A few points on this issue: (1) I think that a more systematic survey of representative samples of faculty may turn up instances of hiring/tenure decisions being affected by a candidate's political views but these would be as problematic as surveys of the type focusing on "Have you ever known of a colleague committing an unethical or illegal act in the course of research, teaching, clinical practice/counseling?" That is, people might suggest that such things may have occurred but then realize that they put themselves at risk for slander or libel (unless the faculty person was charged and "convicted" of such allegations). I assume that a private college can impose any requirements it wants on its students and faculty and can require them to either believe certain things or not be part of their institutions (so-called "statement of faith"; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_of_faith ). If a faculty member is found in violation of such a statement, then the person can be legally dismissed from the faculty. Institutions without such a statement/requirement but uses such criteria might find themselves liable to lawsuits because it would appear that criteria not part of one's contract, that is, criteria was being used to evaluate one's service to the institution which was not explicitly staten in the empolyment contract. I assume that a private college can have a statement of faith representing a political view but I am unaware of such a situation (i.e., you agree to being a socialist or a communist or a maoist as part of your empolyment).
(2) Given (1), one may wonder about a place like, say, Wheaton College (Illinois) because it has a "community convenant and statement of faith" which I assume all faculty must agree with and sign; see: http://www.wheaton.edu/welcome/aboutus_community.html Of particular interest is that they also have a Psy.D. program which requires faculty and students to agree to the statement; see: http://www.wheaton.edu/psychology/graduate/overview/index.html Wheaton has a webpage on its commitment to diversity in the students who are accepted to their Psy.D. program and here is part of their statements there: |Commitment to Diversity | |The Psy.D. program at Wheaton College maintains a strong commitment |to diversity in its recruitment and training. Students of color, persons |who are physically challenged, and older students are especially encouraged |to apply to our program. Recognizing that diversity is an essential value |that is emphasized throughout training, the doctoral program places particular |emphasis upon the recruitment of ethnic and racial minority students. I note that sexual orientation is not included nor is it mentioned elsewhere on this page. One wonders how students advocating pro-choice are considered. More info on Wheaton is available in a Wikipedia entry (SDA): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheaton_College_%28Illinois%29 Of relevance, see the "Criticism and controversy" section. NOTE: I do not want to single out Wheaton College but only to use it as an example of where faculty are required to agree to a statement of faith as part of their employment and violations of the statement will lead to actions by the college, such as dismissal. (3) I think that colleges run with a specific religious orientation may probably engage in more politically based hirining/promotion decisions but by using the frame that employees beliefs or activities are violations of the statemetn of faith (e.g., being pro-choice or holding other progressive ideas [such as same sex partners being treated as married couples] may be seen as being in conflict the faith). (NOTE: some religious colleges declare themselves to be "nonsectarian" while the top administration is represented mostly by members of the religious group; as a nonsectrarian college they cannot require one to sign a statement of faith -- which would mean the college is indeed sectarian -- but may use the faith as a basis for college rules and regulation. This could result in decisions about hiring and firing that are shrouded in secrecy but public statements as to why they were made would usually be "nonactionable", this is, represent no basis for a lawsuit on the basis of some form of discrimination. Clearly, colleges requiring one to sign/adhere to a statement of faith filters out those are most likely to be in disagreement with the positions statement in the statement of faith. In such cases, one should be aware that the agreeing to the statement of faith is the "price of admission" to getting the job and deviating from it will cost one the job. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] On Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 07:44:26 -0500, Jim Dougan wrote: > A few days ago, someone posted a question about why university > faculty are so liberal. There were some interesting responses. I > have been thinking about this for a long time, and eventually I want > to write something on the subject for my blog. > > I have a question for all of you, as a non-random sample of academics: > > Conservatives like to claim that universities are liberal because > they discriminate against conservatives in hiring, promotion, and > tenure. For example, they claim that qualified faculty members are > denied tenure on the basis of their political beliefs. > > In my 20+ years as a faculty member, I have never seen that > happen. Sure - I have seen some questionable tenure decisions - I > suspect we all have - but I have never seen anyone denied tenure or > promotion because of their political views. > > I am curious - have any of you seen such things occur? > > -- Jim Dougan --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=2755 or send a blank email to leave-2755-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
