Professional Life Part 3

As the 4 of you who read this blog know, I've been detailing my experiences as an academic economist over the last few decades. Mostly, I put personal stuff on this blog but this peek into my professional life might also be informative. As I stated, I spent nearly 17 years at the University of Alabama (UA) and almost 7 more years as the department chair at the University of Oklahoma (OU). Both in the economics departments. Both were deeply racist (see Part 1 of this series). This showed clearly in hiring of new faculty colleagues.

Back in 2009 or 2010, I was a tenured associate professor of economics and our department at UA needed to make two new hires which were advertised as Financial economics and Development economics. The position for the financial economist was to be an endowed chair which came with extra salary and prestige. The Development position was to be at the entry level. The two searches were being headed by two different groups of faculty members in the department. After the initial round of interviews came the campus visits of the finalists. We brought to campus the finalists for the financial position first and as is custom, each faculty member would sit to chat with the candidates. Sitting in my office, this person told me that I was not to consider his spouse when evaluating him as a candidate. That was good news to me since I didn't know that his spouse was in the pool and wouldn't have cared anyway since it was him who I was evaluating.

It was later revealed that his spouse had applied for the Development position. S/he was a finalist also and I had a pleasant conversation with them during the visit. We then met as a department to vote on the two positions. As expected, the guy was voted number 1 for the endowed chair in financial economics. He was far and away better than the other candidates. We then voted on the development position and his spouse came in second. That made sense to me given that, while competent, the person who came in number 1 was superior in terms of teaching, research and service. I was happy to think that we'd be attempting to get two top-notch colleagues.

However, it turned out that the endowed chair candidate had informed the department chair that he wouldn't consider taking the position without his spouse also being offered a position. Thus, he lied directly to my face when he was in my office. Self-dealing and lying are also common in the profession. What shocked me was that the department faculty (minus me) and the department chair decided to offer the job to this candidate and his spouse.

I objected on many levels. I asked the chair why the person who had come in number 1 in the development search was being passed over. His response was that the couple made a "better team." I argued that we never advertised the position(s) as looking for a team. Heck, had the number 1 development candidate known that we were searching for a team s/he could have gone out to find a financial person to team up with. I also mentioned that this guy was a liar and if he lied to get in, he'd lie to stay. I also asked whether this guy was worth two positions. In essence, we wanted him so badly that we were willing to "give" his spouse the other position although s/he was inferior to others. Those arguments were ignored.

Then I brought up what troubled me then and now. I wondered how many times had I applied for a job and been the best candidate and been passed over because I didn't have the right connection (in this case marital). How many black candidates apply for jobs but because our networks aren't as deep, we don't get proper consideration? I mentioned that it's interesting to me that networks always seem to benefit people who don't look like me. My colleagues hated such talk.

I ended up leaving UA about 5 years later but really should have left 5 years before this incident. I can say that my faculty colleagues didn't shed a tear when I left since now they were relieved of me pointing out their hypocrisy and blatant racist actions. And that guy who they hired? He left at some point too for being caught up in a minor scandal. Saw that coming.

This was why I never did at UA or OU or now at Tulane look at letters sent to me on behalf of a candidate which were not included in the job file. Man, have I heard it from my colleagues about this over the years. However, what I've found is that these unsolicited letters are always pointing out how this person is a "good guy" who they know personally and can vouch for. It's interesting to me that these advocacy letters are never written on behalf of black candidates. I don't know how many times I've been in a hiring meeting and a colleague will say that so-and-so contacted them personally to put in a good word for the candidate. I always respond by asking why that endorsement isn't in the official documents? If it's not in the job file, then it shouldn't be considered.

My colleagues argued that we should take all relevant information about a candidate into account and we can't afford to ignore information given that these are important and costly decisions. But when I ask them why they have no additional information about the few, if any, black candidates in the pool they'll say that they don't know them. That's my point, exactly!

So, hiring in economics departments all over the country continues as I described above. OU and UA? They wouldn't hire me back if I offered to work for free. I was the first, only, and probably last black economist they'll ever hire. I'm not a "good guy."