Before I do, some context. Every faculty hiring committee I’ve ever sat on has operated on an official premise: find the best person for the job. What actually happens in the room is another matter entirely. But this search was something else — even by the standards of a process that has never been as neutral as advertised.
The Spreadsheet
It started before the first application was reviewed. A colleague — one of the committee’s true believers — laid it out plainly: any new hire “must not be white.” Not “diversity is a priority.” Not “we should broaden our search.” Must. Not. Be. White.
This wasn’t a suggestion. It became the operating framework. The committee created a scoring matrix: teaching, research, terminal degree — and diversity. Except “diversity” didn’t mean what the university’s official policy said it meant.
The committee’s original definition of “diverse” meant non-male — excluding white men while allowing white women. When I pointed out that women are not exactly underrepresented in academia, and that excluding white men specifically would constitute gender discrimination, the definition was revised. The solution: expand the discrimination. It now meant non-white. All white candidates, men and women, were out. Progress.
White applicants were filtered out in the first round. Not evaluated and found lacking. Filtered. Pre-screened by name before anyone read their application. If your name sounded WASPy — think Milford C. Wellington III — your CV went in the trash unread. No one checked your teaching record. No one looked at your research. The name was enough. Ivy League PhDs, Emmy Award winners, Fulbright Scholars — an enormous swath of the applicant pool, gone before anyone read a word.