The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator
 

Shocker: Paying Off Departments for Hiring Minorities Possibly Illegal

As reported in the Daily Emerald yesterday, the University of Oregon is under investigation because its “Underrepresented Minority Recruitment Program” may be violating civil rights laws:

The Department of Justice has information that the University of Oregon may be engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination against newly hired non-minority faculty members with respect to the disbursement of salary and other employment benefits via its ‘Underrepresented Minority Recruitment Program,'” according to a letter sent to University General Counsel Melinda Grier that is signed by David Palmer, chief of the employment litigation section of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Emerald piece does a pretty good job of summarizing the issue, so I’m not going to get too far into that. In any case, the jury’s still out as to whether or not the program is illegal or not, so it’d be unfair to condemn as unlawful a program that may in fact be perfectly legal, as President Frohnmayer asserts that it is.

Basically, the program gives monetary incentives – to the tune of $30,000 a year for 3 years – to departments that hire minority faculty who are under-represented in the field. According to this article from 2007, the average amount of money allotted for new non-minority hires is roughly $7,000 per year for the same period – a clear disparity based solely upon race (it’s not clear if “minority” in this case also refers to religious minorities, homosexuals, or other cultural minorities).

While Melinda Grier says that “the money goes to the professor’s department, not to the professor,” the Emerald article makes it clear that this isn’t really the case:

The funds can be used for anyone in the department to start a new program, but a portion of the funds do go directly toward the minority hire, which is what’s drawing controversy.

It is “appropriate and common” to use the funds for “direct support to the new faculty member as part of a negotiated start-up package (e.g., research and travel funds, summer pay, course buy outs, equipment),” according to the program’s description. [emphasis added]

Whether or not this program proves to be unconstitutional, all of this seems rather amiss. Russell Tomlin, the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, defends the program and the ongoing quest for campus diversity by saying “we’re trying to do something that makes the world better.”

One wonders if this isn’t somewhat begging the question.

  1. Vincent says:

    T:

    Yeah, there’s absolutely no chance whatsoever that I wrote that just to irk Olly.

  2. Barack Obama says:

    Most working- and middle-class white Americans don

  3. T says:

    Vincent:

    “A lot of people do drink scotch just to be pretentious. They

  4. Timothy says:

    Knob Creek is pure deliciousness. Although, admittedly, I am not much of a splurger so for most purposes my good friend Jim Beam will suffice. Yes, I am that guy. Yes I am okay with that.

  5. Vincent says:

    Incidentally, I’ve been told that the way to get the VIP treatment from hotel bartenders at St. Andrew’s in Scotland is to bring them a bottle of Knob Creek.

  6. Vincent says:

    Chris:

    I love John Power’s. It’s cheaper than Jameson’s and packs more of a wallop, though it’s definitely not as smooth. Maybe it’s a bit of an acquired taste, but if you like Irish whiskey, you owe it to yourself to give it a shot (no pun intended).

  7. CJ Ciaramella says:

    I’m an Old Crow man myself …

  8. Chris Holman says:

    Tim, go for some Buffalo Chase the next time you see it. It’s tasty bourbon!

  9. Chris Holman says:

    Nah Bill, you’re not pretentious…just some people who drink scotch because they think they’re refined but they really know shit-all about the drink.

    Vincent, I haven’t tried that stuff. Is it any good?

    Oh, and great caricature there!

  10. Bill Harbaugh says:

    Now I’m being attacked as an elitist snob? You should have heard what Martinez called me. Anyway, some Old Overholt is fine. Don’t skimp on the cigar though.

  11. Vincent says:

    A lot of people do drink scotch just to be pretentious. They’re the same types of people who’ll march in and sit down at a bar, cop a fake Irish accent, and order “a point o’yer foinest stount ‘nd a dram o’M’callan 12 year t’go wuth it – an’ I’ll be havin’ one piece of ice in there only, if ye be pleasin’, barkeep.” At which point the bartender knows said customer ordered Macallan 12 year because it’s the only single malt he’s ever heard of.

