Tilcsik, Anteby and Knight2015). However, if the discipline is strongly represented by women but no female candidates are hired (or are hired but compelled to quit, or are tenure-track but denied tenure), it is reasonable to assume that the “boys’ club mentality” may have influenced a department’s inability to hire and/or retain female faculty.

• • Microaggressions and implicit bias. Microaggressions and implicit bias, to an extent, are intertwined with the notion of fit—even if members of the hiring committee do not realize it. Nevertheless, candidates still try to put their “best face forward”; however, the microaggressions and implicit bias are often another reason for the term “fit” to be used against them. For example, committee members telling BIPOC candidates that they “are articulate” or that they “do not believe in race” are microaggressions that may not seem offensive (Sue Reference Sue2010). Unfortunately, those microaggressions (intentional or unintentional) may influence a committee member (or the entire hiring committee) to pass on a candidate, using “lack of fit” as a reason.

• • “Fit” and “social interaction.” For many hiring committees, the notion of fit has a decidedly “social” connotation as well. The appropriate candidate becomes someone with whom committee members and other faculty can see themselves sharing a drink, dinner, and social activities. Although this social aspect can enhance the overall cohesiveness of a department, the assumption that a candidate will not enjoy certain activities is shortsighted. Candidates are expected to remain professional at dinner, during happy hour, and even in the restroom. Moreover, they usually are nervous and their desire to be “candid” is restrained, which may be interpreted as guarded, aloof, or “no fun.”

• • Many of those who use the word “fit” to justify rejecting a candidate are not inherently bigoted, misogynistic, or homophobic. The problem is using the word that, arguably, implies a lack of understanding of different cultures and wariness of those who are perceived to be “different.”

  Many of those who use the word “fit” to justify rejecting a candidate are not inherently bigoted, misogynistic, or homophobic. The problem is using the word that, arguably, implies a lack of understanding of different cultures and wariness of those who are perceived to be “different.”

(POTENTIALLY) HELPFUL STRATEGIES FOR RETIRING THE WORD “FIT” IN HIRING CONSIDERATIONS

Following are strategies that hiring committees—and departments in general—can use to effectively evaluate “diversity” candidates for hire and move beyond using the term “fit” to justify hiring considerations:

• • If the hiring committee does not already do this, consider meeting before beginning the search to discuss in detail what the committee—and the department—need and want from a prospective hire. Encourage all members to be honest about the type of colleague they hope to bring aboard. Naturally, the focus should be on candidates’ credentials and whether they are “in sync” with the department’s overall mission, goals, and objectives. Consider a full department meeting as well; non-committee faculty members—especially those from marginalized communities—may provide valuable insight that the committee can use to make its decision.

• • Departments may consider getting to know faculty and perhaps students that represent marginalized communities in other departments. Consider objectively reading their published work; look for commonalities in teaching and research or novel approaches that may inform your own work; participate in academic presentations hosted by faculty or graduate students from marginalized communities; and invite them to events or functions hosted by the department. Find colleagues in the discipline from other colleges and institutions, and reach out to them to show respect for their work and perhaps offer to collaborate on a project (but do not offer to collaborate on their work unless invited).

• • Political science is one of several disciplines with caucuses and organizations that represent marginalized groups. They exist primarily as “safe spaces” where scholars can have their voice heard and identify with others like them. If committee members (and any faculty members) want to learn more about these scholars, first review their website or social media; then, if possible, reach out to someone you know who belongs to the group. Also, consider reading papers and watching plenary sessions from their conferences. There are many highly intelligent, capable individuals who belong to marginalized groups and who are scholars, peers, and colleagues in every sense. Finally, attend a conference first as an observer to learn more; through empathy, learning, and eventual allyship, the right to participate can be earned.

