Diversifying the Faculty

Faculty Recruitment in Higher Education: Research Findings on Diversity and Affirmative Action
by Debra Humphreys, AAC&U, for the Ford Foundation Campus Diversity Initiative

Critics of affirmative action in higher education have suggested that proactive efforts to diversify the pool of minority and women faculty members are unnecessary and/or unfair. Evidence suggests, however, that current efforts to diversify college faculty are, in fact, both fair and badly needed if higher education is to adequately serve America's current and future students.

This paper debunks several myths about affirmative action and faculty hiring in higher education. It provides facts about the history of diversity in higher education, the actual numbers of women and minority faculty members, and how the recruitment process works.

Why is it Important to Have a Diverse Faculty?
Over the past several decades, American higher education has undergone a remarkable expansion and democratization. In 1900, only four percent of high school graduates attended college.¹ Today, 75 percent of high school graduates will spend at least some time in college.² As Louis Menand recently noted in the New York Times Magazine, úThe democratization of higher education is one of postwar America's greatest accomplishments. Half the work force now passes through college."³

While colleges and universities initially opened up their enrollments to returning GI's and other primarily white, male members of the middle and working classes, today many more white women and racial and ethnic minority students are gaining access to higher education.

Since higher education now involves most of America, its faculty and leadership ought to look more like America. In the current higher education job market, there are many qualified minority and white women candidates seeking faculty positions.

A diverse faculty will mean better educational outcomes for all students. To serve current and future student populations, multiple and diverse perspectives are needed at every level of college teaching and governance. The more diverse college and university faculty are, the more likely all students will be exposed to a wider range of scholarly perspectives and to ideas drawn from a variety of life experiences. It is also important that colleges and universities transform what and how they teach to better serve new students and to prepare all students for an increasingly diverse world. Since white women and minority faculty are also frequently those who take scholarship and teaching in new directions, their presence on campus also makes this goal easier to attain.

Despite some progress, white women and ethnic minorities are still grossly underrepresented among college faculty. Aggressive recruitment efforts are still needed to achieve equity among college faculty.

How Diverse is the Current Faculty in Higher Education?

How Diverse is the Current Faculty in Higher Education? What Progress Has Been Made?

• In 1941, a survey of predominantly white colleges and universities conducted by the Julius Rosenwald Fund found only two black faculty members û both in nonteaching, laboratory positions û in all of these institutions nationwide. That year, Dr. Allison Davis, the eminent black sociologist, was appointed to a full-time faculty position at the University of Chicago, at the urging of, and with his salary partially subsidized by, the Rosenwald Fund.⁴
• In the aftermath of World War II, women faculty actually lost ground. Around 1900, the proportion of women on college faculties was 20 percent. Their numbers gradually increased to 25 percent by 1940. During the postwar period, however, the representation of women on college faculties declined to 23 percent in the 1950s and to 22 percent in the 1960s. In addition, women faculty have always been concentrated in the lower ranks and in less prestigious institutions.⁵
• While more than half the current college undergraduate student population are women, only 33.6 percent of full-time faculty are women.
• While 29.3 percent of undergraduate students are now minorities, the percentage of full-time minority faculty is 12.2. Only 9.2 percent of full professors are people of color.⁶

These current numbers represent significant improvement over a relatively short period of time. Clearly, however, higher education has a long way to go before its faculty will reflect its student populations or the diversity of our society.

• In 1993, just 10.5 percent of undergraduate students and 4.8 percent of full-time faculty members were African American. That same year, 7.4 percent of undergraduate students and 2.3 percent of full-time faculty members were Hispanic. In 1993, 5.1 percent of undergraduate students and 4.7 percent of full-time faculty members were Asian American. That same year, 0.9 percent of undergraduate students and 0.4 percent of full-time faculty members were Native American.
• One-third (33 percent) of full-time undergraduate faculty were full professors during the 1995-96 academic year. While 34.6 percent of white faculty were full professors, only 23 percent of faculty of color had attained full professor status.
• More than 40 percent of all male faculty members held the rank of full professor in the 1995-96 academic year. This rate was more than double the 17.5 percent of female faculty who attained this position.⁷

How Does the Job Market Actually Work for Minority Faculty?
Many colleges and universities are working vigorously to remedy these disparities and to hire more faculty of color. They are not unfairly favoring white women or people of color during the hiring process. In fact, evidence suggests that white men are still the most successful group at securing the best jobs in higher education.

The market for faculty positions is extremely competitive; only the most qualified and best-credentialed candidates, regardless of gender or racial background, compete for scarce faculty positions. As John K. Wilson recently noted, úThe understandable resentment of white males at the difficulty every new Ph.D. faces in a tough job market has been converted into an attack on affirmative action."⁸ The facts reveal, however, that white males are still overrepresented on college faculty and are not disadvantaged even in the current tight market.

