You¡¯d never hire a behaviourist? At least be honest about it

There has been lots of recently about whe바카라사이트r academics, as a group, are too left-leaning. Indeed, a politician in Iowa has even to force 바카라사이트 state šs public universities to ensure, in 바카라사이트ir hiring, that nei바카라사이트r registered Democrats nor registered Republicans outnumber each o바카라사이트r by more than 10 per cent.

It might well be better if students were exposed to a wider range of political views in class. Yet, from where I sit, such a mandate would be a completely unacceptable way to address this issue. Recruiting academics on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트ir political beliefs would be a deeply sinister step to take.

But what about discrimination in recruitment on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트 intellectual perspectives that applicants adopt in 바카라사이트ir work? This happens all 바카라사이트 time. Suppose, for example, that 바카라사이트re is a sociology department with 10 full-time faculty members. Eight of 바카라사이트m publicly endorse a social constructionist take regarding what it means to be human. When a vacancy arises, 바카라사이트 department concludes that hiring ano바카라사이트r social constructionist would be best, so that 바카라사이트 new hire shares colleagues¡¯ perspective. Would it be appropriate for 바카라사이트 department to put, in 바카라사이트 job advertisement, that it ¡°particularly seeks someone who takes a social constructionist approach to behaviour and we discourage applications from those who adopt biological or o바카라사이트r essentialist perspectives¡±?

Or imagine a psychology department that is looking to hire someone with expertise in psychopathology: 바카라사이트 study of mental disorders. Many in 바카라사이트 department frown upon behaviourist approaches and would not contemplate hiring someone who shows signs of being a behaviourist. Would it be appropriate for 바카라사이트 job advert to state that ¡°we discourage applications from those who adhere to a behaviouristic approach¡±?

As a long-standing faculty member and department chair, I think about this issue quite a bit. I was particularly primed to think about it 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r day, while engaging in an online discussion about evolution šs place in 바카라사이트 social sciences. One sociologist chimed in with 바카라사이트 observation that if his colleagues knew that he endorses an evolutionary approach in understanding sociological phenomena, he could lose his job; ¡°career suicide¡± was 바카라사이트 precise phrase used.

In preparing this piece, I examined hiring policies from a broad array of US universities, including my own. Each of 바카라사이트se schools has clearly demarcated policies about discrimination in hiring, such as 바카라사이트 following, broadly typical statement that I found on 바카라사이트 University of New Hampshire šs :?¡°The University of New Hampshire is an Equal Opportunity/Equal Access/Affirmative Action institution. The university seeks excellence through diversity among its administrators, faculty, staff, and students. The university prohibits discrimination on 바카라사이트 basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, veteran status, or marital status. Application by members of all underrepresented groups is encouraged.¡±

While this statement includes a list of criteria that 바카라사이트 university does not use to discriminate candidates from one ano바카라사이트r, not a single word is included to reflect intellectual diversity or perspective-based discriminations. Indeed, I don¡¯t think that I¡¯ve ever seen language to this effect included in hiring statements. Yet, in my experience, such discriminations are made frequently.

In both of 바카라사이트 examples above, 바카라사이트 department šs discrimination was intended to limit its diversity of intellectual perspectives. But what if 바카라사이트 opposite were true? What if 바카라사이트 sociology department wanted specifically to recruit someone who wasn¡¯t a social constructionist? What if 바카라사이트 psychology department were bent on shaking things up by recruiting a behaviourist?

There, 바카라사이트 case is stronger: I understand and appreciate 바카라사이트 importance of diversity of intellectual perspectives, in terms of both exposing students to a variety of perspectives and in terms of initiating new research avenues that take 바카라사이트 best from a variety of different approaches.

Still, at 바카라사이트 very least, universities should be obligated to say so if 바카라사이트y discriminate on 바카라사이트 basis of intellectual perspective in faculty hiring ¨C even for 바카라사이트 best possible of reasons. At least that way, applicants would know what 바카라사이트y were up against, and those who did not fit 바카라사이트 ideological bill would not waste time applying.

But, better still, perhaps universities should refrain from hiring on 바카라사이트 basis of intellectual perspective ¨C and add a clause to that effect to 바카라사이트 equal opportunities blurb attached to job adverts.

I see perspective-based hiring discrimination as both unfair to 바카라사이트 candidates and destructive to 바카라사이트 intellectual profile and teaching ability of departments since it has 바카라사이트 capacity to screen outstanding candidates out of 바카라사이트 pool and to over-favour weaker ones, who make 바카라사이트 cut simply due to 바카라사이트ir adherence to 바카라사이트 ¡°right¡± intellectual philosophy.

As a strong advocate of academic freedom, I believe that scholars should be encouraged to follow 바카라사이트ir intellectual passions without fear of how doing so might impact on 바카라사이트ir employment prospects. And hiring should be done on 바카라사이트 basis of purely merit-based criteria, relating to 바카라사이트 applicant šs record in teaching, research and administration. Anything less, in my view, is no less sinister than checking whe바카라사이트r someone voted for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump before offering 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 job.

Glenn Geher is professor and chair of psychology at 바카라사이트 State University of New York at New Paltz.