    Ever tried John Power’s Irish Whiskey?

  12. Timothy says:

    A bottle of Scotch for the Professor it is!

    I’m more of a bourbon man myself, but I have never claimed to have refined taste.

  13. Chris Holman says:

    Well, Bushmills or Jameson. I’m a fan of Irish water…and lots of it. Scotch isn’t something I’m a fan of, especially when it just takes like bog water. I think a lot of people drink it just to be pretentious. : )

  14. Vincent says:

    Bushmills?

    I’ve lost all respect for you.

  15. Chris Holman says:

    Lagavulin is too peaty for my taste….I’d go for some Bushmills though.

  16. Vincent says:

    There was a Cohiba or two floating around at the Smoke-in yesterday, though sadly the University continues to infantilize its students, resulting in a noticeable dearth of Lagavulin.

    You’re to be commended on your choice of scotch, by the way.

  17. Bill Harbaugh says:

    A beer? And you guys call yourselves Libertarians? I’m thinking a bottle of Lagavulin, and a Cohiba.

  18. Vincent says:

    Chris:

    Fair enough. Reading through it again, I see what you were trying to say, and it’s clear I was mis-reading what you wrote. You’re right, incidentally, to suggest that it’s hard to take a department to task for essentially taking what’s offered them, especially if what’s on the table is a stack of cash.

    In any case, Melinda Grier’s spin on the whole situation is laughable. Even if the program turns out not to be unconstitutional, it’s certainly corrupting.

    And count me in for the beer fund for Harbaugh.

  19. Chris Holman says:

    So yes, sorry to not answer your question in the previous entry, there is something fundamentally wrong with what I have laid out as a scenario above.

  20. Chris Holman says:

    I’m just saying that people are pretty fallible, across the spectrum of issues, and I have a cynical take on whether or not my scenario would work out the way it should 100% of the time (hiring the most qualified person). If you ever watched Ren & Stimpy you probably know what I’m talking about. Just think of Ren telling Stimpy to NOT hit the big, red shiny button. The way this thing apparently works is, to me, asking departments to not hit the big, red, shiny minority cash button. That’s why I laughed when Grier’s quote just stated matter-of-factly that “this doesn’t happen at the U of O”. As if the U of O is operating in some holy moral universe where people always do the right thing even though you’ve structured this particular issue so that they are rewarded for doing the wrong thing…and it’s apparently legal (for now).

  21. Timothy says:

    Vince – Not to put word’s in Chris’ mouth, but I read him as more describing how people respond to the incentive structure present rather than trying to say that incentive structure is the correct one.

  22. Vincent says:

    Chris:

    I’m writing this on my laptop before class, so I’ll try to respond to your points more fully later.

    I want to ask, though, whether or not you think there’s something fundamentally wrong with the scenario you described, wherein departments are put in the position of either being under-funded or hiring a minority candidate with the knowledge that if they do, they’ll get on the gravy train for a little while?

  23. Sean Jin says:

    Chris, you clearly don’t understand the urgency of the issue here.
    It’s not about fairness.
    It’s not about equal opportunity or the fact that this insinuates that we have to bribe university departments to hire minorities.

    It’s about an unjust system that has catered to white privilege for far too long. It’s about the structures of power that are in place that causes you to be inherently racist without you knowing it because you are white.

    So stop talking about something you don’t understand, and I think you’d better contemplate how what you just said might have offended some “person of color”. And yes, we are not “minorities”, we are “people of color”.

    *Straight from the MCC/Ethnic Studies teleprompter*

  24. Timothy says:

    I will chip in to the Professor Harbaugh beer fund. If he’s still reading, he should let us know his brew of choice.

  25. Niedermeyer says:

    Who’s buying Harbaugh a beer?