• • Take an active interest in the hiring process. Hiring new faculty can be perceived as “tedious”: committee members must slog through dozens—if not hundreds—of application portfolios to narrow the pool to a manageable few for interviews and campus visits; ask pertinent questions about candidates’ teaching and research; and get an overall “feel” for them as potential colleagues. Often, one or two committee members do most of the “heavy lifting”: drafting the job announcement, establishing the interview schedule, and screening the applicants. When all committee members participate, diversity efforts are enhanced because one member may see promise in an applicant who otherwise would have been rejected. Moreover, committees sometimes highlight faculty members who are from a marginalized group—not as “window dressing” in an attempt to court diversity but rather to ask about their experience in the interview process and how that led to their hiring. These faculty members can advise about questions to ask or events in which to engage candidates that encourages them to feel less alienated during the process. By making a commitment (although time consuming) to thoroughly examine the portfolios, the committee may interview a great candidate that otherwise would have been overlooked.

  When all committee members participate, diversity efforts are enhanced because one member may see promise in an applicant who otherwise would have been rejected.

• • Meet with other departments that have hired with a focus on diversity and therefore resulted in a diverse and inclusive group. Workplaces that are both diverse and inclusive are “vibrant” and “productive” (Bush Reference Bush2021); if a department is not diverse, then understanding how others achieved it is an important first step. Consider forming a “work team” with members from those other departments, including but not limited to “faculty members, department staff, graduate students, undergraduate students, alumni no longer on campus, and an expert in the area from outside the department” (Nunes Reference Nunes2021).

• • Pay attention to an applicant’s “diversity statement” because it has meaning—especially for those candidates from marginalized groups. The diversity statement submitted by candidates often reflects their experiences inside and outside of academia and how those experiences shaped them to be the instructor or researcher that they have become. If candidates are from a marginalized community, their statements frequently capture an anecdote that turned a previously negative experience into something positive. Likewise, statements from applicants in overrepresented groups (e.g., white, male, cis-gendered, and straight) usually reflect how they encountered other groups (as students and/or instructors) who helped them expand their thinking to view those different from them in a more positive light.

• • “Broaden your horizons” regarding research agendas and methods. Not everyone uses the same tools or wants to do the same research. Instead of viewing a candidate’s research agenda as “too narrow” (and a reason for rejection), committee members should consider that a narrower research agenda can help the professor (and the department) to stand out more in the discipline—especially if the candidate is publishing regularly and is recognized as an “expert” in that topic.

• • The “coordinator” or “director of diversity and inclusion” is a valuable resource to a department planning to hire. Invite them to a meeting before advertising a position for their insight on how to relate to candidates from a marginalized group. Many coordinators and directors are well trained in how institutions should address microaggressions and implicit bias—particularly in a candidate’s or existing faculty member’s evaluation (Alexander-Floyd Reference Alexander-Floyd2015). They may be a member of a marginalized group with firsthand experience of prejudice. Therefore, it is beneficial for a department that is primed to hire new faculty to consult with this individual on its campus.

• • Use educational skills and background to learn about marginalized communities. Because most faculty members have engaged in research at some point in their career, they should use that skillset to learn about marginalized groups on their own. Read histories, biographies, blogs, and diaries; visit the museum and the library; listen to recordings of oral histories; and watch TV shows that project strong, positive images of representation. Be willing to listen if group members choose to share their struggle. Do not look for yourself in these narratives because people like you are not necessarily in them. Become “uncomfortable” in learning; be mindful that in learning about the struggles of marginalized groups, anger, guilt, shame, or defensiveness toward what you are learning may be experienced. Committee members who belong to non-marginalized groups should allow themselves to be uncomfortable but open-minded. After all, it is another group’s experience; at the very least, be open to empathy. Finally, give special attention to learning about members of marginalized groups within the discipline—some of whom you may be interviewing in the future.

For largely homogeneous political science and other academic departments that accept their institution’s quest for diversity, these suggestions may help hiring committees to identify well-qualified candidates from marginalized groups (especially intersectional candidates). Of course, only one person can be hired for each full-time job, and a department cannot hire every qualified candidate. However, it is hoped that going forward, academic departments—particularly in political science—will give more attention to candidates who otherwise might be rejected because of “fit”—especially because those from marginalized groups are more likely to experience this rejection. The subjectivity of the word dismisses the educational journey of candidates and reduces them to a binary outcome: they do/do not fit, they are/are not “good enough for us.” Therefore, the word “fit” used to justify not hiring a candidate must be retired.