• In a 1989 study, 57.6 percent of men with new history doctorates were hired, compared with only 53.6 percent of women with doctorates in history.⁹

The data on who is employed in tenure track positions (assistant professors) and who is employed in nontenure track posts (instructors and lecturers) counters claims of úreverse discrimination" against white men. These statistics are particularly good indicators of job market realities since nontenure track positions are usually filled by those who cannot get tenure track jobs.

• In the fall of 1992, white men were 47.5 percent of assistant professors but only 44.1 percent of instructors and 29.6 percent of lecturers. African Americans were only 5.8 percent of assistant professors, but 6.9 percent of instructors and 6.3 percent of lecturers. Women of all ethnic groups were 42.5 percent of assistant professors, 47.7 percent of instructors and 61.9 percent of lecturers.¹⁰

Further evidence from the Modern Language Association confirms that recent affirmative action efforts have not yet remedied the effects of gender discrimination in faculty hiring.

• While women earned more than half of the English Ph.D.'s in the 1980s, they were less likely than men to get tenure track positions. Only 56 percent of the women who earned English Ph.D.'s from 1981 to 1986 had tenure track jobs in 1987, compared with 77.8 percent of the men. While men earn 12 percent fewer new doctorates than women, they receive 22.3 percent more of the tenure track positions.¹¹

Myths about úreverse discrimination" in faculty hiring are further disproved in a recent study by Daryl Smith of the Claremont Graduate University. This study examined the employment experiences of 393 white men and women and minority Ph.D.'s who were recipients of prestigious Ford, Mellon, and Spencer fellowships. This study found that:

• Claims that faculty of color are in great demand and subject to bidding wars are greatly exaggerated. Even among these highly select doctoral recipients career opportunities have been diminished by the difficulties of the current faculty job market and limited options.
• Only 11 percent of scholars of color were actively sought after by several institutions simultaneously û which means 89 percent of scholars of color were not the subject of competitive bidding wars.
• Twenty-four percent of white men, 27 percent of white women, 26 percent of men of color, and 25 percent of women of color were among those in the study who had the most job options, which suggests a nearly even distribution of access between men and women and across race, again undercutting contentions that people of color (and especially women of color) are advantaged on the job market.
• Contradicting the notion that campuses are so focused on diversifying faculty that heterosexual white males have no chance, white men in the study had a variety of experiences û from the 20 percent who did not receive regular faculty appointments to the 24 percent who had a favorable result in the labor market.¹²

Colleges and universities are, indeed, interested in hiring more white women and racial and ethnic minorities as faculty members. And, as in industry, many colleges and universities have set up narrowly-tailored affirmative action goals and timetables for diversifying their faculty. For those white women and racial and ethnic minorities who manage to make it through graduate school, attain a Ph.D., enter the academic job market, and finally obtain an interview, racial or gender background may be one of many factors considered in hiring. However, it is more likely that the prestige of a candidate's graduate school and the connections of a candidate's mentors will be more decisive factors in the hiring process.

Affirmative action policies are still necessary to remedy past and current discrimination, and also because the current job market is not a meritocracy. As John K. Wilson puts it, úCronyism, personality conflicts, and outright bias are present throughout academia when choices for faculty and tenure decisions are made behind closed doors on the basis of highly subjective evaluations."13

Narrowly-tailored affirmative action hiring policies are still necessary to ensure equal treatment for women and minority candidates.

Notes

1. Sidel, Ruth. Battling Bias: The Struggle for Identity and Community on College Campuses. New York: Penguin, 1994: 20.
2. Adelman, Clifford. úThe Language of äDiversity:' Creating, Reflecting, and Masking Reality," Change. July, 1997.
3. Menand, Louis. úEverybody Else's College Education." New York Times Magazine. April 20, 1997: 48.
4. Wilson, Reginald. Affirmative Action: Yesterday, Today, and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1995.
5. Chamberlain, Mariam K., ed. Women in Academe: Progress and Prospects. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1988: 10.
6. Carter, Deborah J. and Reginald Wilson. Minorities in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: ACE, 1997.
7. Carter, Deborah J. and Reginald Wilson. Minorities in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: ACE, 1997.
8. Wilson, John K. The Myth of Political Correctness. Durham: Duke UP, 1995:138.
9. Perspectives. American Historical Association. September, 1992: 19.
10. úSurvey of full-time faculty teaching in fall 1992," Chronicle of Higher Education. November 23, 1994: A16.
11. Huber, Bettina. "Women in the Modern Languages, 1970-90." Profession 90.:62-63.
12. Smith, Daryl G., et. al. Achieving Faculty Diversity: Debunking the Myths. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities, 1996.
13. Wilson, John K. The Myth of Political Correctness. Durham: Duke UP, 1995:142.