  26. Chris Holman says:

    From the 2007 article:

    “An American Association of University Professors survey found the only related court decision, at the University of Vermont, ruled the practice legal if the availability of the money was not used in hiring decisions.

    Grier said that doesn

  27. Chris Holman says:

    Gaaaah! I can’t get this out of my head.

    Commentator Poll: If you were in charge of a department in a university where finding funding can be near-impossible and you were looking to hire new faculty and you knew that you stood to make a significant sum of money over time if your new hire was a ‘minority’, would you be able to ignore your sinister urge to make the money and fund your diabolical academic pipe dreams…..non-minorities be damned?

    Another question, relevant to where I teach. I believe that under the US Census Bureau and presumably, from that, under the notion of ‘diversity’, Arabs are classified as white, non-caucasian. So if my department hired an Arab woman (or man I suppose) would they not fit the bill of ‘minority’ since they are technically white and the field of teaching Arabic as a second-language is saturated with Arabs and therefore they’re also not a minority because they are not under-represented in the field? Ironic or darkly comedic if that is the case, but hell…I don’t know. I’m just trying to find a way for my department to rake in some of this minority money! hehehehe : P

    Ok…putting down the coffee for now.

  28. Chris Holman says:

    I guess I should also note that I’m happy in my current position, and I am happy with my pay rate even if it is low in comparison to peer universities. It’s good for me, for now. : )

    Man, too many caveats in here. LOL

  29. Chris Holman says:

    I’ve worked on campus for a while, and the only knowledge I have of this program (via a colleague of mine who had direct experience with it…but that’s still according to this person and not the official take and might easily be chalked up as hearsay or a mistaken recollection–enough of a caveat?) is that 1/2 went to the department and 1/2 went to the hire with an added caveat that the 1/2 to the department be spent under the guidance of the hire. In other words, the department doesn’t just get the money for whatever. I’m pretty sure that the monies are intended to inculcate the spirit of the hire as well (i.e. diversity, minority stuff, etc). Of course, there is a lot of creative financing in the world of university bureaucracies…mostly out of necessity when it comes to dealing with the beast I think. : ) Not always though.

    The amount I know of was, allegedly, $40,000 for the minority hire–to be halved between the hire and the department. I don’t know if it was an annual thing, but that sounds right. I do know that the hire I’m talking about no longer works at the U of O so maybe the minority fund wasn’t enough…

    Do you think that the report on this begs the question as to how well-known the program is? More pointedly, would a cynical person think that a seemingly ambiguous/unknown program tied to UO hiring policy (apparently) might possibly be an area where one could hire a minority and not tell THEM about it either on accident or on purpose? : ) Easy money in a cynical world.

    I think the issue gets more interesting when you look at how the pay rates of instructors and other faculty at the U of O are relatively stagnant, at least in relation to our ‘peer’ universities. If a minority gets more money and is essentially paid a minority bribe to stay and be retained as faculty at the U of O, is that not in some way discriminatory to someone–like me perhaps–who is a caucasian (non-minority) male who gets paid less and not secured by the institution because I’m not minority enough and caucasian males saturate academia? Is the money being paid for expertise that happens to be minority-generated or just for the being minority bit? Then again, is minority knowledge better than non-minority knowledge? Or if it is being paid because a minority hire would do something like ‘bring a unique set of experiences and points of view’ to a department…couldn’t a non-minority (officially) person who lived most of their life as a minority (say, less than 1% of the population was like them) bring the same sort of story, academic perspective and points of view to the table? Or are we back to skin color again?

    I don’t know, but I’d look further down the rabbit hole if I were the Emerald, et al.

  30. Jake says:

    The Emerald gets a tip of the hat and the UO gets a wag of the finger.

  31. Sakaki says:

    AHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHA! The minority-hire assholes who told us we needed to hire more are getting their asses investigated for violations of civil rights.

    Also, Melinda Greer is an idiot who really needs to find a new line of work. She’s just BAD at her job as U of O’s resident attorney.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.