Prof CG is tenured. He’s in a position to hire other people. And what he doesn’t seem to grasp is that he’s saying that your work and how you frame it matters much less than whether or not you look the part of someone who belongs. Which, it so happens, means you look like HIM /10
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
This is bad enough for someone like me, a white, able-bodied cislady with an upper-middle-class background and a more or less non-regional accent, among other advantages. What does this mean for people who look even less like this guy than I do? /11
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 29 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Now, at that time I was already 90% sure I’d be leaving traditional academia. One major reason is that I was very disillusioned by the job search—especially the interview—process, and how it demands folks fit their identities & work into discrete, pre-existing categories. /12
1 vastaus 2 uudelleentwiittausta 18 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
For me, it was especially off-putting to be told (in interviews, no less) that laying plans to work with communities beyond campus made me a less serious scholar, that even mentioning a desire to incorporate public-facing work somehow rendered my research “less rigorous.” /13
2 vastausta 3 uudelleentwiittausta 23 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
But ProfCG was getting to a much more fundamental way search committees demand job candidates squeeze their identities into stale, frankly boring-ass boxes we’ve seen many times before. In this case, it was literally about looking like what—who—they’ve SEEN before: themselves./14
1 vastaus 1 uudelleentwiittaus 18 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
I could’ve pretended not to care about partnering w larger publics in my interviews.
, but easy. Yet no matter what I changed—my stated goals, glasses, whatever—I would never look like the “fantasy” given as example: a man. Specifically, a straight white able-bodied cisman/151 vastaus 1 uudelleentwiittaus 11 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
I’ll reiterate what I told Prof CG: this is bullshit. Let me be specific, though, for anyone out there hiring now or in the future. This is BS because it is unjust, and because it’s bad for the field, for the humanities, for higher ed, and for society in general. /16
1 vastaus 1 uudelleentwiittaus 28 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
You’re going to eliminate a LOT of fascinating, innovative possibilities if you dismiss candidates who don’t look like your own “fantasies,” who look different than those who’ve been hired before. You’re doing your students, colleagues, & intellectual future a huge disservice/17
1 vastaus 7 uudelleentwiittausta 38 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
So for anyone on a search committee out there: if you care about justice and inclusivity—if you care about the future of your field—open your imagination a little. The next great scholar may well look like someone you’ve never yet dreamed of even in your wildest “fantasies.” /end
1 vastaus 8 uudelleentwiittausta 49 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
P.S. btw: I do believe Prof CG was acting in good faith, giving what likely was solid, if demoralizing, job market advice. But he didn't seem to fathom how it might be a problem, or serve to replicate so many structural inequalities that he and many academics purport to oppose.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 30 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju
Thanks for sharing this. You are absolutely correct: our field is in the business of replication rather than innovation which is why we are in danger in higher ed.
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.